How to Change the World With Fruit Punch

I have some interesting conversations in my work as a highschool chaplain. Yesterday I had a good one with one of the teachers at school about cultural differences. It came about because she wanted to support the chaplaincy program by putting on a morning tea and inviting the other teachers. For me that would have meant buying some bikkies and cordial and cracking out the plastic cups; for her it meant treating us all to a feast, with home-baked cakes and Anzac bikkies, exotic fruit platters, lamingtons, secret-family-recipe fruit punch, and so on.... My one job was to provide a table, and my contribution gradually looked more and more pitiful the more food she brought out.

"This is amazing!" I said, as she thinly sliced some limes to place in each glass. "You've done this before."
"Oh, you obviously didn't know that I'm married to a Samoan," she explained. "This is every Sunday for me." And she went on to tell me about some of the other differences between our cultures.

One part of the conversation that particularly stood out to me was when she talked about how they do funerals. In Samoan culture - or at least where her family is from - family and close friends come from all over to stay with the bereaved family, to be with them, help them grieve, support them, cook for them, look after kids, help them talk through the pain and share stories of life shared and lost. Not just for a week though. This could go on for months, she said. And there's no polite avoidance of the painful topics. In her family, people will doggedly persist with the hard questions until they're honestly answered and then can be worked through together. By the time everyone has gone home, the bereaved family is well-and-truly working through their grief and learning to live again despite their loss. It's the responsibility of the oldest in the family to be there until everyone else has gone, however long that takes.

This comes as quite a contrast when compared with how the western world typically operates. Yes it's messier, yes it's more complicated (imagine 20 people living in your house for a month!), yes it's in-your-face, bare-your-soul honest - but as this teacher talked all I could think was "This sounds a lot like Jesus." When I read the gospel stories, I feel that Jesus' home culture seems more like Samoa than America or England.

If you were to use only a few words to describe the way of life that Jesus showed to his disciples, "hospitality" would have to be one of those words. Take Easter for example. On Easter Sunday Jesus beat death for all time, forever altered history by guaranteeing the awesome hope of the gospel, and became the king of the universe. And then he returned to spend a little more time with his followers. Everything had changed, and Jesus now had all the power in the universe at his disposal. What would he do? What would he show his disciples? What would he tell them to do? If you read the stories, it's a little underwhelming how it played out. Jesus had a meal with his disciples. He walked along a road chatting with some confused friends, then joined them for dinner at their place. He went fishing with his mates, and cooked breakfast for them on the beach. Ordinary, everyday things, simple things, hospitality things - the kinds of things he'd been doing with them all along.

Everything had changed on a cosmic, eternity level. But on the practical, everyday, human level the plan was still the same. God was communicating to us "These simple things really are important. Just keep doing what I showed you!" Share life together, eat together, walk together, laugh together, grieve together, learn together, and help more people to do the same.

It's not rocket science. But Jesus knew that simple things like this really do have the power to change the world. So may we take some cues from our Samoan friends, and from Jesus himself, and learn to live our lives with more and more depth and generosity, honesty and compassion... and more lime-garnished glasses of secret-family-recipe fruit punch.

God's Creation Project

From "Simply Jesus," by Tom Wright.

Our Church: We're All Pastors

Something else we care about....
In our church, we acknowledge that some have more experience or knowledge in certain areas, but when it comes to Jesus, everyone has a valuable voice in the conversation.
There is no one preacher. We all teach each other.
There is no one person responsible for pastoral care. We all look out for each other.
No one person is especially "anointed," or has a more direct line to God, or has more authority in the group. Power is dispersed among us all. God can teach through anyone, even the kids.

Two Favours from God

"O God, I beg two favors from you; let me have them before I did. First, help me never to tell a lie. Second, give me neither poverty nor riches! Give me just enough to satisfy my needs.
"For if I grow rich, I may deny you and say, "Who is the Lord?" And if I am too poor, I may steal and thus insult God's holy name."
- Proverbs 30:7-9

Sunday Morning Evangelism

It's worth posting this one again...

"Sunday morning in church is the one place where evangelism cannot take place in our generation because the lost are not there..." - from "Everyday Church," by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis

Jesus Dream Short Course

Why is Jesus so important? What on earth was he on about?

Last year I became friends with a guy who wanted to know more about Jesus. I didn't want to just give him a book about it, and I thought the best thing would be for us to lock in a time each week, have a coffee, and go through one of those new-Christian discussion guides. But when I looked at what was available, I didn't find any that I thought would work well for an everyday Aussie guy - especially someone who hasn't grown up in a church (which is most Aussies now).

