Old Posts

This afternoon I noticed again that on the right hand side there are links to all my old blog entries, and it made me curious to see what I'd written back at the start.

The first posts are over seven years old now, and truthfully a lot of them probably should stay back there. I was tempted to delete some. But it was interesting to see what I was thinking seven years ago. I started the blog before my first child was born, and now I have three beautiful children. I think I was working in stores selling books and appliances at the time, and now I'm a pastor, gardener and high school chaplain.

A common thread through the first posts seems to be priorities. I was very concerned with making sure that I spent my life doing the important stuff - growing friendships, giving time to creativity, enjoying my family rather than getting distracted by work, success and accumulation. It's nice to know that I've been able to do that so far. I've changed jobs a few times, had three kids and pastored in three different churches and each change has brought our income down a little. But we've been able to adjust as a family and grow content again with what we have, and I feel that each change has helped us trust God and move us away from material things towards people.

I may have three part-time jobs now - gardener, pastor and chaplain - but I feel that I'm very lucky because they are all jobs that I really enjoy. Although they're not the most lucrative jobs in the world they help me to connect with God and people more than any other work I've done before. I've been in full time ministry in a church before, but strangely enough I feel like I'm living Jesus' way and connecting with his world better now than I was then. My work has gradually integrated with my family and friends and local community more, and this gradually more missional and people-focussed direction has taken away some anxiety and ministry tension in my life too.

I feel really blessed. Looking back I feel so grateful that God has looked after us along the way. I see his inspiration and ideas in the story. I think we have learned to trust God more in the last seven years, even if it's only a very very tiny amount. And I feel very grateful for the friends and family we've been blessed to walk with.

He's pretty arrogant

I was reading this morning in "Solo: An Uncommon Devotional" about the way that God sometimes uses difficult experiences to help us see more of our weaknesses and faults. Not a particularly fun reading, but it did make me think.

Back in high school I played a lot of music. A lot. Many people called me a music geek (my wife still does). I played trumpet (the reason for the loosely connected pic below) before, after and very frequently during school . With all that experience and a little bit of talent added in, I became pretty good, which ended up getting me a ticket to a special camp for "musically outstanding students." It was a big thing for us students, and we got to play music with the best music students and teachers in the state (my wife just giggles and calls it "band camp"). I know it sounds like a Hilary Duff movie, but it was an awesome experience for us, and it's a shame it's been cut from the government budget now.

The week ended in a big show at the QLD Performing Arts Centre, which was brilliant. But strangely enough that's not what I remember from the night. As we were walking back to the green room after the show I overheard the tiniest snippet of a conversation between two of my friends. I'm not even sure if this is what they said, but what I heard was something like,

"Ben did alright didn't he."
"Yeah I guess. He's pretty up himself though."

Looking back I know that hardly makes sense logically - both of these guys were friends of mine all week - but it was such a shock that I didn't question it, and it was too awkward that I'd overheard it. I was a nice guy who didn't rock the boat, tried to please everyone and didn't make any enemies, and I couldn't bear the thought that someone might think me arrogant. This one comment, which possibly never happened in the first place, has stuck in my memory ever since.

It's been 12 years since that comment and I can see in hindsight how it has made me much more aware of pride in my life. It certainly hasn't stopped it altogether (as my wife can assure you) - not by a long way - but that difficult experience has helped to make humility a very desirable thing in my life, and to make me aware of pride as a weakness. I never want anyone to think me arrogant again. That night sucked for me.

I hope that God hasn't had to use many difficult experiences to show you your own weaknesses, but if he has, maybe you should take some time to thank him today. It can feel like harsh treatment, but it has certainly made a big difference to me.

Dirty God

I'm reading a great book at the moment. Check out these little passages from the chapter "The God with Dirty Hands"....

“The Bible teaches us that God “demonstrates his own love for us” (Rom. 5:8) in how he came to us in Jesus. He didn’t expect us to climb up to him. He climbed down to us. He got his hands dirty so that we could have our hearts cleaned.”

