A Dawkins discussion

From Professor Ross McKenzie's blog, this post has a helpful link:

The God Delusion Debate

Existential dilemmas

Click image for a readable size.

What do you do?

From here.

Things God taught me through Mike Raiter: Doing good is not in vain if no-one becomes a Christian

Aiming to bless people is a perfectly legitimate aim, and I can enjoy the doing of it and take great pleasure in having done the Father's will and having done a good job at it, all whether or not someone becomes a Christian because of it. This is reflected in all of Matthew 25, but particularly in the parable of the sheep and the goats. (Jesus takes how we treat his brothers personally (Thanks David Cook for the phrase)).)

How cool is our God? He's the one who does the saving, and yet by no means does the worker lose his reward. He's the God who saves us with no desert on our part, and yet the God who will give to each as he deserves, and there is no partiality.

Things God taught me through Mike Raiter: Judgement Day Integrity

I ought to live each minute of each day in such a way that if God came back in an hour, I'd be able to give an account to God for my actions. For such an accounting will be asked.

A new distinction

After being asked "What did you learn on the weekend?", I've decided that I don't like the phrase for some reason. In my head, it implies that I did not know the piece of information prior to the weekend, but I may want to share something that God had hit me with during that time that I already knew intellectually. I don't think 'reminded of' is strong enough either. It doesn't capture that thing that God does when he instructs you by His powerful marrow-dividing Word.

Hence, my new question to ask people.

"What were you taught?"

Perhaps I'll refine or come up with a better phrase soon. Maybe,

"What did God teach you?"

which is more personal, and I've used plenty of times before, but for some reason at the moment I like the first one. I'm trying to work out why, as I think it's actually inferior, when objectively looking at it. Perhaps it's the sound of 'being taught' that has the right connotations in my head.

Preaching evaluation

I'm just wondering whether my new criterion for evaluating my preaching is a good one. It's one that only the preacher can apply to his/herself. Thoughts from the floor?

In reading this post on Izaac's blog, it made me realise something of what I was mentally doing when I preached my last sermon. I let go the whole exegesis process, and found myself only evaluating the content and delivery of the sermon. My new criterion was this:

How well did that sermon match up to what I know I could have preached?

Musings/reasonings:

I'm the only one who knows what God's word did to me when I was studying it. No-one else experienced that hard work, that wrestling with the Scriptures and that particular wielding of the Word by Holy Spirit. So really, no-one else knows what it is that I could have said. Or how I could have said it. The power with which I could have genuinely spoken those words is known to none, but myself. (And our sovereign God, of course!) The results of my exegesis determine the max quality of the talk that I can give, so how close to that max did I get?

Tired out and stirred up

Well, we're back. It was the most intense weekend I've had for a very long time. I essentially didn't stop from the time we got there on Friday morning to the time we left Sunday evening.*

I think the weekend was a success. There was a great vibe around the place, and people both had a lot of fun and also were massively challenged by the Scriptures. It was really great to read the txt messages that came in and see how young people were wrestling with the difficulties that God's word was putting their framework under.

There is definitely room for improvement, though. I really think that 2011 can be even better, and with Al Stewart preaching the start's already been made.

More thoughts to come.

*Not entirely true. I did formally resign from the committee for a period of 10 minutes to go for a swim on Sunday afternoon.

Just to explain

In my last post, I mentioned that refusing to allow pragmatics to rule our thinking ought to overflow into many areas of life, and then simply gave a link to my post on honesty and lies. This could have been confusing, sorry.

The link is, that so many times I hear people talking about lying where the reason is supposedly for someone else's benefit. It puts a loving and sensitive face on deceit. Ultimately, however, it is the pragmatic decision that the consequences of telling a lie are perceived as more beneficial than the consequences of telling the truth. It is pragmatism over godliness. It is telling God that you know better how to deal with this situation than he does. It is telling God that he's wrong and can get stuffed. It is sin.

Please do not do it.

God loves you very much and tells you how to live rightly because he's (a) right and (b) knows what is best for you. It is always most beneficial to obey God, even when it doesn't look like it. There is a utility in godliness.

When we act out of our own view of what is most beneficial for us and this is contrary to God's instructions we grossly overestimate our ability to foresee the consequences of our actions.

Instead of lying to get out of awkward situations, and developing the habit of avoiding awkwardness, simply get used to being absolutely and completely truthful. How can people trust you if you don't?

Is the tension funny-strange or funny-haha?

Following on from this post, I thought I'd give some of my somewhat more considered thoughts now, and finish with a reference to a fantastic blog post elsewhere that you should all read.

