We can learn by taking a step back and observing some patterns. They can inform us for the future, and hopefully help others. One of the patterns we have seen concerns significant new outreach initiatives.
Good ideas are not necessarily that hard to come by - but waiting on God to see if they are God ideas, and the timing He has for them, is more of an art than a science. Yet in each case some clear phases can be identified.
The first, stemming from a good idea and a desire to pursue it, is the Pray and Research phase. Of course prayer factors all the way through, but there comes a point where you have to gather data, know-how, visit others doing something similar and so on. It helps build a picture of how the idea may become reality, and confidence grows as various 'how would we do that?' questions get at least attempted answers.
The second phase is the Pray and Wait. Eventually enough data is gathered, but God has not given the 'go ahead' yet. The waiting time is indefinite, i.e. as long as it takes! This is where the most spiritual depth is required, because of course any 'keenies' will want to press ahead but rushing will not bring achievement. Learn to 'sit light' with the whole idea - maybe this is not the God idea for your community after all! If it isn't, better to let the Spirit gradually erode it away than force it. Assuming the idea and desire endure, then keep praying ...
The third phase is the sense that it is now 'Green Light'. It may well be through an earthly 'compelling event' that the green light comes - but it will become obvious because God will give it a natural momentum. That which God commissions quickly feels like a freight train - it is not going to stopped easily! There may be rapid growth or just the simple ability to keep going, perhaps against the odds. In either case, of course keep praying!
Of course the third phase generates alot of activity and things can happen quickly ... but don't let yourself become so busy that you are unable to step back a bit, reflect, and start to observe the patterns. Maybe you too will conclude that along the way there have been discernible phases not unlike the above.
Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Tuesday, 20 November 2018
Military Language, War and the Gospel
As our 100-year anniversary of the armistice at the end of world war one recedes, and our remembrance activities give way again to everyday activities, it is worthwhile reflecting on the categories of war and war related terminology used in the Christian faith.
People take part in acts of remembrance for many reasons - honouring the endeavours and personal sacrifices made by those in generations before us is one. Ensuring that as a society we remember the harsh reality of physical war and hope that it serves as a lesson to us and our descendants is another. Neither of these is hard-set against the gospel message, though in the light of the gospel hard questions about war naturally arise.
Yet Paul used military-like terminology, claiming we are in a spiritual battle (2 Corinthians 10 verses 3 to 5). He talked of weaponry and armour (Ephesians 6). Yet it is also clear that Paul saw this very much as a spiritual struggle and in no way advocated anything remotely close to the physical (and military) struggles that the people of his own heritage had undertaken (characterised chiefly by the book of Joshua).
Paul experienced push-back and opposition. He saw this in spiritual terms and was not reluctant to describe these in terms of dark forces (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 2 verse 18).
We see that Paul wanted advance - but it was gospel advance, not human-force or human-power advance. Yes he wanted to be persuasive and compelling ... but all in the spiritual sense targetting heart, mind and spirit. This means ultimately the advances would be advances of God loving people - demonstrating Kingdom which would mean setting people free rather than any coerced compliance.
So whilst in society we might rightly remember those fallen in conflicts, and whilst we might usefully use (like Paul) military metaphor or imagery to help awaken us to the importance (and difficulty) of the spiritual task before us, we must not confuse war as generally understood by society with the gospel.
Recently a friend posted this quote by Spurgeon, writing in Victorian times (therefore before the great wars, yet still in a period of various military campaigns and expression of military might):
'The great crime of war can never promote the religion of peace. The battle, and the garment rolled in blood, are not a fitting prelude to 'peace on earth, goodwill to men'. And I do firmly hold, that the slaughter of men, that bayonets, and swords, and guns, have never yet been, and never can be, promoters of the gospel. The gospel will proceed without them, but never through them. "Not by might." Now don't be fooled again, if you hear of the English conquering in China, don't go down on your knees and thank God for it, and say it's such a heavenly thing for the spread of the gospel – it just is not.' (C.H. Spurgeon, in a sermon preached 1857, during the Indian Mutiny.) h.t. Mark Woods
This captures it well for me. Some may believe that physical war or military action becomes necessary in some circumstances (people will differ on this point). Yet as Christ-followers we cannot believe that it will ever rightly bring the gospel of peace.
People take part in acts of remembrance for many reasons - honouring the endeavours and personal sacrifices made by those in generations before us is one. Ensuring that as a society we remember the harsh reality of physical war and hope that it serves as a lesson to us and our descendants is another. Neither of these is hard-set against the gospel message, though in the light of the gospel hard questions about war naturally arise.
Yet Paul used military-like terminology, claiming we are in a spiritual battle (2 Corinthians 10 verses 3 to 5). He talked of weaponry and armour (Ephesians 6). Yet it is also clear that Paul saw this very much as a spiritual struggle and in no way advocated anything remotely close to the physical (and military) struggles that the people of his own heritage had undertaken (characterised chiefly by the book of Joshua).
Paul experienced push-back and opposition. He saw this in spiritual terms and was not reluctant to describe these in terms of dark forces (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 2 verse 18).
