1. At a conference I attended recently, Alan Hirsch desribed our age as one of Rapid Disconintuous Change (RDC) as opposed to Gradual, Continuous Change (GCC). Whereas 20 years ago a church could develop 5, 10, 20 year plans on the basis of reviewing the past and projecting into the future, now we can look ahead no further than 3 years, and even then we need several plans that get reviewed constantly.

2. At the same conference, another speaker, C. B. Samuel observed that it is first world tourists who come to poor countries like India and give up their faith in the face of suffering. People in the third world don't do this.

3. A reflection came to me out of attending this conference. Many of the speakers challenged us with the failure of the church to have answers to the great systemic and structural problems the world faces. We are too focussed on a personalised, individualised spirituality, they said.
However when I read my Bible, I don't see a major focus on Christians to have the answers to the world's problems. Yes we should speak out against injustice. But has God spoken to us in such a way that we need to have an answer to these large-scale problems? I think we are being made to feel guilty for something that Christ doesn't demands of us.

4. Someone has said "Christianity began in Nazareth with one man. Then it moved to Jerusalem and became a movement. Then it moved to Rome and became and institution. Then it spread across the empire and became a culture. Then it moved to the USA and became an enterprise."

5. Some sins/follies that need to preached against: cynicism, apathy, lethardy, despair.

6. Missiologist Ralph Winter described Paul and his team as a particular manifestation of 'church' - a 'sodality'. By conrast, the Jerusalem church was the more familiar manifestation of church - a 'modality'. Is it true that both the missionary team and the established church are properly understood as manifestations of church? Is this a 'way forward' in thinking about the church?

7. In church's that claim to have moved beyond 'worship services' and 'preaching' and 'institutions', they don't get that far. They moved all the things that are so good about these things into the world of 'conferences', 'training intesives' and 'plenary sessions'. I think I'd rather keep them as part of the regular spiritual life of the church myself. And I think preaching is a better word than 'plenary session'!

8. 'Paradigm shifts' are important things. Conversion is a paradigm shift. Deciding to give one's life to full-time Christian ministry is a 'paradigm shift'. Trying to position a church to be committed to evangelism (or anything else) is a 'paradigm shift'.

To achieve a paradigm shift two things are needed. We need to paint the radical contrasts between what we need to be doing and what we are currently doing. There needs to be an awareness of the radical break. But if we only do this, we can cause reactionary thinking. Those who find it hard to make the shift feel defensive. Those who are on board with us might take things too far.

Therefore you also need to show how what people are already doing is related to where you want to take them. You need to affirm what's already there, and show how that will contribute to where you want to take them.

9. Words of wisdom from theologian Mark Baddley: Some people want to try and derive everything aspect of theology out of the trinity. They seem to argue that everything that is can be understood from this starting point.

However, as Calvin points out at the beginning of the Institutes, we also need to know about cretaion. For we believe in creation, God made something other than himself. More than that, he created the world freely, it didn't have to be the way he chose to make it.

Therefore you cannot derive your understanding about everything purely from your understanding of God. You also need to understand the world that God has made as a distinct sphere of knowledge.

1. What is the key social unit of focus for Christianity? The family? The church? The individual?

Traditionally evangelicals have focused on the family. Is this correct? Jesus does sometimes lower the importance of the family in favour of spiritual realities. He also lowers the importance of the family in favour of caring for the outcast.

2. "Nothing is more annoying to non-Christians than the Christian presumption that without religion, morality would cease to exist" A. Lohrey, "Voting for Jesus", The Quarterly Essay, p. 69.

We must be very clear whether we are saying
a) Without religion morality would cease to exist
b) Without religion philosophically justifiable morality would cease to exist

3. Matthew 6 and Hebrews 13 connect love of money, contentment and fear for security. I would often speak about covetousness and love of money together.
The connection is more obvious in subsistence cultures. But even in the first world, we find our sense of security in our pleasures and luxuries. Desire for luxury is rarely as simply as brute hedonism.

4. Crossroads' evangelism focus group asked a wide range of peopel for their input on evangelism. The comments of one seasoned evangelist was that people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder prefer tradition and stability in church, rather than trendy, contemporary church. The reason give was because the rest of their lives are such a mess, they want something safe and predictable from church.

5. In sermon review sheets, don't get to ask questions like:
-What new things did you learn?
-How were you changed or encouraged as a result of this message?

6. If we only do sermon reviews, we may slip into thinking that everything is the preachers' fault.
In addition to doing sermon reviews, it would be good to occasionally do listener reviews. After all, if I fall asleep or drift off during a sermon, it may be my fault not the preachers.
I like the idea of spurring on the congregation to growing in their listening skills, just as we spur on the preacher to grow in their preaching skills.