The ones I found were either too long (who will commit to a 10week religious course?), too impractical (watching a 40min sermon is not a normal thing for non-church people), too advanced (using theological concepts that are only familiar to people who've grown up in church) or misrepresented Jesus or the gospel. Some I felt just started in entirely the wrong place for non- church people (like calling for a commitment in the first session or starting with "you're a sinner" - which Jesus never did).

In the end I thought I'd just start the conversations myself and see where it went. In the process, through the conversations, questions and inevitable extra research by me, I ended up discovering a lot more about Aussie culture and about Jesus and his way of life. Most of all, I've discovered that Jesus and his way of life fits our culture to a T. He's the kind of guy that Aussies - even Aussie males - really respect.

So this year I've put together my own short course on Jesus that aims to fit Aussie non-church culture better. It starts where Jesus himself started, by calling people to dream with him about a new world. A better world of beauty and colour, free of pain and disaster, full of hope and light, creativity and passion, food and fun. It was a brilliant place to start, by a brilliant, visionary, revolutionary leader. So I figured I couldn't do better than start there myself. Jesus' dream is something we can all relate to.

This short course looks at Jesus' dream, his inspiring way of life and his amazing story. It's in six sessions for small groups or individuals.

After months of writing, editing and formatting, it's finally available on the iTunes iBookstore. Here's the link to the ePub version (which will work on most devices). And there's also a version specially designed for iPads.

http://itunes.apple.com/au/book/jesus-dream/id565908659?mt=11

Please go and check it out! I'd love to hear your thoughts. There's even a sample chapter there for free. And if you're using it somewhere other than Australia, I'd be especially interested to know how it goes. Thanks!

Final Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, and offering my thoughts on chapter three, where he looks at the arguments for God’s existence. Check out the earlier posts if you want to see what I’ve covered so far. Almost there now. Here are the last few “arguments” in the chapter.

The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists: e.g. "Newton was religious, so who are you to say different to him?" Really? Who is using this argument?

Pascal's Wager: "You're better off to choose to believe that God exists, because if you're wrong it won't matter anyway. If you choose not to believe in God and you're wrong, you might end up in hell." Dawkins has some good points to say about this one (which I'm sorry to say I've used before). Choosing God along the lines of this argument (because I'd be better off) is a selfish reason to choose God, and not very honest. Also, there are quite a lot of supposed "gods" out there. Which one are we supposed to choose in order to be safe? I remember a sketch by Rowan Atkinson that referred to this. "Oh I'm sorry Christians. The Jews were right." Not to mention the fact that many atheists have chosen not to believe because they see that religion has had a very bad (even evil) influence in the world's history.

The Bayesian Arguments, using probability, don't seem to work very well in my mind, so we may as well go with Dawkins on that one.

And then he concludes the chapter with The Argument from Improbability, which he says works in his favour. "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." This sounds to me like "God can't have designed the universe because then someone would have to have designed God." Why does God have to be designed? God is God.

I think the bigger question is, "Why is that such a conclusive argument for Dawkins?" He comes back to it a lot in these chapters. I wonder if the argument behind this one is in reality more like this: "God can't exist because it's irrational to think that God exists."

The next chapter deals with improbability a bit more, but I'll leave that for another post.

So where does all that leave us? Obviously I haven’t been convinced, although it has been a very helpful book to read. It’s great to see things from the other side of the discussion for a change, and I can see how it all works for Richard Dawkins. He’s an intelligent guy, and I respect his thinking. He's got some important things to say about religion, and Christians would do well to listen a bit more.

Summing up...

My conclusion from all of it is this:You can't prove or disprove the existence of God using science, philosophy or logic. My advice is to stop trying. It's the wrong field altogether, although it makes for some interesting, important discussions.

Dawkins proposes that belief in God is the same as if someone postulates that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. And this highlights the problem. If you're an atheist, it is the same. God and an orbiting teapot may as well be the same thing. But if you're not an atheist, obviously it's vastly different.

For myself, I'm open to the scientific possibility that God exists. For Dawkins this is irrational. I think the fact that he is closed to that possibility is irrational and unscientific. And that's basically where it all ends up. For me it's God, but for him it's a teapot.

And for that reason, we can't really have a reasonable discussion on these lines.

