Mark has just posted a series of very open and remarkable posts about his painful experiences of his wife's mental illness. It is warming to read and surely brave to write. Thanks Mark.
I think we do have a need for support groups where we can just talk openly with others about our struggles. In my circles this is not well dealt with in our church's structures.

The main community structure we provide is the growth group/Bible study group. But, we insist that this is for growth in the gospel through prayer and Bible study first and foremost. It is not just a share and care group. The theory goes, if you get this right, then all the others things (community, evangelism, sharing) will flow naturally out of that.

From my experiences, the other things don't often flow naturally out. If there is not structural modelling of the other things, we don't know how to do them. More than that, there is an implicit, unspoken message that you cannot focus on them for fear of overemphasising them.

In my experiences the occasional group just happens to gel and all the things flow. But most of the groups are average. More than that, in most groups, not only does communtiy, sharing and evangelism suffer, but even prayer gets gradually depleted to a little 5 minute slot at the end.

There seems to be a great deal of room for simple, loving support groups, both in caring for the church and for serving the community we live in. But as far as I can see, the current growth group model just doesn't deliver.

And the lecturer, discussing the dispensationalist view of eschatology rightly said:

When interpreting the Bible, presuppositions are especially dangerous if you don't think that you have any.

Tim Chester has posted a new Crowded House statement of faith. It's the combination of narrative theology, vision statement and creed. See what you think.

Here is my first sermon in the Crossroads series on Christianity and finance: Small Change?

In this one, I'm not dealing directly with money, but rather with how we ought to cope with uncertainty and fear.

Is apologetics out of fashion at the moment? Cultural relevance is the thing, not apologetics. Unless you're Tim Keller, but then not many of us are that cool.

But if you happen to be uncool, then you may be interested in this site which has compiled all of William Lane Craig's debates, whether audio or transcripts.

3. Down-size
A house church does not aim to begin a large service in a rented hall with a paid staff. It aims to stay small and start new churches whenever it grows too large for any one living room to hold.

Pros
Lots of things are not a problem for house churches: they don't need many rosters, property, band rehearsals or even someone who can preach a sermon for half an hour. Houses churches are able to reproduce quite easily because of this simplicity. It also means that more time can be invested in building deep relationships with Christians and people who aren't Christians, rather than with strengthening the church structures.

Cons
It is a danger that the house church turns in on itself and loses all momentum to grow. Also, this strategy depends a great deal on the context and the gifts of the team: it relies on a great deal of personal investment which some people find extremely draining and it revolves around small gatherings that some outsiders may find intimidating.

2. Ex nihilo

2. Ex nihilo

Some church plants begin with a man with a Bible on his knees: the evangelist gathers a church (and possible his income) from converts and eventually, by the Lord's grace, a church is born.

Pros
The only thing needed is an evangelist; you don't need money, property or people. Therefore you can do this sort of church planting regardless of the state of current churches. This kind of church plant is most likely to reach the totally unchurched and will have greater freedom in trying new approaches to ministry.

Cons
Although not finanically expensive, it is personally expensive. You need to right person and the right person needs a great amount of spiritual strength to persevere through possible disappointments and other hardships. At worst, this kind of church plant can end up gathering up a lot of damaged and disgruntled people, rather than genuine converts.

John pointed me to this interview with Allan Carlson. In it, he says this:

Even if you're not a home-schooling family, you should be a home-educating family

I like that.

Church planting can take a range of forms. There is no one 'right way' do do church planting, but a range of ways depending on your context, your gifts, your ministry philosophy and the opportunties that the Lord opens up. Here are a few

1. Re-deployment
Phillip Jensen recently spoke about starting new services within an existing church as a form of church planting where we re-deploy existing members in order to do evangelism. Starting a new service, perhaps on a Sunday evening, or mid-week is a common method of reaching out to a new group of people, without rocking the boat too much.

Pros
This approach can hold the difficult tension between homogenous services (Chinese Church, uni church) and diverse church community. It also saves a lot of resources, because the different meetings will naturally share staff, administration and possible venues.

Cons
Because this approach is safe, it may not actually lead to re-deployment but merely re-arrangement. We start a new meeting, but not actual evangelism is done. You can start a new meeting without having to ask hard questions about your strategy and approach and without having to really count the cost for the sake of the gospel.

Comic book geeks know that originally the League of Shadows was called the League of Assassins. But in Batman Begins they renamed it the League of Shadows and made Liam Neeson the boss of it. They are this secret society of evil ninjas who control everything behind the scenes. It's all very cool.

Churches have their leagues of shadows too. We were talking about a guy name Keith the other day. He is the Ra's al Ghul of his church. He's not the big up--the-front flashy guy. But I reckon he's probably controlling everything behind the scenes :-)

The nice thing about godly league of shadows guys is that they aren't control freaks, rather they are humble and faithful. They probably don't even know just how many strings they are pulling and what a spiritual legacy they are leaving

We have just confirmed Greg Lee from Hunter Bible Church to speak at our MTS Challenge Conference in August 2009.

It is well with my soul.

I've been reading a bit of stuff by Christian Reconstructionists. It's a strange world.

One thing I find really hard to take is the dead certainty with which they write. They comes across like they are so convinced that they have understood God's word correctly and are so convinced that they have teased out its correct and only applications correctly. More than this, they seem to read Scripture really tightly. Romans 13, for example is taken to explicitly limit the role of government to the administration of justice. I think this is reading too much into the text.

One thing about them that is often misunderstood, is that many of them believe that you cannot force a society to adopt God's laws. It is only through successful evangelism that their reconstructionist program will be realised.