7. Sometimes when encouraging other pastors to engage with and learn from their cultural context, we imply that they must all be relation people can just informally lock into philosophical conversations out and about. But some pastors find this friendship model very straining.

Another mode is the learner model. Rather than trying to initiate an informal chat in the marketplace, you can just ask people permission for you to ask them questions about their values and so forth.
Often these sorts of surveys and interviews are done as a thinly veiled evnagelistic method. But as a genuine means of getting into relational contact with non-Chrsitians they are a real alternative to the friendship approach.

8. Instead of saying:
"Our society's definition of faith is totally different to the biblical one"

try:

"The Bible's definition of faith is counter-cultural"

9. It's not enough just to avoid Christian subculture. I need to ask, what does a Hobart Christian actually look like in positive terms? How will we contribute a unique element to the heavenly choir when Christ returns?

10. Does Saddleback Church really have 'Saddleback Sam' as a hodge-podge profile of what non-Christians in their area are like? That's trippin.

11. I can't remember where I read or heard this: "The ancient Israelites went to church only 3 times a year, and when they did it was for a huge feast!"

Another idea someone emailed to me. This time about planning for giving one's spiritual bio at church:

"Could this be done in such a way that it indirectly affirms the importance of genuine, life-sharing relationships with friends and family and Christian family that we were talking about?

Could we find our four testimony writers by asking for people who want to commit to spending some real time preparing and praying about it, and who would like to use it as an opportunity to invite friends and family, both Christian and non-Christian, along - just as they might for a baptism? I'm not talking about a pressure thing, just thinking it is a cool opportunity that might really appeal to some people.... It could be an event. If you were giving your testimony, you could invite people who are special to you, who care about you enough to come because even if Christianity means nothing to them, it means everything to you, who would be interested in meeting your Christian friends....

Could we offer the testimony-givers a Preachers Workshop style opportunity to meet together in July to compare drafts and pray about those they are inviting/have invited? ...or meet one on one with an Elder to workshop it and pray?

There are so many ways to approach a testimony, and it would also be good to think about it from a story-telling point of view. It doesn't have to be chronological, but people always seem to automatically take a straight approach... but there are so many exciting possibilities!

We could run a SPECIAL month long group, open to anyone and everyone, which meets weekly in August to work on writing testimonies. One week could be a Benny or JML or Des (or all three, or someone else) talking about different approaches to get them excited; one week could be reading each other's work and giving feedback; one week could be everyone presenting their finished work to the group; one could be talking about how the testimonies might be used. For some, that might be sending it to am non-Christian friend or relative, or an influential Christian friend or relative who would be encouraged to hear the part they played. Others might want to do the whole testimony-event-main-meeting-invite-your-world-type thing, others might be content to just call it practise for when next someone asks how they became a Christian. (Or they could ALL be a pretty exhibition on the walls of the cinema... endless possibilities!) Every week could also involve a hearty slab of prayer. If, out of this, comes a number of testimonies spread out over a number of public meetings, that would be awesome, if not, other good stuff will have come out of it so who cares.

Hmmm. What do you think? Does this surpass the original plan? It may be a more "organic" and inclusive approach... With the initial idea it might be hard to find people who are simultaneously (a) willing and able to write it (b) keen to invite friends and family (c) willing to do the public speaking thing "

"Hi Mikey,

I have just got a few reflections I thought I might share with you which have come from my ringing around the churches for MTS Challenge Conference expereince. I am sure these would not apply to crossroads, but I thought they were 'things that we shouldn't let slip'. Bear in mind that these come from a Christian trying to contact other Christians - how much more should the following be the case if we are to win outsiders:

1. Ensure that the church is in the phone book, and preferably on the net too. The web page should have a phone contact that meet the below, and should give the pastors name, the street address, and time of meetings.

2. Ensure that the phone number given does not lead to an answering service. If there is a church office phone it should be diverted when not staffed. A mobile number may be preferable.

3. The pastor should not be (in my opinion) the hardest person in the church to contact. If he is so tied up with church responsibilites that he cannot speak to outsiders, then he is too busy 'waiting on tables' and should delegate.

4. Contacting a church (office, postor whatever) should be a friendly experience. Outsiders contacting a church should not be treated with an undue level of suspicion. Perhaps we could learn from worldly businesses in this regard which seem know how to be polite to customers.

5. Perhaps one of the reasons communitee awareness of the Anglicans & Salvos is so good is partly because they are very contactable.