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 3

Carrying on my imaginary discussion with the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins (in which I get to say everything I like and he nods his head, scratches his beard and says “Hmm, I see that you are right, young Ben.”), we come to The Argument from Beauty. (Check the earlier posts if you want to see where we’ve been so far.)

Dawkins describes this one as: "God must exist because otherwise how would you account for the beauty of Michelangelo's art, Mozart's symphonies, Shakespeare's works?" Obviously it’s ridiculous if you put it in those terms. But again he's set the field in his favour by describing this argument only in terms of human artists.

I think the argument from beauty isn't so bad when you consider the beauty in the natural world. Sunsets didn't have to be beautiful, or flowers, or mountain ranges, or rainbows. The world could have been shades of brown. I don't think it's a knock-em-dead argument, and I can think of rebuttals to it even as I’m writing. But the argument from beauty is certainly not as crazy as Dawkins paints it.

He then generously gives a few pages to considering The Argument from Personal Experience, which is another one that isn't going to be particularly strong with a nonreligious person, though it might be the strongest of them all for the believer. The fact is, it's too difficult to prove, and most likely the listener wasn't there.

The Argument from Scripture is next: e.g. "Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, so therefore he's either 'Lord, Liar or Lunatic.'" I think the popular More than a Carpenter book from memory uses this logic. Dawkins points out that there's a fourth possibility, that Jesus might have been honestly mistaken. Fair point.

He then he goes on to point out some apparent contradictions and discrepancies in Scripture itself, which show his lack of knowledge in First Century and Jewish culture. I can see how this might be particularly persuasive to people who don’t know their Bible stuff though. He writes, "Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world." Well that's just not true.

And further, "All [the gospels] were copied and recopied, through many different 'Chinese Whispers generations'..." That's a bit of a deceptive comment. It’s true that the New Testament writings were copied and recopied (as is every great work), but archaeology has over time uncovered earlier and earlier (and more and more) documents of the New Testament writings. So the fact is, our translations are getting more and more accurate, not less. And the sheer quantity of copies we have from the first centuries shows the amazing level of accuracy in the copying technique, which is quite phenomenal.

None of this is a secret. You can easily see the points where there are differences in the documents. Just pick up a Bible and check out the footnotes. There aren’t many at all, considering.

And that’s where I’ll sign off for this one.

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 2

In the last post, we ended up having a discussion about first causes, while Richard Dawkins was off on a tangent. (This is in chapter three of his book, where he rebuts the “Arguments for God’s Existence.” I'm looking at Dawkins' responses to the arguments, and then giving a few thoughts.)

Following his little diversion Dawkins goes back to the argument about what kickstarted the universe and says it's irrational to call the first cause "God" because invoking the “God” explanation is "at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading."

Let's see that again, in simpler terms: "It is irrational to call the first cause 'God' because calling it God is irrational." Does that about sum it up? This takes me back to Year 12 Logic and Philosophy class. There is more discussion about this in the next chapter, where he explains why it’s irrational. But we’ll get to that later.

Moving on, he points out that Thomas Aquinas’ next argument for God (The Argument from Degree) is illogical, and I agree.

The Argument from Design is next to face up. Simply stated, "things look like they've been designed, so they probably are." This is an argument that’s used fairly frequently by Christians. Nevertheless, how do you think this next sentence might sound to the thousands of people who aren't up-to-date with the whole discussion? "The argument from design is the only one still in regular use today..."

Clever. He's effectively told the uninitiated that this is the only argument religious people have, and, lucky for him, it's also the one where Dawkins' is in his own element, one that he is going to systematically destroy throughout the rest of his book. He's set the field (in his own field), and now he'll go to town (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

But I don't think that really is the right field for this whole discussion. Many of us Christians have already left that field and gone to town (again, sorry).

I think his response (natural selection over millions of years) is absolutely valid. I have no problems with natural selection. It makes sense, I don't think it contradicts God, and the archaeological record supports it. If I was having this conversation with Dawkins, that would be the end of that discussion. And I'm a passionate "religious" person.

And there are many many more Christians like me - notably among academics and intellectuals, scientists, doctors, archaeologists, etc. We're not debating that one.

But he is partly right, in that there are many Christians who think the Design Argument is a good one. I'd like to have a word with them.

And that’s the last of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence. We’ll carry on in the next post with the Argument from Beauty, after skipping quickly past the Ontological Argument, which I think is a little ridiculous myself.

Let me know your thoughts!

Pastor Irene's Manifesto

Here's another part I loved from Eugene Peterson's The Pastor. I post these kinds of things so I can get back to them easily!

