Christianity – Page 79

On elegant analogies

While I’m in the mood for trying to express myself by the power of analogy I thought I’d share – for those not reading the comments on yesterday’s post – I thought I’d share this “gem” with you.

I’m still trying to come up with a way to affirm the good in all the good frameworks for Biblical Theology – and I’m loving Dr Leigh’s “expectation and fulfillment” (coming soon to a publication near you) idea.

I think any simplification causes the object in focus to suffer, because it can’t possibly not – simplifications involve cutting out of bits that don’t fit the “big idea”, though like some sculpture said “when I sculpt a statue of a horse I take a block of wood and cut away all the bits that aren’t horse” (rough paraphrase)… this got me thinking a bit. Simplifications are good for clarity. They help us see the main game. They help us appreciate the value. It’s a bit like diamonds. Uncut diamonds are worth a lot – because they have such potential. There are all sorts of directions you can go with the diamond thing as an analogy for Biblical Theology – each system is like a jeweler’s lens – they help us to appreciate something about the value of the diamond. And they help us to get rid of rubbish ideas about the meaning of passages (eg moral teachings from the OT that ignore Christ). But here’s where I went in the comments last night (with some modifications). I think it’s more helpful to think of each (good) system of Biblical theology as a facet of a precious jewel…

I like to think of the Bible as a really big diamond – one that is so big we can’t look at it all at once. You can look at one facet of the diamond and through it see all the others, this can distort each other facet if you forget that you can flip the diamond around and look at it from a different angle. Some people stand too close, or lack depth perception, and will only see one facet of the diamond ignoring all the others. Some will want to break the diamond up into lots of pieces, thus devaluing it.

The best way to appreciate the diamond is to step back and see that there are many facets at work and that each of them contributes to the diamond’s beauty in a slightly different way. Light hits each and refracts differently. If I wanted to be trite I would say “when you shine a light into any facet of the diamond and focus that light on a smooth surface it makes a cross – no matter which facet you point the diamond through…” But I’m not trite, so I won’t.

March 16, 2010

On essay writing

I think I quite enjoy essay writing. Though I may have romanticised it from my fleeting memories of putting in caffeine fueled all-nighters on deadline day while I was at uni. I’m trying to figure out what the difference is between essay writing and blogging (other than the finding reputable sources to cite bit).

Here is what I’ve come up with (not as a difference, but as a reflection on the art). I might be wrong. Feel free to crush my analogy in its infancy in the comments.

Essay writing is like finding threads of common quality from an array of garments, and tugging them out of those items in order to weave your own smaller and less significant rag.

Obviously you don’t damage the original in the process – unless you really go out of your way to discredit it.

I am enjoying the essay I’m writing for Bruce Winter’s Christ and the Clash of Cultures subject. Here is the question:

Citizens in the first century met in the context that declared who they were. Discuss the implications of this for the gatherings of the first Christians in the Roman East.

I’m sort of dancing around the question and trying to just write about the differences between the way the church ate together and the way pagan Rome ate at idol temples and banquets. I think I’ve jumped through enough logical hoops to synchronise the question with my topic.

March 16, 2010

Advice for young preachers

Remember all that furore last year about Mark Driscoll’s plans to go global – planting video screen churches all over the planet? Here’s some timeless advice Mark should probably listen to – pulled from a list of tips for young preachers.

Beware of the radio preachers.
As a new Christian I listened to many hours of Chuck Swindoll, Greg Laurie, Tony Evans, Billy Graham, John MacArthur and others and was blessed. However, when men preach for the radio they are preaching to the masses. Subsequently, they are not as likely to speak personally of themselves, their struggles, their families, and the specific issues in their church because they are preaching to America. Most pastors don’t preach to the nation or world, but just to their flock who need to know their pastor, see what the Holy Spirit has been doing with the Bible in their life, and how the Bible is integrated into their daily life and relationships instead of vague and general illustrations and principles that are true but not specific to their community. Also, younger preachers can often listen to so many hours of a radio preacher that they end up parroting him rather than finding their own voice and style.

Emphasis mine. You could quite easily replace the word “radio” with “internet” and have it still ring true. The catch – this quote is from Mark Driscoll’s own list of tips for preachers. Which is mostly useful.