(this is partly me just wanting to vent my frustration... ;o)

phil"

1. For those preachers convinced in the value of question times as a way of learning and responding to the word of God:
a) sometimes preach shorter sermons (less than 40 mins in our church's case),
b) consider holding a forum-style discussion rather than just preacher-answers-questions arrangement
c) have a panel to answer questions/ask questions/react to the sermon, rather than just one person

2. I heard someone recently say that church attendance and growth sky-rocketed during the 1950s in Australia largely due to the growth and Establishment of suburbia. The churches of the day catered to their bourgeois values.

3. Rosters and other church maintenance tasks, finance committees etc, if run badly can absorb massive amounts of time and energy. They can cause bitterness, exhaustion. They can take keen servant-hearted Christians away from other forms of service. They can even lead to these things in the long-term being run badly, or unimaginatively.

Church leaders should put their money where their mouth is: if we say all gifts are valued and the more visible gifts deserve no special treatment, then we should pour energy into praying form training, reviewing, supporting, guiding, encouraging overseeing our maintenance roster people.

4. I attended a conference evening session where three speaks spoke for 40 mins each. Goes to show what you can do in 3 hours.

1. Someone said that a novelist they knew tried to just bear one person in mind as they wrote their novel. They didn't try to cater for absolutely everyone.
Perhaps we should apply the same to our church organised events. Fresh ideas for what topics to cover and how to run the meeting could be discovered by thinking of one non-Christian friend in particular.

2. My standard line: We don't need a seeker service because our regular meetings should always be accessible to non-Christians.

My 'yeah but': Are seeker services necessarily bad? Given that the good ol' bare bones gospel *is* good for Christian and non-Christian alike, the more evangelistically bent service will be good for everyone who comes, just as the 'worship service' will be good for the non-Christian. Martyn Lloyd-Jones always ran a 'seeker service'.
I suppose I shouldn't just dismiss the idea, but should always be open to re-considering it.

3. A different angle on why we should promote women preaching to women:
-Not just because we want to prove that we aren't total misogenists
-Not just because they want to because they feel they are good at it
-Not even just because other women find it helpful
But because we are convinced that preaching is a very significant and powerful and central means of conveying the word of God. If God has given the gift of preaching to women, we should think very seriuosly about why he has chosen to. And we shoudl think very carefully about if and where the best ways to use this gift are.

4. A friend of mine currently on short-term mission in Bolivia says: If you are considering going to be a missionary consider learning some practical skills now - carpentary, cartooning, massage, whatever. You never know how they may be helpful. For example, being a skilled cartoonist will dramatically improve your ability to communicate to people when you are not very good at speaking the same language.

5. Should I consider making the time after church more conducive to pastoral and evangelistic counselling? The preacher mingling around in the tea and coffee foyer may promote chit-chat. The preacher could be set aside and a culture is promoted where people can come to speak seriously about issues raised in the sermon. This could be a far better use of time for the preacher. He could also publically invite newcomers and 'seekers' to come and see him, to make appointments during the week, publically stating that he would really like to hear about who they are and where they are from etc etc.

6. I have stated in a previous Christian Reflection (pre-Blog) that better than just discovering the Big Idea of the passage is to discover the Big Purpose of the passage (following Jay Adams). Taking this still further, we should then ask of our Big Purpose a question - Why? How? When? Who? The answers the passage gives to this question form the points of the sermon.

Big Idea - The church is one body with many parts
Big Purpose - Use your gifts to build the church
Possible question - Why?
Points of sermon - 1. God's desire 2. For the good of teh church 3. You are as valuable as other peopel in church etc etc

7. How can I explain 'dialectic' in really simple cut-the-crap terms?

8. A friend has recently proposed that a good model for the Christian life = dramatic improvisation. Not that we make up our morality as we go along, but just that there is a great deal of flexiblity in our application.
Just as an improvisor is given the general form, bounds and structure to work within, we are given the description of who we are and how we should think and be. But there is a great deal of flexibility in how we work that out.
Two things that I would say to clarify this are
a) the things that the Word of God gives as us 'general form' are far-reaching in their influence. We cannot take the 'general form' of SCripture and wander too far without distorting Scripture
b) the Spirit of God is at work in us, guiding us as we 'improvise'

9. The way to reach a person's will is through:
a) the intellect (Llyod-Jones)?
b) the imagination (Sibbes)?
c) all of the above?

10. Immanual Kant said that there were certain questions that we could never speak confidentally about because they were beyond our experience and understanding - they were off in the noumenal realm. Therefore it could end up being as logical to believe one thing or its opposite. For example atheism or theism, free will or determinism.