“Jesus didn’t keep his distance from the messy world that he descended into when he left heaven’s golden streets for earth’s dusty Middle Eastern villages, filled to capacity with the poor and frustrated, the disenfranchised and the rejected. Jesus didn’t revel in his priceless glory—rather, he gave himself completely to the opportunity to make the inglorious feel that they mattered to God.”

Excerpt from Johnnie Moore's “Dirty God.” Thomas Nelson, 2012-11-19. iBooks.

Very nicely put!

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

The Normality of the Bible

"When you compare the Bible to the scriptures of other religions, what is striking is the normality of the Bible. There are not gods or spiritual entities under every rock, or exhaustive descriptions of heavenly battles. Abraham is not taken away from the earth to another spiritual realm. God does speak to him, but the arena for his discipleship is the everyday. His relationship with the spiritual does not drive him away from everyday life, but instead pushes him deeper into it. The transcendent is to be found in the midst of the ordinary."

- from "The Road Trip that Changed the World," by Mark Sayers

The Bible Story in Pictures

I did these for my high school chaplaincy students. It's amazingly difficult to tell the Bible story in a lunch break!

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" 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!

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!

Homosexuality and Heaven

Can homosexuals get to heaven? According to some so-called "Christians" (a frustratingly ill-used term), apparently not.

I just read an article from the New York Times about the values of Exodus International, an organization existing "to provide spiritual support for Christians who are struggling with homosexual attraction." Recently there has been some controversy surrounding statements made by the president, Mr Alan Chambers, in which he declared "that there was no cure for homosexuality and that 'reparative therapy' offered false hopes to gays and could even be harmful." Apparently for many years Exodus has operated under the idea that anyone can be cured of homosexuality through prayer and psychotherapy, and now Chambers is calling for people to be more realistic. According to the article, "he said that virtually every 'ex-gay' he has ever met still harbors homosexual cravings.... But those who fail should not be severely judged, he said, adding, 'We all struggle or fall in some way.'"

I won't go into the details of that debate (maybe another time), but I was struck by a statement made by one of the people who want Chambers to resign. From a man who is supposedly an associate professor at a US theological seminary: "My greatest concern has to do with Alan's repeated assurances to homosexually active 'gay Christians' that they will be with him in heaven..."

This brings to light quite clearly a view I've sadly heard before, that practicing homosexuals are somehow disqualified from God's grace. Let me say this as clearly as I can: this is not true, and grossly misrepresents God. The idea that ANYTHING can disqualify us from God's grace is utterly false.

If it were true, how would any of us be saved? To use a verse the conservative evangelicals love, "For all have sinned..."

The amazing beauty of the gospel is this: that ANYONE can turn to Jesus and be saved. It's not about what we've done, or (let's be honest) what we might yet do. It's about God's love. The thief on the cross turns to Jesus and says "Remember me when you come into your kingdom," and Jesus' immediate response is "Today you will be with me in paradise." This guy could have done anything. Murderer? Fraud? Terrorist? But it wouldn't have mattered. It doesn't matter because of God's love and grace. Anyone can go to heaven.

No one is disqualified, thank God. Anyone can turn to Jesus and be a part of his future kingdom.

Any other message is NOT Christianity.

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

Power and Weakness

Read this slowly....

"The power of God, says St Paul in 1 Corinthians 1, is therefore revealed in human weakness, supremely in the weakness of Jesus. At the heart of the Christian gospel stands the ridiculous paradox that true power is found in the apparent failure, and the shameful death, of a young Jew at the hands of a ruthless empire. Why? Because there are more dimensions to reality than just the ones we see and know in our own space and time. Heaven, God's space, is the present but unseen reality. And, in that all-important dimension, the crucifixion was not a defeat but a victory; in the death of Jesus... the powers of evil were themselves being judged, were being put to shame, were being decisively rebuked for their arrogance. Instead, the generous self-giving love of Jesus, giving himself for the sins of the world, has been vindicated and exalted as the supreme principle of the universe. More: Jesus himself, no abstract principle, but a human person, is now exalted as the still loving, still giving, still generous Lord, to whom one day every knee shall bow, and whom we are today summoned to follow."

- from Following Jesus, by N T Wright

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.

Between

See if you can figure this one out, by Eugene Peterson....