One thing that is uncomfortable to admit, is that many of their goals are legitimately biblical, if not necessarily biblical. That is, I don't think their case that they have figured out God's economics and God's politics is correct. But many of their principles are legitmitately derived from biblical principles and so we can't be biblically opposed to much of their project. The death penalty, for example, was truly commanded by God in his good and right law. Therefore, however much we may believe that the death penalty should not be applied today, we cannot be absolutely opposed to someone else who does.

Work hard
Starting something from scratch is impossible. It is so tempting to choose something easier or to become a gathering point for disgruntled Christians. It is so hard and lonely and small and disappointing to have your dreams crash up against the miserable ordinariness of reality.

So on the one hand, you need to kep the vision alive. On the other hand, you just need to be prepared to work hard.

All ministry is hard work, but pioneer church planting especially so. Of course you need to beware of overwork and assuming that you are the all-powerful god who can give birth to a church. The point still stands: this kind of ministry requires perseverance.

You need to work hard at making contacts, work hard at praying, work hard at meeting one to one with your team, work hard at meeting up with new contacts, work hard at raising support, work hard at evaluating your strategy.

Linked to hard work is patience. The church may be born, but it may take two years longer than you hoped in your strategic planning document. Sometimes it can be like playing chicken with the devil: who's gonna swerve first?

Keep the Vision Alive
During those early months and years, it may be very hard, discouarging and hard to tell whether what you have done will survive or not. You are the one who is carrying around the vision for the new church, you are the one who is driving it forward, so you need to find ways, by God's grace, to keep it alive:

1. Set aside a day for prayer once a month.
2. Keep teaching the Bible. Find some context to keep opening the Bible. This is where the motivation for you ministry is coming from, don't dethrone it for the sake of strategy.
   
3. Keep reading books about church planting to keep yourself sharp.
4. Have some friends and mentors who are keenly interested in the project. Their enthusiasm for the project may prove more constant than yours.
5. Make sure you continue to repeat the vision to your team. The more they grasp it, the more momentum you will have.

You can find the previous posts here.

Is that his story is very parallel to Matthew Santos' election in West Wing season 6 and 7. But that's not actually the thing I want to talk about.

Another thing you can't deny about Obama is that he is a really good public speaker. On the blog I can't link to enough, Con Campbell draws some rhetorical lessons from Obama's victory speech.

Con Campbell lectures at Moore College. He is a jazz saxophonist. He has just written a book all about verbal aspect,  which is sort of the jazz of Greek scholarship. Con recently preached at the Tasmanian Leadership Conference and you can here those rockin sermons here on the TLC website.

Fi asked a very sharp question in response to this post. I thought I would expand on it further here:

There are different ways that the whole big Exodus from Egypt and subsequent giving of the Law 'event' can be understood:

1. In a general, analagous sense, we see God acting in saving grace, and susequently calling on people who receive his grace to respond. In this sense it is analagous to the Chrsitian experience. For a 'true Jew' who shared the 'faith of Abraham' this is surely a key part of their response to the law.
   
2. In a more specific, sense, the Exodus serves as a 'type' of Christian salvation. In this context, too, the law is given as a joyful response to God's salvation.
   
3. One variant of these two applications is the application to the 'visible' church. We find this in 1Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 3-4. The professing church, like the nation of Israel, is a mixed multitude. All experience something of God's saving grace, but need respond appropriately if they are to truly be saved.
   
4. In the flow of salvation history, the Exodus did not actually grant salvation in the NT sense to every individual Israelite. For them salvation and redemption and belonging to God's people didn't necessarily mean being justified. In this context, the law is added as a conditional covenant which, in theory, demands obedience for justification.
5. In the background of all of this is the recognition that salvation for any Israelite, as for Abraham, was through faith in the promise of God. This promise came first and was in no way set aside by the conditional elements of the law covenant.
   

This is stupid stuff to blog about because it is almost bound to be unclear and misunderstood. But I submit myself to the 'invisible hand' of the blogsphere which will surely let the riches of truth trickle down to all...

ROFL.

1. Change and fear (9th Nov)
   
2. Capitalism and socialism (16th Nov)
   
3. Greed (30th Nov)
   
4. Generosity (7th Dec)
   

Soccer is a low-scoring, silly game where there seems to be a lot of falling over by little men in silky outfits. Upon conversion, I was so dismayed that the Christian community was deeply absorbed in two foul sports: soccer and cricket.

On a general level, why are such lame sports the world sports? Why soccer and cricket and swimming? I think it's a sign of the Fall. A perfect world would give greater attention to ice hockey and freestyle BMX.

Anyway, be that as it may, Alan has got evil plans to use beach soccer for the glory of God and although I hate soccer, I love his plans. Go over and visit his site -  give some suggestions..

Fundamentalism says
Someone's beliefs always affects every area of their lives.
Someone's lifestyle always affects every area of their beliefs.

"Don't trust an atheist, communist or homosexual"

Mainstream evangelicalism* says
Someone's beliefs or lifestyle can have an affect on any area of their lifestyle or beliefs.

Fundamentalism says
God tells us exactly what to think about every area of life.
We can always understand perfectly what God tells us.

"I vote/parent/think that way cause that's what God's word says"

Mainstream evangelicalism says
We should seek humbly to apply God's word to every area of life.
We can only imperfectly understand what God tells us.

Fundamentalism says
There is no different between a law and a principle.

"If women are to be busy at home they can never go back to the secular workforce"

Mainstream evangelicalism says
Laws are universal and timeless, principles are flexible.


*I don't know what the best nomenclature is here. I try to find something that was fairly neutral.