March 16, 2010

Unifying unifying ideas

Izaac has been reflecting on life at Moore College – and I’m happy to see that stuff first year Moore College students are taught in the early weeks of their course is similarly formative to the stuff we’re taught in the early weeks of our course at QTC.

It would be really nice if the Bible could be summed up with one unifying idea that every passage drives towards. I think it’s something like “you need God”… other people have more nuanced interpretations of that. There are classic systems for understanding every passage of the Bible – a lens through which people come to terms with every passage they approach.

Here’s Izaac’s helpful diagram.

Let the reader understand.

Here are some of the big ideas that “famous” preachers are famous for:
John Piper: Joy.
Mark Driscoll: Missional contextualisation (and sex, lots of it).
Tim Keller: Idolatry.
Graeme Goldsworthy: God’s people, God’s place, God’s rule.
Phil Campbell: Deuteronomy 30.
Matthias Media: The answer to your every question is Jesus – and we’ll even skip the actual answer to your question and get to Jesus straight away in order to sell books that are the right size for people to read.
NT Wright: Who knows, but it makes people angry (possibly “the people of God”).

Share any more in the comments…

The nice thing about these ideas is that they all capture the essence of something true and good. And something big, but just that little bit elusive. Like an animal you try to spot in the wild – like bigfoot or the Sydney panther – that comes close to being caught but escapes just when you think you’ve got it… Thinking through how each passage we’re exegeting fits into these schemas is useful when it comes to applying them, and to pointing people to Jesus. All have their place.

The problem comes when we push one barrow as the “big” idea driving every part of the Bible. These ideas suffer because they’re never quite big enough. I’m going to plant myself into the “The Bible has more than one big idea that ultimately help us to live our lives as God’s people, joyfully, forsaking idols while pursuing righteousness by the spirit so that people will know that they need Jesus”… I’m not sure that I can fit Driscoll’s second big idea in there… Is this rocket science? It feels like one of those posts you write that is really obvious to everybody reading it.

March 15, 2010

A fiverr well spent

Fiverr is a new website that lets you buy and sell services for $5. A lot of the services offered are pretty fun – and if you’ve got a mad skill that you can churn out pretty quickly those $5 payments probably add up pretty quickly. It’s powered using PayPal. In the interest of putting the service to the test I took up Brojimh’s offer to produce a sermon on the topic of my choosing for $5. And asked him for a sermon on Eutychus. It only took him a couple of hours to produce the work.

Here is the result. $5 well spent.

The Longest Sermon Ever Preached

Acts 20:7-12

(Acts 20:7) And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

(8) And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

(9) And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

(10) And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

(11) When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

(12) And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

I. The Setting Of The Longest Sermon Ever Preached

A. It Was A Holy Night

(Acts 20:7) And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,

This occurred around the Jewish Festival of Unleavened Bread. Paul and Luke stayed in Philippi for the Feast then sailed to Troas for this event.

It was during a holy, religious time for the participants.

B. It Was A Huge Night

(8a) ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

It was a very big night for the audience. This was Paul, the Apostle, who’s reputation preceded him. It was huge! Then it became huge as in how long it lasted!

Paul had a lot to say and knew he was leaving the next day so took advantage of the time, plus when you have an apostle, someone of Paul’s caliber, you just let him preach as long as he wants to!

C. It Was A Hot Night

(8b) And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

There were many, many people there to hear Paul. In fact it is safe to assume it was probably over crowded as people piled in the small upper room.

Not only was the weather hot, even at night, but the body heat was tremendous. Add to that the heat from the candles and torches, and you can just imagine how hot it was!

II. The Effect Of The Longest Sermon Ever Preached

A. A Tired Slave

(9a) And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep:

He is sitting here because it was the coolest place he could be. Trying to get cooled off, the young man sits inside the window frame hoping to take advantage of any breeze.

He was very sleepy. It is easy to understand why he was sitting in the window, it is also easy to understand why he is so tired. These people listening to Paul, looking for freedom were slaves. That means, as other slaves, they were up before sunrise and had toiled and worked hard all day.

No wonder he was so sleepy!

It’s also worthy to note here, to expound on their love for Paul and how he got away with preaching that long, no one even seemed to notice the young man falling asleep. Everyone was so riveted to Paul, so locked in to the Apostle

B. A Terminated Sleeper

(9b) and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.