"In matters of church, nothing of what we see apart from what we see is church. And nothing of what we don't see apart from what we see is church. There is no invisible church. There is no visible church. Invisibility and visibility coinhere in church. There is no church without God, whom 'no man has seen... at any time' (John 1:18 NAS). There is no church without the 'great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all the tribes and people and languages' (Rev. 7:9) that we can see.

"Church is a staging ground for what takes place between  heaven (invisible) and earth (visible)."

- from Practise Resurrection: A Conversation on Growing Up In Christ

I particularly like that last line. Church is a staging ground for what takes place between heaven and earth. Very nice.

Brisbane Floods, and Where is God?

A couple of weeks ago there was major flooding in my city and the surrounding areas, and in fact in an unbelievably large portion of the eastern states of Australia. Some towns are still waiting to see if their river banks will hold. The sheer amount of water is inconceivable, and the effects have been devastating. Many people have lost loved ones, and many more have lost their homes and businesses. And as if that wasn't enough, in the last few weeks a great number of these have since found out that their insurance doesn't cover this kind of flood.

If you entertain the notion of God (whether you believe there is one or not), it doesn't take long before the questions start rolling in...

If there is a God, why didn't he do something? Is he really all that powerful? And if he is powerful, is he really all that good? What kind of person would allow people to suffer like this?

I do believe that God is good and that he loves us immensely, and thankfully the Bible does have some answers for these questions.

First, the sad reality is that there is suffering in this world. Earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, bush fires, AIDS, SIDS and cancer are all part of the world we live in. Unfortunately, that's just how this world is. And it affects all of us, whether you believe in God or not.

This would be utterly demoralizing if that was the end of the story. But thankfully it isn't.

The incredible hope of the Bible is that one day God will restore this world. One day God will rebuild it and transform it into a more beautiful, more amazing, more life-giving universe. The Bible promises that in this new world there will be no more crying or pain, no more anguish, no more suffering, because the old world will have passed away. Not only that, but our own bodies (of those who belong to God) will also be restored and transformed - no longer subject to sickness, decay, cancer, or even death itself. One of the writers in the New Testament, Paul, describes this transformation as being something like that of a caterpillar to a butterfly. And those who have already died will be resurrected and given new life and a new body too. I can't wait for this new world, and new way to experience the depths and greatness of it. This is hope.

And what about in the meantime? Do we just wait it out, suck it up, and suffer through this world? Absolutely not. There's hope for right now too. Jesus' life and message when he was on earth was that this new world - which he called the kingdom of heaven - is even now breaking into our world. While the complete restoration is still in the future, the process has already started. It started with Jesus. Practically, he lived it out, and showed others how to live it. Things like love, grace, forgiveness, beauty, joy, mercy, compassion - heaven breaking in. And when we live like this, we're bringing light into the darkness.

But even more than that, Jesus' resurrection was the inauguration of this new kingdom of light. Easter Sunday was the start of an entirely new week. Yes, Jesus died, like we all do. But he then defeated death, and God resurrected him, wonderfully transformed. Now death means nothing to Jesus - it has no power whatsoever. He was the first to be resurrected - and all who believe and live this truth will follow later - and right now he is the reigning king of this world. Just think for a second about the implications.

And right now we can build for this kingdom, helping it break into this world. Jesus told us to pray for God's kingdom to come, on earth as it is in heaven, and now we can join with God to be the answer to that prayer. The restoration has begun. Yes, there is still darkness, tragedy and pain, but that's not all there is. Heaven is breaking in.

Many people who've lost homes in the last couple weeks have said while they were shocked by the damage, they were absolutely stunned by the generosity, compassion and selfless hearts of the thousands of people who came to help them get back on their feet again. Over 22,000 people flooded into Brisbane with mops, buckets and spades, from all over Australia and New Zealand - to help out their neighbours and friends - but more often to help complete strangers. Thousands of volunteers had to be turned away because there were just too many.

In the midst of pain, there can be breathtaking beauty, overwhelming love, inconceivable generosity. God is not absent, and he is not uncaring. He is building a new world, and it's already begun. Look for it, pray for it, see it breaking in, be a part of bringing heaven more fully into earth. And live in hope for that day when God will completely restore everything.

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.