How Kantian am I when it comes to understanding biblical information? How often do I say: "What was the purpose of this bit of Scripture? I don't want to know anything unless it has practical application. Otherwise it is purely speculative and vain theorising." This is a pretty common evangelical argument (seen right back in Augustine and Calvin).

Can this reasoning go too far? Can it end up practically denying the significance and reality of the things the Bible tells us and become purely concerned with the speech acts of the Bible?

11. One motive for wanting to grow in theology is the desire to think God's thoughts after him. This is a wonderful thing when it is done in humility and faith. But without brokennes and dependence on grace, it is another form of legalism/mysticism/hubris.
Maybe this explains why unconverted people can be so obsessed with theology. They hunger for the sublime experience of thinking god-like thoughts.

12. As an MTS trainer I have resolved to meet at least quarterly in a 'formal' way with the wives/husbands of my MTS apprentices. Part of this should be to provide some training to them for preparing to go into ministry. But also it is an opportunity for them to hear straight from me how their husband/wife is going, what they are achieving, what my hopes and fears are.
It's pretty hard for them to only hear stuff from their husband/wife. It distances them from the apprenticeship. It puts the person doing the apprenticeship in a tought situation too.

13. Almost my entire Chrsitian life I've said stuff like,

-God is sovereign, but I don't mean 'let go and let God'

Then I stopped and wondered what exactly what 'let go and let God' meant. What does it mean? And do I actually disagree with it?

I think I actually do believe in let go and let God.

It's just that I am not a dualist. I believe that God has chosen to speak to me in the Bible. And that God calls on me to do certain things as I am able.

But my mindset is still very much 'let go and let God'. I don't do them, God is working in me to do them. I should exist and act always with that awareness and dependence.

The sovereignty of God is not just a doctrine I wheel out to comfort me when I am discouraged. It is not just a theological idea that I defend, but in day-to-day life I act as if I were 100% repsonsible. It should affect they way I think and feel and act in my Christian life all the time.

14. Words I don't like (for aesthetic or theological reasons) and my alternatives:

-I am not part of a 'missional' church but a 'missionary' church
-I am not into 'incarnational' ministry but 'crucifixional' ministry
-I am not part of an 'emerging' church but a 'reforming' church

(Cont'd from previous)

Option C: The 'Post-Christendom model' (briong the church into the marketplace. Don't put the focus on the public meeting)

PROS
-Maximum time is spent on missionary activity and community
-Whole nature of the church is built around Christian lifestyle, rather than meetings and programs
-Can fly under the radar of church tourists
-The mission field can shape the forms church takes, rather than forcing converts to adjust to church forms.

CONS
-It is a very slow process
-There are very few existing maps or models. Maybe there can't be, because it differs so much according to the situation.
-It's hard to get a team that's really on-side.
-It's hard to cater for young families.

KEY
-Be a very good team player
-Have a strong missiology: know how to translate the gospel and church into the culture you are in.
-Be mindful of ways that you can bless the culture you are trying to reach.

(Cont'd from previous)

Option B: Put a missionary edge on a conventional church (create ministries in you existing church that especially cater for non-Christians you could be in contact with)

PROS
-You can use existing structures
-It's not hard for the existing church members to understand what you are trying to do

CONS
-You may get lots of people in the door, but there may be no actual evangelism going on
-The cultural divide between coming along to the evangelistic ministry and actually joining the wider church can become difficult to cross.

KEY
-Must find a way for this missionary edge to 'be good news' to the people in the area. You must reach out to their felt needs, not just their theological needs.

(2B Con'td)

(Cont'd from previous)

2. The content:

Option A: Planting an alternate public worship service (start a church that does church a little different to the existing churches in the area)

PROS
-It's relatively known territory
-It's easy to recruit peope (all the people who are negative about the existing churches/ways of doing church)
-You can generally get pretty quick results (at least at first)

CONS
-The church gathered its people because it was a new thing getting started. It has no intrinsic 'missionary edge' of its own.
-The vast mjaority of people attracted by this model tend to be Christians who either move into the area, transfer from existing churches or haven't been going to church for a long time
-There is no high 'felt need' for the average non-Christian to want to come to church - alternative-style or not
-It can tend to cater for Christian who have 'commitment issues'. Often these Christians just cycle through
-It takes a lot of energy to do this well (and you've really gotta do it well - see below). About 20 people are required to run a good public meeting. And they generally can't be the same twenty people every week, so you need 60-80 to sustain the rosters required.
-Even given a large core group, not all of the church will regularly committ to these rosters. As a result, the danger is for a committed core to wear out rather quickly. Not to mention there energy is being distracted from evangelism, community and so on.