Peterson was facilitating a class with a group of soon-to-be-starting pastors. After a few days together, he asked one young lady who'd been quiet what she was thinking. This was her response, which Peterson called Pastor Irene's Manifesto. I want to make it mine too.

"When I get a congregation, I want to be a patient pastor. I want to have eyes to see and ears to hear what God is doing and saying in their lives. I don't want to judge them in terms of what I think they should be doing. I want to be a witness to what God is doing in their lives, not a schoolmistress handing out grades for how well they are doing something for God.

"I think I see something unique about being a pastor that I had never noticed: the pastor is the one person in the community who is free to take men and women seriously just as they are, appreciate them just as they are, give them the dignity that derives from being the 'image of God,' a God-created being who has eternal worth without having to prove usefulness or be good for anything. I know that I will be doing a lot of other things too, but I might be the only person who is free to do this.

"I don't want to be so impatient with the mess that I am not around to see the miracle being formed. I don't want to conceive of my life as pastor so functionally that the mystery gets squeezed out of both me and the congregation."

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 1

A friend has given me Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion to have a read of. I'm finding it very interesting actually. It’s great to be able to see things from his perspective for a bit. I've only ever read Dawkins' stuff as quoted (and misquoted) by Christians in apologetic books – most of which I wasn’t too impressed with anyway. I have to say I respect the guy a lot more now.

The aim of the book is to prove that belief in God is unnecessary and deluded. He goes about it in a few different ways, one of which is to offer rebuttals of the arguments for the existence of God. Some of his rebuttals are right on the money. That is, some of the arguments Christians have used to “prove” God’s existence really are not brilliant arguments (I’m sorry to say that some of them I’ve used before, thinking they were awesome).

However I do want to go through them in these next few posts, because I see some holes in Dawkins’ thinking. Most of these are from Chapter Three in the book, “Arguments for God’s existence.” I’ll briefly summarize the Christian argument and then his response, and give my own thoughts. Let me know if I’m missing anything. Read the chapter yourself if you can, to make sure I’m not misrepresenting Richard Dawkins.

Thomas Aquinas' 5 "Proofs"

The Unmoved Mover, The Uncaused Cause, The Cosmological Argument. Dawkins puts the first three together, which I think makes sense. Basically it's the argument of first causes: something must have kicked it all off. Dawkins’ response is (in my non-academic paraphrase), "Well, who caused God then?" and then he diverts the discussion into a conversation about the incongruities with the terms omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience etc.

My response to that is: God by definition is not characterized or limited by the way the universe works, so why does God need a first cause? It seems to me that Dawkins has first defined God as needing a first cause, and then gone on to ask, "Well, what caused him then?" I've noticed this happening a bit in his book. He defines God within the laws of this universe (e.g. science and physics) and then denounces the result.

Having said that, I do understand how my response looks to an atheist. Unhelpful at best. Frustrating and immature probably. It looks like I’ve pushed the discussion beyond the realms of what we can test and see - the physical, material, natural universe - which in many ways shuts down the conversation if you're talking to an atheist. Or at least removes the conversation from their field of expertise.

And that’s exactly what I’ve done. My view is that you can’t prove OR disprove God using science. There are incredibly intelligent people on both sides of the discussion. Neither side is stupid. It’s the wrong field altogether when we’re talking about God.

To me the First Cause argument makes sense, as it did to Aquinas, because I’m open to the possibility of a God. But to an atheist who is by definition not open to this possibility, it’s a ridiculous argument.

Dawkins goes on later in the book to offer alternative explanations to the First Cause problem. E.g. There might be billions of other universes, and this just happens to be the one where everything works – which I think is entirely valid, but obviously untestable (like God?). Or, the universe might be continually expanding and contracting (the term used by physicists is “bouncing”), producing many big bang singularities in a long chain of universes – and this universe just happened to work perfectly. Probability-wise, this also makes sense, although I think it’s a little more difficult physics-wise.

At first glance, with both of these it might seem too good to be true that we just happen to be in the one-in-a-billion universe that worked. But if you think about it that makes sense too. Obviously this would be the one that works, because otherwise we wouldn’t be here. If that still doesn’t make sense I’m not explaining it well enough. Keep thinking and you’ll get it!

So there are viable alternatives. It really just comes down to belief again. I’m open to the possibility of God, so it makes more sense for me to say God designed it all perfectly and kicked it off. Dawkins is not, so that perspective makes no sense at all to him. It makes more sense to Dawkins to believe that it was something other than God.