We’ve all been there. In school, at work or even, (GASP) at church. That point where the eyelids become heavy as iron, the vision becomes blurry, the eyes begin to burn, the head begins to nod and the speaker’s monotone voice becomes a lullaby as it slowly slips away in the darkness of our closed eyes . . . and then . . . we jerk our head up and look around hoping no one saw us. Then we move around, change position and try to stay awake again.

This young man did as we all have done before and just fell asleep

Luke tell us that he was “taken up dead.” That phrase literally means that he was a corpse by the time anyone got to him. Many try to explain away the miracle and say that he was just unconscious, had a concussion or that Paul administered CPR and brought him back. But Luke makes it plain that he was dead as a doornail. Then, the next verse makes it plain that Paul held him, embraced him, not pound on his chest or breathe in his mouth.

C. A Truthful Scene

(10) And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.

Paul, obviously reacting to the noise and crowd interrupting his sermon, sees what is happening and runs down to the young man.

He begins to check him out, and, seeing he was dead (as Luke made it clear in the previous verse and really, who would know better than Dr. Luke?), embracef him and then felt God’s presence and realized that the young man would be brought back to life.

Probably in most settings, with most people saying what Paul said (Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.) would have caused the people to consider stoning him or at least putting him out. But this is Paul. . .they let him preach till at least midnight. . . who knows how long he would have gone on if this young man had not fallen.

Also, when Paul tells the crowd “Trouble not yourselves,” he is responding to the crowds reaction to the devastating event. The crowd became almost hysterical. Yelling and wailing, all things that Paul wanted to avoid happening so he tries to cut it off with words of encouragement to assure them that the reaction elicited was not needed. We know that because he uses the word “thorubeomai” (translated “Trouble not yourselves). That is the same Greek word he used in trying to calm and quiet down the mob in Thessolonica (Acts 17:5)

III. The Legacy Of The Longest Sermon Ever Preached

A. Eating With A Dead Man And A Preacher

(11a) When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten,

Paul understood the enormity of what had just happened, the psyche of the people and that his sermon was now over.

Instead of expounding on what happened or turning it into a lesson/sermon, he instead turned his attention to what was best for the crowd physically and emotionally. They need time to process this event. They also need rest and recuperation.

Luke lets us know that Paul changed his tone and verbiage to a more solemn tone. He uses the word “talk” translated from the Greek word “homileo” which means homily, which means solemn and serious.

This is the same word used to describe the conversation between the two disciples on the Emmaus Rd. after the death of Christ. In the 24^th chapter of Luke.

B. Enjoying A Dedicated Man And A Pastor

(11b) and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

Paul stayed as long as he could. I’m sure not only enjoying the company of Eutychus, but wanting to watch him as well. I can only imagine how I would react to someone brought back from the dead. I would have lots of questions and be in awe!

This young man, I’m sure quickly got saved, if he wasn’t already, and became instantly one of the most devoted Christians in the town.

C. Enduring A Dreadful Matter And A Phenomenon

(12) And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Everyone was comforted and exhorted by the young man’s amazing and instant recovery! Also, there is no telling how many people gave their lives to Christ because of this event.

March 13, 2010

Asking the wrong questions about UFC

Al posted a quote from Leunig yesterday that suggested a causal link between a recent UFC fight and increased knife crime in Melbourne – I’ll leave you to find your own problems or agreements with that argument.

The meta of that post has been pretty interesting, and I can’t help but think that we’re approaching this question in the wrong way.

Some pacifist brothers (Seumas has some good thoughts on the issue that are worth digesting) are convinced that violence is inexcusable in any circumstances and thus they are, as it were, conscientious objectors to UFC. Some of these opponents would suggest that the issue is so settled by scripture that this can’t be a question of conscience or liberty. I think the fact that so many people are divided by this issue suggests that it’s not so cut and dried in terms of “right” and “wrong”.

I can’t help but think we’re not being particularly Pauline in our approach to the issue – perhaps instead of asking if we should prohibit (through exhortation and whatever else) Christians from partaking either in the sport itself or in the appreciation thereof – we should be asking “how can we come to grips with UFC in a way that preaches the gospel of Christ”… that was Paul’s priority, and it was Jesus’ mission – more than coming and rejecting war and calling us to peaceful lives, he came and called on us to preach the coming of the kingdom of God.