KEY
-Have a comprehensive ministry model ('discipleship plan'). There are roughly 7 developmental stages we go through as we move from unchurched non-Chrsitian to active and commited mature Christian. We need to really think through how we are going to serve people well at each of these stages.
-You need a big team to start with. It is very hard to start with a team of 20 and grow beyond 50 peopel in size. The tendency is to reach roughly 50 members, and then to gradually decline again, partly due to the pressure mentioned in the 'CONS's above.
-Start in a good location. For example, regional areas will often respond well to this model, as they are keen to join in on community life events.
-Make the public meeting very very very user-friendly.

(2B Cont'd)

I went to this conference about 'mission'. One of the speakers I felt was a little smug, oversimplified things and demonised those he disagreed with.

Another speaker was quite impressive. In particular, his session on approaches to doing evangelism from the 1990s-today. Both the form and the content:

1. The form: He did the good ol' give three options with their pros and cons, the third option being the best.

Often in these cases the person *says* that all three options are valid and so on. But in practice they convey the impression that the first two options are really a waste of time.

By contrast, this speaker not only gave the pros and cons of the first two options and moved on to the next thing. He also told us,

- If you are going to go with this mode, here's how to do it best.

This demonstrated that he really did consider all three options as valid alternatives. So much so that he had thought through how to do each of them in the best way. And so much so that he would 'weaken' his argument in favour of the third option, by helping us do the 'inferior' models better.

Of course, in the end I felt more inclined to hear him out on the third ('incarnational'/'post-christendom') model because of the effort he had gone to.

(2BCont'd)

1. A nice *style* of discussion question. Particularly for teenagers (who tend to thrive on discussion questions) and particularly if you happened to find an image that related to what you were up to (eg on a rafting camp): "If the Christian life/life in general were a river where would you be?" It's good because it can just be re-interpreted anyway you want to. It therefore becomes a great means to get to know someone else.



2. I think I had always assumed that the Christian application of Isaiah 40's 'your sins have been paid for' would be 'paid for on the cross by Christ'. But actually, it's more 'the *time* of your punishment has drawn to a close, so now God will consider how he will save you. So the application is not to Mark 10:45 so much as Mark 1:14-15.
   



3. I understand that 'hope' and 'wait' are expressed by the same word in Hebrews. That's quite good, I think, as 'wait' doesn't carry with it the uncertainty that 'hope' does in English.



4. A conference speaker recently suggested that we are 'part of community perhaps before we are individuals in our own right'. Could this reflection help us integrate people church life? Rather than first of all worrying and focusing too much on helping them find their feet in their own right, can we somehow help them come to realise their membership in the community? Aspects of what it means to wait on the Lord that this speaker suggested were: 1. Be ready to obey when asked 2. Be able to relax until asked 3. Be expecting to be asked



5. I think a nifty contrast is between a servant leader, that we are called to be, and a 'martyr leader' that we often adopt... thinking the two are one and the same.



6. J. Moltmann says a society of pleasure and achievement makes pain and death private affairs



7. Have I made the Bible only an object for study and investigation and not an object of devotion? This can be one of the difficulties with making acutal Bible reading a part of close relationships: husband and wfie, close mates. The general tenor or whole conversations may be biblical. But the lack of actually reading the Bible with those closest to you can be discouraging for many. But whenever we try, it seems to shipwreck on being half-Bible study, half-inane reflections. So I suggest re-installing the Bible to its role as a devotional book. The key then is to read it at natural, ritualistic points - before saying grace, at the start of a meeting - and jsut read a section, with brief reflection or without comment at all. I think this is a way to bring Bible reading more comfrotably, naturally and centrally into our intimate relationships.



8. When you face key problems, or wanna address misunderstandings or focus on new issues, as a leader, what should you do? Well as obvious as it sounds, you should deal with them by using your Vision, Mission, Strategy and Goals documents. I know this in theory. I am only now realising how many stresses and problems have been caused because I often don't do this in practice. And so instead of using these problems/issues as an opportunity to re-cast the vision etc, I fit them in a separate category: problem solving.



9. When, if ever, should a Christian leader appeal to commitment, keep track of commitment and call people to account on the basis of commitment? Should we keep it as a last resort? Should it only be reserved for high level official leadership roles? Should we use it all the time since it is a natural way to motivate people?



10. Reading Leunig's pantheistic prayer book, I got to thinking that a simple way that we can express our image of God responsibility is to make sure we as individuals and churches regulalry prayer for the environment, endangered species etc. This would also help to show to others that we don't say we care about the environment only when people accuse the Bible of modern ecological exploitation.