On another important note: the fact that there are other possibilities doesn’t disprove God. It just means we’ve thought of other solutions, which humans are notorious for being able to do. That’s intelligence. It’s not intelligent to think: “I’ve proven God is unnecessary, so therefore God doesn’t exist.” You have to go further than that, which Dawkins attempts to do in later chapters.

But that’s more than enough for now. Let me know what you think if you’ve read this far!

For All the Saints

Grab a cuppa, find a nice spot to sit, and meditate on the words of this beautiful old hymn....

For all the saints who from their labors rest,
Who Thee by faith before the world confess,
Thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest,
Alleluia! Alleluia!

Thou wast their Rock, their Fortress, and their Might;
Thou, Lord, their Captain in the well-fought fight;
Thou, in the darkness drear, their one true Light.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

Oh, may Thy soldiers, faithful, true and bold,
Fight as the saints who nobly fought of old
And win with them the victor's crown of gold.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

The golden evening brightens in the west;
Soon, soon, to faithful warriors cometh rest.
Sweet is the calm of Paradise the blest.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

But, lo, there breaks a yet more glorious day;
The saints triumphant rise in bright array;
The King of Glory passes on His way.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

- William W. How (1823-1897)

Above All Else

"Seek the Kingdom of God above all else,
and he will give you everything you need." - Luke 12:31

"Our Father in heaven,
may your name be kept holy.
May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven." - Matthew 6:9-10

Good Friday: It Is Not About You

My family and I went to a church service on Good Friday that left me upset for the rest of the day, and not for the right reasons.

I was expecting to leave in some level of sadness because this Friday was a dark day in history. It's the day we reflect on Jesus' horrific death, crucified at the hands of the Romans, by his own people, though he did nothing to deserve it. I was expecting to feel some sense of connection with the evil in the world. We put him there, on that cross. Jesus' closest friends left him to die, and it would be arrogant of me to think that I would have done any different. As humans, this was our darkest hour.

But I was upset for much different reasons.

The message that came across over and over again in this service - through the words spoken, the reflective acts, the dramatic monologue, even the songs that were sung - was "It was all for you." Jesus died on the cross so he could be your personal saviour. It was your sin that put him there. Love for you that held him there. It was all about you. At one point we were left singing the refrain over and over again, "For me, for me, for me, for me..."

At this point, many of you are thinking, "So what? That's the truth isn't it?"

Many people won't see a problem with this message, because the same one is communicated every week. A bumper sticker I've seen lately (unfortunately my company sells it) reads, "Crown of thorns on his head, Cross of wood on his back, You on his mind."

Many Christians think the Gospel is: Jesus died so that we can have a personal relationship with God, and go to heaven when I die.

But that is the gospel isn't it?

To put it bluntly, no. That's not the gospel. There was a lot more going on that Friday than Jesus saving you - although that is a nice outcome.

Let me come at it from a different angle. I have three beautiful little daughters, and I love them dearly. But suppose I told my oldest daughter, "Lily, everything I do, I do it for you." Yes, there is some truth in that. I do love Lily, and there's a lot I would give for her. Much of what I do benefits Lily - working, praying, providing and so on. But to put it in those words - while there is some truth - is actually FALSE. There's a huge amount more going on, including my other kids, my wife, living for God and working to bring Jesus' kingdom to earth. To say something like this is just to pander to Lily's ego and make her feel good. Flattery, we call it.

The same thing was happening in that Good Friday service. Yes, you are saved because of Jesus' death on the cross, but to say that it was all for you is actually a long way off the truth.

Jesus didn't die JUST for your personal salvation. There's a MUCH bigger story than that. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was the inauguration of a new kingdom, a new world which will lead to the restoration and renewal of the whole of creation. The cross of Christ drew all the streams of the old testament stories and prophecy together into one glorious climax. The cross of Jesus was the ultimate turning point in the whole of history. Jesus' death and resurrection changed EVERYTHING. There is a new king and this is how he's bringing his kingdom in: sacrifice and incomprehensible love. "There is no greater love than this: for a man to lay down his life for his friends." The king put himself last and gave everything for the sake of others. And then defeated death itself.

And it was all about you? Please. How can Good Friday, of all days, turn into a message about us?

Perhaps the thing that angered me most is that we hear the same message over and over again from our culture: "It's all about you. You deserve it. You are the most important person in the world." They flatter us because it works.