We see that Paul wanted advance - but it was gospel advance, not human-force or human-power advance. Yes he wanted to be persuasive and compelling ... but all in the spiritual sense targetting heart, mind and spirit. This means ultimately the advances would be advances of God loving people - demonstrating Kingdom which would mean setting people free rather than any coerced compliance.
So whilst in society we might rightly remember those fallen in conflicts, and whilst we might usefully use (like Paul) military metaphor or imagery to help awaken us to the importance (and difficulty) of the spiritual task before us, we must not confuse war as generally understood by society with the gospel.
Recently a friend posted this quote by Spurgeon, writing in Victorian times (therefore before the great wars, yet still in a period of various military campaigns and expression of military might):
'The great crime of war can never promote the religion of peace. The battle, and the garment rolled in blood, are not a fitting prelude to 'peace on earth, goodwill to men'. And I do firmly hold, that the slaughter of men, that bayonets, and swords, and guns, have never yet been, and never can be, promoters of the gospel. The gospel will proceed without them, but never through them. "Not by might." Now don't be fooled again, if you hear of the English conquering in China, don't go down on your knees and thank God for it, and say it's such a heavenly thing for the spread of the gospel – it just is not.' (C.H. Spurgeon, in a sermon preached 1857, during the Indian Mutiny.) h.t. Mark Woods
This captures it well for me. Some may believe that physical war or military action becomes necessary in some circumstances (people will differ on this point). Yet as Christ-followers we cannot believe that it will ever rightly bring the gospel of peace.
Wednesday, 14 November 2018
Cultural Translation
One of the questions that we must keep returning to is this: 'What words and images can we use to effectively communicate the message of Jesus, the cross and the resurrection to today's people?'. Given that culture, language and its idioms constantly change, are we updating ourselves adequately to continue reaching people?
Note that this is not about re-thinking the theology of the cross, about abandoning previous understandings or thirsting for new models of the atonement. It is ensuring that we use words, expressions and forms that speak into people's own worldviews in ways that they can understand, so that their eyes are lifted God-ward in Christ. We don't want our message of the cross to effectively be like Japanese to the English speakers of today or tomorrow!
Thankfully we do not necessarily have to be deeply studied theologians to assist this task - we just need the Spirit to be at work and to take notice. I read yesterday that a young person had had their attention caught by Christ and wrote this to Christian leaders by way of their own thankyou: ".. Jesus was put on the cross for us so we don't have to put the blade to our own skin ...".
Brilliant - straight to the point and right there in the vernacular of current youth culture.
One sad characteristic of current youth culture is surely the number (near epidemic proportions?) of people self-harming, somehow caught up in a belief that harming (typically cutting) oneself will cover mistakes, or feeling of 'bad inside', or senses of loneliness or emptiness - as if the cut(s) will somehow atone for and remove them. Of course, as each person discovers, it is a fleeting feeling and only hours or days later proves to be a hollow relief - those negative feelings return all too quickly.
Somehow in our 'enlightened society' something (spiritual?) has convinced people to turn on themselves. In religious terms it is no better than the primitive behaviour of the prophets of Baal who slashed themselves (see 1 Kings 18) to invoke or please their (false) god.
Yet this young person has realised all this is false and because of Christ is unnecessary. Whatever may make us think we have to turn on ourselves is wrong ... because Jesus has suffered enough already, in our place. Our mistakes: dealt with by Him; our 'bad inside': probably quite real, but in any case dealt with by Him; our loneliness and emptiness: met by Him who has suffered to take and resolve it all.
We do not have to be cut ... because He has been cut for us. No more need for our own blades.
Note that this is not about re-thinking the theology of the cross, about abandoning previous understandings or thirsting for new models of the atonement. It is ensuring that we use words, expressions and forms that speak into people's own worldviews in ways that they can understand, so that their eyes are lifted God-ward in Christ. We don't want our message of the cross to effectively be like Japanese to the English speakers of today or tomorrow!
Thankfully we do not necessarily have to be deeply studied theologians to assist this task - we just need the Spirit to be at work and to take notice. I read yesterday that a young person had had their attention caught by Christ and wrote this to Christian leaders by way of their own thankyou: ".. Jesus was put on the cross for us so we don't have to put the blade to our own skin ...".
Brilliant - straight to the point and right there in the vernacular of current youth culture.
One sad characteristic of current youth culture is surely the number (near epidemic proportions?) of people self-harming, somehow caught up in a belief that harming (typically cutting) oneself will cover mistakes, or feeling of 'bad inside', or senses of loneliness or emptiness - as if the cut(s) will somehow atone for and remove them. Of course, as each person discovers, it is a fleeting feeling and only hours or days later proves to be a hollow relief - those negative feelings return all too quickly.
Somehow in our 'enlightened society' something (spiritual?) has convinced people to turn on themselves. In religious terms it is no better than the primitive behaviour of the prophets of Baal who slashed themselves (see 1 Kings 18) to invoke or please their (false) god.
Yet this young person has realised all this is false and because of Christ is unnecessary. Whatever may make us think we have to turn on ourselves is wrong ... because Jesus has suffered enough already, in our place. Our mistakes: dealt with by Him; our 'bad inside': probably quite real, but in any case dealt with by Him; our loneliness and emptiness: met by Him who has suffered to take and resolve it all.
We do not have to be cut ... because He has been cut for us. No more need for our own blades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