Anybody who can’t see a nice easy straight line from Jesus the guy who submits to death so that we don’t have to, or Jesus the guy who enters the cage and takes our beating, is missing out on opportunities to connect the gospel message with fans of the world’s fastest growing sport. I’m not suggesting we take the Driscoll line that Jesus is a cage fighter… but some of the arguments against UFC are sillier than the arguments for it. I’ll leave you with some words from Romans 14 which I think are the most compelling scriptural words on the matter.

1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

March 10, 2010

Hitchens v Hitchens

Christopher Hitchen’s believing brother has come out swinging at his brother’s militant anti-theism (though it seems not for the first time, he reports that childhood family disputes were all too common).

It’s a fascinating insight into a rather heated family dynamic – but Peter Hitchens makes some good points.

But since it is obvious much of what I say arises out of my attempt to debate religion with him, it would be absurd to pretend that much of what I say here is not intended to counter or undermine arguments he presented in his book, God Is Not Great, published in 2007.

I do not loathe atheists, as Christopher claims to loathe believers. I am not angered by their failure to see what appears obvious to me. I understand that they see differently. I do think that they have reasons for their belief, as I have reasons for mine, which are the real foundations of this argument.

It is my belief that passions as strong as his are more likely to be countered by the unexpected force of poetry, which can ambush the human heart at any time.

It is also my view that, as with all atheists, he is his own chief opponent. As long as he can convince himself, nobody else will persuade him. His arguments are to some extent internally coherent and are a sort of explanation – if not the best explanation – of the world and the universe.

He often assumes that moral truths are self-evident, attributing purpose to the universe and swerving dangerously round the problem of conscience – which surely cannot be conscience if he is right since the idea of conscience depends on it being implanted by God. If there is no God then your moral qualms might just as easily be the result of indigestion.

Yet Christopher is astonishingly unable to grasp that these assumptions are problems for his argument. This inability closes his mind to a great part of the debate, and so makes his atheist faith insuperable for as long as he himself chooses to accept it.

He also takes aim at some of his brother’s more ludicrous claims…

I am also baffled and frustrated by the strange insistence of my anti-theist brother that the cruelty of Communist anti-theist regimes does not reflect badly on his case and on his cause. It unquestionably does.

Soviet Communism is organically linked to atheism, materialist rationalism and most of the other causes the new atheists support. It used the same language, treasured the same hopes and appealed to the same constituency as atheism does today.

When its crimes were still unknown, or concealed, it attracted the support of the liberal intelligentsia who were then, and are even more now, opposed to religion.

But happily – the brothers have resolved to no longer debate in public (as they have done on a few occasions). And Peter Hitchens ends with this comment…

I am not hoping for a late conversion because he has won the battle against cigarettes. He has bricked himself up high in his atheist tower, with slits instead of windows from which to shoot arrows at the faithful, and would find it rather hard to climb down out of it.

I have, however, the more modest hope that he might one day arrive at some sort of acceptance that belief in God is not necessarily a character fault, and that religion does not poison everything.

Beyond that, I can only add that those who choose to argue in prose, even if it is very good prose, are unlikely to be receptive to a case which is most effectively couched in poetry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html#ixzz0heKv2bMK

March 9, 2010

On preaching about Eutychus

I preached for the first time as an employee of a church yesterday. It was so big a milestone that my gran and my mum and my wife came to watch. My wife would have been there anyway I guess.

We’re doing a series on Acts at church at the moment and when Andrew asked what I wanted to preach on I naturally said “Acts 20”. Because I wanted to talk about Eutychus. Acts 20 isn’t really about Eutychus, he’s a peripheral figure. And I actually ended up preaching a mammoth passage from Acts 18:18 to the end of Acts 20 – Paul’s whole mission to Ephesus.

I would much prefer preaching a mammoth passage to preaching a mouse sized passage – it’s far better to have to leave stuff out than it is to have to make stuff up.

Here’s what I said about Eutychus. For the record…

And in verse 7 we have possibly my favourite story in the Bible. If you’re going to go down in history for something it may as well be being bored to death by the world’s most famous evangelist. And Eutychus has that honour.