And then we go to church and hear the same message? Even on Good Friday? If a rock band does this - just giving the people whatever they want - we call them a sellout.

Wake up Christians! It's not about you. There's only one person worthy, and he gave it all up for the world.

The Importance of the Ressurection

Here's a talk by Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, that's very much worth watching if you've got a spare 45 minutes.


Why Does Jesus' Resurrection Matter? Considering Its Relevance for Today Part 1 of 2 from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

Psalm 146:3-9

Don’t put your confidence in powerful people;
      there is no help for you there.
When they breathe their last, they return to the earth,
      and all their plans die with them.
But joyful are those who have the God of Israel as their helper,
      whose hope is in the Lord their God.
He made heaven and earth,
      the sea, and everything in them.
      He keeps every promise forever.
He gives justice to the oppressed
      and food to the hungry.
   The Lord frees the prisoners.
The Lord opens the eyes of the blind.
   The Lord lifts up those who are weighed down.
      The Lord loves the godly.
The Lord protects the foreigners [or refugees?] among us.
      He cares for the orphans and widows,
      but he frustrates the plans of the wicked.

It is better to be...

"One goes more quickly to heaven from a hut than from a palace."

My favourite quote, attributed to St Francis of Assisi. I love the simplicity, and the upside-down perspective. It's so unlike what the rest of the world screams at us. But it's so true. THIS is real life. Not palaces, Porsches and playstations (although there's nothing wrong with those) - that's what we're told it's all about. But it's not.

I'm convinced the good life has more to do with great friendships, simplicity, enjoying your work, love, faith, hope and grace.

It is better to be godly and have little
      than to be evil and rich.
For the strength of the wicked will be shattered,
      but the Lord takes care of the godly.
Day by day the Lord takes care of the innocent,
      and they will receive an inheritance that lasts forever.
They will not be disgraced in hard times;
      even in famine they will have more than enough....

The Lord directs the steps of the godly.
      He delights in every detail of their lives.
Though they stumble, they will never fall,
      for the Lord holds them by the hand.

- Psalm 37:16-19, 23-24

Jesus Manifesto

Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola wrote Jesus Manifesto in order to correct the "Jesus Deficit Disorder" they see in many Christians and churches today. There seem to be many Christians for whom Jesus is really not the centre of their lives, as he should be.

As Paul writes in Colossians,

"[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together...."

Contemplate that for a bit! Jesus is our life, the only truth, and the only way to live, but too often he's just brought in as an interesting side-point. So when I saw this book, I thought, "Brilliant. This will be a great book to recommend. That's exactly what people need to hear."

But as it turned out, that message was exactly what I needed to hear as well. The writing is wonderfully simple, honest and direct, and the point was clearly driven home again and again. I actually started to get a little annoyed at the book, as it seemed like it was saying the same thing over and over. "Ok I've got it already," I thought. "Give me some new insights."

But I hadn't got it. As I read more and more about Jesus, it slowly started to get under my skin, and it was weeks before I even noticed the change. I started to feel more uncomfortable with where Jesus was in my own life. I began to realise that Jesus was too often just a side-point even for me, a pastor - like the interesting analogy that illustrates the real point (or even worse: a footnote).

So here I am in one of those infrequent moments of greater clarity, and I hope and pray this fragile seedling of faith continues to grow.

I would love for my life to be more centred around Jesus, but more than that, I would love for Jesus to live more in me. Not my life but his. Not my ways but his. Not my thoughts, insights, or perspectives, but his.... Christ in me, the hope of glory.

Elijah, Ahab, and the Prophets of Baal

1 Kings 18.

What amazing faith Elijah had here! What if God hadn't come through and set fire to the sacrifice?

Elijah would have certainly lost his life, his credibility, and ultimately it would have been the end of the people's faith in God. Baal vs God. Baal wins. God is dead.

Elijah had to trust that God would come through. Everything was on the line. Elijah was sacrificing himself too.

Thankfully, God did come through, as it seems he likes to do when only God can save the day. A huge win for God. And a crippling blow for the Baal religion.

But think of the terror Elijah surely felt while he waited for the fire. It doesn't seem so amazing when we already know the end of the story, but if we were in the middle of it, would we have had that much faith? Would I?

How to Worship Together (and Stay Friends)

Here's a talk I did at church yesterday, on how to worship together well. Feel free to have a listen! If it's easier to download it, here's the link (just right-click and save).

Powered by Podbean.com