Also in the same book, Kyle writes:

Most evangelisals believed that social reform would grow naturally from the behaviour of converted individuals. Employing revivalism, however, to convert individuals who, in turn, would then reform society had its limitations. By the 1830s, "the dream of a moral Christian society, transformed outwardly by the voluntary efforts of inwardly converted people, began to collapse," writes Mark Noll. Two failures - the treatment of the Cherokee Indians and slavery - contributed to the demise of this individualized approach to social problems.

Both my posts are based around quotes from Mark Noll. So perhaps I should've read his book instead?

My friend Joe Towns lent me a book called Evangelicalism:An Americanized Christianity by Richard Kyle. It was a good quick read. He quoted Mark Noll, in trying to define the nature of evangelicalism, especially as it relates to politics, is that it's marked by:

• moral activism
  
• populism
• intuition
• biblicism

It's hard to get a congregation of people who are not great at singing into the frame of mind to sing. Sometimes a little meditation or introduction can help, to signal the change of gears and to establish the song leader as someone to trust and follow during the singing. It is important that this doesn't degenerate into rambly, meaningless waffle.

Another option that I just thought of today was a long musical introduction to the first song. This gives time to shift into a more musical, emotional frame of mind.

David Allen says something about only putting in the calendar those things that absolutely have to get done on a certain day and perhaps information relevant to those particular days.

For all other 'urgent' and 'importnat' tasks, the 'mind like water' theory of GTD, as I understand it, presupposes that we are able to use our unburdened minds to make good decisions about what work to do at any particular time. It is worth mentioning that the weekly review is a regular time that ensures that our mind is like water and that we have made the right decisions about what tasks to do when.

Maybe I have not been ruthless enough in putting things on my TODO list. Maybe over time I will learn to let more things slip through to the Someday/Maybe list and so my mind will be more watery about TODOs. But in the meantime, I find that I do need to set personal deadlines for some actions and projects or else I'll never do them. I do this for three reasons:

1. Some things I never will do, no matter how much like water my mind is because I really really don't want to do them. I have to schedule them in or else I'll never do them.
   
2. Some things have no specific deadline but they reach a point of staleness or redundancy. I need to make a call about the 'point of no return' for certain actions and make deadlines for them accordingly.
3. The whole process of decision-making about some actions needs to take place in hours or days rather than weeks. If I relied on my weekly review to reassess which tasks need doing, it'd be too late.
   

Just today a guy who rasies his own support for ministry asked me:

Hi Mate,
As you know I have to visit churches... and i need to always have this as a kinda 'to do' but its ugly in my projects list... coz its never ending... where would you put such a project? is it a checklist? i.e. i put the churches on the check list and revise it from time to time?

My answer is that this is not really a "project" but an "area of responsibility". This area of responsibility then regularly spawns projects, like killer aliens spawn little facehugger crab things.

Mentoring someone or working on your Hebrew would also fit in this category.

I really like the thoughtfulness and care with which Phillip Jensen reflects on the whole censorship fiasco back in May.

By the way, this 'From the Dean' functions just like a little blog. Having access to this kind of article by someone like Phillip Jensen is an amazing thing. Whatever other blog trash (like mine) you might subscribe to, surely this is worth it.

I gotta preach on Jesus comback to the accusation that he drives out demons by the power of the devil. He says if that happened, Satan's kingdom would collapse. I wonder: but why doesn't he fake it? He can come masquerading as an angel of light, he can do counterfeit miracles... why can't he exorcise? Or at least why can't the demons jump out of their host, pretending to be in anguish?

(Moreover, this whole discussion assumes a simple two-fold spiritual realm: God and Satan. What about a more polytheistic world? Lots of little warlord city-states of demons? Satan could drive out lesser demons with lesser kingdoms...)

I'm thinking. And I'm wondering: exorcism must be a necessarily more violent and harsh event for the demon than I thought previously. It's not something you can do for the sake of guerilla tactics. It's not something that can be faked. Hmm.

I like it that Dougals Moo's website has both photography and biblical studies, it gives me peace in my soul.

At one wedding I was at recently, all the groomsmen gave a knee-jerk Christian bit in their speeches. It was a little bit sloppy and I heard a few sniggers at my table from slightly drunk people who noticed the change of pace in the speeches.

In another wedding I was at recently, the Christian preacher didn't give an explicity gospel presentation or appeal at all, as far as I could hear. The sermon was well composed and delivered and came in the context of a marriage service drenched in biblical, gospel-shaped prayers and preambles.