Because in chapter 20 of Acts Paul preaches what could still be a world record for the longest sermon. From dusk until dawn Paul is preaching his passion – the Ephesians might have been able to fervently chant for two hours [in Acts 19] – but chanting six words over and over again has nothing on being able to preach ALL NIGHT teaching.

Paul could have spent hours talking about tent making – and you can bet there would’ve been more fatalities – he could have spoken at length about his travels. If you’ve ever watched a friend’s holiday slide show you’d be aware just how excited some people can be about where they’ve been and what they’ve seen… but that’s not what Paul is excited about. He just wants to talk about Jesus.

Scots Presbyterian in Clayfield enjoys a visit from the boarders from the local Presbyterian Girls’ school about once in a blue moon – and yesterday happened to be it. So between the morning service and the night service I removed the flesh from the skeleton of my talk and reshaped it into something almost purely evangelistic. This is surprisingly easy to do when you’ve put some hours into exegeting the text and figuring out the ways to point people to the gospel – so Gary Millar’s advice was invaluable.

Eutychus played a more prominent role in this talk… just thinking about his story made me aim to not bore my audience of teenage girls. I was glad there were no open windows because I’m not sure how many of them would have tottered out.

My sermons still suffer from slightly trite application (as trite as urging people to live for, and preach, the gospel can be) and I’m always left wishing I’d dug the knife in a bit deeper to cut some real change into people… hopefully that’s something I can work on. Memorable application is important. I feel a tension between creating a memorable understanding of the text and a memorable application of the text – though I’m not actually sure the two should be separate.

One of the bits of preaching I find most memorable was a refrain from an NTE talk on Ezekiel from many years ago where I think Donny Kwan spoke and kept saying “God will be God, and you will know it” is the big idea of Ezekiel. A mantra like that is helpful – but it hasn’t really been profoundly life altering.

So, preachers who read this blog, how do I move my application from the general “live like Jesus” to the specific “live like Jesus by…”, any tips? My guess is that I need to understand the people I’m preaching to and what they’re struggling with so I can metaphorically push their buttons. But even that seems a bit apply by the numbers.

March 8, 2010

A summary of Gary Millar’s visit to Queensland Theological College

Gary Millar came, he talked, he conquered. We all now want to be deep thinking Irish men who love preaching the gospel.

He is a man greatly gifted by God as both a thinker and a pastoral worker. He shared some insights into some of the trials he has faced in ministry that would send a mere mortal crazy. He has been around the block a few times and he is still faithfully toiling for the sake of the gospel – and still making sure that he preaches the good news of Christ crucified week in, week out, despite the opposition.

In the interest of providing a nice resource for posterity here is a summary of all the posts that I have read reviewing his time at QTC.

Night One – Song of Songs

QTC Day One – Preaching

QTC Day Two – Deuteronomy

QTC Day Three – Preaching again

March 8, 2010

Truly inspired

Here’s a joke I’m going to pull out next time a conversation about divine inspiration of Scripture comes up at college.

March 6, 2010

Two new contenders for world’s worst Christian music

Long time readers will remember the world’s worst “worship”… purely assessed from an aesthetic standpoint – I don’t know if this is acceptable to God. That’s up to him.

Here are two contenders to knock it off its throne (I have included the original as the third video in this post). In the Hokey Pokey one it’s worth persevering until 3.48. Apparently short term memory is not biblical… nor is Alzheimer’s.

March 6, 2010

Jesus was way cool*

You know. Jesus was pretty darn awesome and he hung out with all the movers and shakers in first century Jewish society – so we should totally do the same with our ministries… no wait. That’s not right. An Acts 29 church planting screener has pointed out that a number (all is a number) of the planting candidates he’s interviewed have the same missional passion – the desire to see cool people saved.

It’s amazing how many young pastors feel that they are distinctly called to reach the upwardly-mobile, young, culture-shaping professionals and artists. Can we just be honest? Young, upper-middle-class urban professionals have become the new “Saddleback Sam”.

Seriously, this is literally the only group I see proposals for. I have yet to assess a church planter who wants to move to a declining, smaller city and reach out to blue collar factory workers, mechanics, or construction crews. Not one with an evangelsitic strategy to go after the 50-something administrative assistant who’s been working at the same low-paying insurance firm for three decades now.