I think both approaches have their own sort of class, I don't favour one over the other. Besides, the groomsmen will get less sloppy in their devliery with time. For me personally, I would like to knee-jerk to the gospel a little more frequently. I like the openness and eagerness that leads someone to grind from fourth gear down to second in order to talk about Jesus...

"That denominational meeting was impacting."

 

I want you to use Google Reader or something similar so that you will read my blog more regularly. I'm assuming you've already gotten a gmail account. Get that first.

Why use Google Reader? It's a one-stop blog reading machine. You tell it what blogs you want to subscribe to, then whenever any of these blogs are updated it just publishes them in the one spot for you. Try it. You'll like it.

... when J. I. Packer won't even endorse it. Here's a compilation of J. I. Packer endorsements.

1. Focus on residential colleges. This should not be a fringe thing, but a central thing.
   
2. First-year contacts is exhausting. What's the point? Mobilising and motivating the Christians? Ok, good. Raising brand awareness? Fine. Contacting people? Well maybe that'd be quicker and more efficient if the same amount of energy by going to churches and doing the same thing there instead?
3. Talk fast, honest, slightly naughty and a little bit more complicated than everyone can follow.
4. Work hard to enrich campus life, perhaps, especially as it is dying. Don't see being on the Student Union as a necessary bureaucracy.
5. Get evangelists and leaders, not just any Christian you can find.
   

I'm pretty sure this almost always annoys me. 'Doing life together', 'doing community', 'doing justice'. I think I like 'doing church' but I don't know why; maybe I shouldn't.

Ethics is not just abortion and euthanasia and just war theory. Ethics is living and thinking the good life. It is a really good way in to sharing the gospel. I wrote an introduction to Christianity built around ethical questions, that I haven't looked at for some time, but I remember being good.

The assumption is that some people don't want to know what you believe as a Christian, they may want to walk in your worldview... but they are interested in just thinking about how to live well. This is a good way in.

Jolly and I are are planning to preach about a bunch of ethical topics at Tuesday Crossroads starting in July. We are trying to nail down the topics and come up with snazzy titles, perhaps with a bit of an advertising slogan/adjamming sort of spin. Can you help?

Selfimage (including being a part of a subculture too)
Success
Drugs/alcohol
Romance
Technology (including control, power and self-discipline)
Materialism
Good deeds
Sex

It can be really helpful to show the inconsistencies in someone's worldview. This can be a cool apologetics strategy, because Christianity may provide a better explanation for the world around us and the beliefs we hold.

But I find it really tiresome when Christians spend too much time pointing out instance after instance after instance of the intellectual inconsistentices in secular humanism. It begins to sound smug pretty quickly and it loses its freshness and force. Often the original goal is lost and it becomes a game of philosophical sledging, rather than true apologetics.

Worse still is when Christians assume it is really clever to point out any inconsistency in another person's point of view, as if this is pointing out some trace elements of secular humanism. Could it possibly be that all human reasoning is bound to have its inconsistencies? Do they have to be evidence of some fundamental worldview disaster?

It seems like a healthy thing to do to have 'sister churches' around the country or even around the world. I'm trying to think about meaningful ways to express this partnership. It would be easy for such a thing to become a gimmick and also to become time consuming. What would actually be productive, rather than just another good idea among many?

Also, how might one 'movement' or 'network' have meaningful partnership with another? On this level, it would be easy for the partnership to be symbolic or bureaucratic, rather than meaningful. It is hard to figure out how to make it all work well.

I find this expression very patronising and tacky.

This is how The WhiteBoard Sessions describe themselves:

The Whiteboard Sessions is about the power of an idea in its raw, most conceptual form. One simple idea could forever change your life and ministry. We’ve invited 8 of the most inspiring leaders in ministry to share one compelling idea in just 30 minutes each. They come from different ministry circles and use a variety of methods, but they all have one thing in common: a love for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and a desire to see lost people reached. You will be stretched by their thinking and challenged by their insights. The very idea you resist could be the key to God’s future for you. Who knows, you might even find confirmation for the dream God’s already revealed to you. But whatever the reaction, one thing is certain: you will never be the same.

Get it free here.

You know, I'm just not convinced. I feel in my heart that it's hard for organisational leaders to take control of what is fundamentally a grass-roots technology. It's the same reason I think that organisationally-driven blogs don't seem to work.

I don't know though. I've ummed and aahed about resubscribing to Facebook. I don't like chitchatting on Facebook. But it is kinda sad when I miss out on someone's birthday party cause they only advertised it on Facebook.

What do you think? Should I return to the Island?