His conclusion is just as on the money.

It could be that we’re simply following in the footsteps of the church growth movement that we’ve loved to publically criticize while privately trying to emulate – we’ve just replaced Bill Hybels and Rick Warren with Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll.

In the Australian context it’s probably not so bad – but it’s just something to remember. Jesus loves city people, young professionals, farmers, retirees and the homeless. Our ministries should love those people too.

* Check out the King Missile song by this name if you haven’t already discovered it.

March 6, 2010

Choose your own adventure?

Can we ever choose our own destination or are we just pawns in a grand game of chess at the hands of an omnipotent deity. Are your choices your choice? Or are they the inevitable product of nurture and nature colliding. It’s a question that literally keeps young theologians and philosophers up at night.

I’m not actually sure where this originally came from – it just popped up in deli.ci.ous. But it made me laugh.

March 6, 2010

The Dawkins Delusion

I went along to see Richard Dawkins in Brisbane tonight. The results were unsurprising. I agreed with most of what he had to say – everything except his starting assumptions and conclusions.

He started by telling us all that our lives are incredibly improbable. That we should never take them for granted, that we should never take our existence for granted, and that we should marvel at our very unlikelihood. Then, he suggested, as his latest book indicates – evolution is the greatest and only show on earth.

Our improbable beginnings began with an improbable meeting of improbable matter that expanded improbably in a way that created stars and then life and then us. Somehow it makes more sense to believe a void created complexity than to believe a God did. But we can’t believe that a void created a God (especially the God of the Bible) who would eventually create a world… Once you start speculating about origins all the options seem possible to me.

It is, of course, improbable that anything like a God could possibly have been involved in the process – because for Dawkins as soon as you can describe the process the notion of an author is redundant. He ridiculed the God of the gaps (which is ridicule worthy) and a bunch of other strawmen. Then he closed with a question and answer session.

He was funny, engaging and most concilliatory. He just isn’t really engaging with any Christian belief that includes the ability to synchronise Christian belief with scientific truths, and he doesn’t seem to think that the Christian lay person is capable of anything but a strict, fundamentalist interpretation of particular passages. He did, in question time, suggest that the enlightened “bishops and archbishops” of the Christian world believe that God may have had some role to play in the start of everything but has then stepped back. Curiously missing the point of the incarnation.

He had a swing at anyone who believes anything on the basis of faith, authority, or feeling (there was one other factor – I forget) – and suggested that evidence is where it’s at. Which is fine. But he doesn’t really have anything to say to those of us who are believers because we think the evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus is compelling. Like a modern day Don Quixote he spends most of his time tilting at windmills to the cheers of an equally delusional crowd. Until he starts actually engaging with the facts his efforts to discredit his opponents are risible.

I think in the process of answering questions from the floor (particularly one about whether our close relationship to the ape world had any moral implications) he may have suggested it was morally ok to breed with the entities that link us biologically to the apes – the only problem is that they’re extinct.

In question time a couple of people asked about the evolutionary future of humanity – I still want to know how feasible my shirt is – will we one day turn into shape shifting alien robots? Or self healing immortal mutants with retractable claws? I sure hope so.

March 4, 2010

Gary Millar on Application

Gary’s tips on application

Know the context of the passage and the context of your people.
Know the people you’re teaching the Bible to – people keep changing. We have to keep reading the culture.
We have to know individuals and know the challenges facing every stage of life.
“We need therefore to know every person who belongs to our charge… we should know deeply every person in our flock.”
We have to be able to apply the gospel to teenagers, to grandparents… to every member of the flock.
Start where people are rather than where you think people ought to be.
We need to be prepared to spell things out – and keep spelling things out. We only want to have one thing to say – the gospel. And we need to be prepared to keep saying it. We don’t need to be original.

Our challenge is to preach and teach for people’s good and God’s glory.

Questions to ask when applying:

Is my teaching applied specifically enough?
Do I know my culture and context well enough?
Do I know the individuals in my church well enough?
Do I know the unique challenges facing the individuals in my church well enough?
Do I care enough to find out?
Is my speaking health promoting or damaging right now?

March 4, 2010