The big question that I posed was : "What credit ought we to give to the practical wisdom and strategy of a ministry when evaluating its success?"

Or, perhaps a better way to think of the same issue and one which makes the answer easier: "Should the success of a particular ministry, even if cast in terms of numbers of converts, convince us that the methods used by that organisation were (a) strategically and practically wise and (b) godly and true."

And the answer must be no. There is no guarantee in Scripture about which ministries God will choose to work in. If anything, there seems to be a tendency for God to work through those who are weak and fallible over those who are strong and able. (Though I actually don't think we should make much (if anything) of this principle in application to our current question.)

In evaluation of the methods involved, I currently reckon that we ought not to evaluate the success of the method, but its fidelity to Scripture, application of wisdom and its capturing of something of the heart and mind of God. Of course something that God has chosen to bless may well draw our attention to it and lead us to examine its methods, but the success itself isn't the determiner.

This is because it is not people or human wisdom that changes hearts, but Holy Spirit wielding the Word of God regarding Christ. Theologically I cannot come up with a reason for a positive answer to the question posed. Have I missed something?

If not, then I think there are many consequences for how we go about our daily lives, and every habit that we have. Including for this post.

Finally, a couple of quotes from Carl Trueman's blog post. Muy bueno.

[N]ot reveling in smallness and irrelevance does not require that I necessarily regard increasing numerical and financial size as accurate gauges of fidelity and truth.

Much has rightly been made by Reformed people of the problem of an understanding of Christianity that is driven by pragmatism as exemplified by the Joel Osteen `be a Christian and be a better you' mentality; much criticism has also been lodged against the church growth movement because of its tendency (in the words of an old song) to find out what they like, and how they like it, and let them have it just that way. But the dangerous thing about pragmatism is that it does not necessarily reject the truth; it merely renders it subordinate to the desired end. To be precise, pragmatism evaluates means in terms of impact and results; and the implication of this is that even means that are intrinsically true can still be co-opted by pragmatism simply because they seem to be achieving the desired results at some particular point in time.

The truth matters

Never tell a lie. Especially not to 'make someone feel better'.

A dreadful poison. Yet, when I talk to Christians I commonly hear them saying that it's fine.

Is this* not enough? Seriously people.

*Ignore list items 1 and 3.

It is good to remember

That you need to connect with someone personally before offering any thoughts on their life.

I learned in an IT lecture, of all places, that listening requires 4 things. I've now re-badged this into my little 'love is spelled LAER' spiel.

To love someone, firstly you must simply Listen to them. You have to genuinely be hearing what they're saying, how they're saying it and trying to understand them, not a preconceived idea about who they are.

Secondly, you must Acknowledge them. "I hear you." or "I can see where you're coming from." Without this step, the person may not realise that you've done the first, and may not feel that you think their thoughts are worthwhile listening to. That you value them as a person enough to hear what they have to say.

Next, and only after L and A, you should Explore what they've said, and its affect on them. "Wow, how did that feel for you?" or "What's got you to this point?" or perhaps as things go on, "Where does all the emotion that's driving these feelings in you really stem from?" There's plenty of reasons for this step. If you respond before truly understanding the issue, you'll screw it up. Even if your false understanding of the issue is the one they want you to have. Truth matters, and it's vital to make sure you've got it before addressing anything.

Lastly, and only ever after L, A and E, you can Respond. (This step may not necessarily be appropriate on every occasion. Certainly, if you haven't got connection(short-hand for pathos, trust, empathy, that sort of thing) after L, A and E then definitely don't start making calls about their life!) This response, if administered, ought be a carefully balanced serving of both Truth and Love, in proportion to the level of trust present.

In evangelism, apologetics, counselling or even catching up with a friend, LAER isn't a bad way to spell LOVE.

Agree? Disagree?

My new band

Quite independently of Nathan who has sung their praises here, Mumford and Sons have now become my new band.(I do suspect, however, that those who introduced me to them may have also introduced them to Nathan) It has taken a while of listening and re-listening to make sure that they'd last the distance, but I've pretty much fallen in love with Mumford and Sons. A bit of a man-crush, as it were.

Here's the most 'singly' of their songs, but the rest of the album absolutely deserves every bit as much of a listen. Enjoy.

Ps. Yes, Nathan posted this video ages ago. I don't care. I liked it back then too, and I couldn't give a rat's about what blogiquette I'm breaking.

How good are older brothers?

I've just come back from catching up with a wise and perceptive older Christian brother. It was really helpful.

How good is:

• being known
• hearing wisdom from someone with perspective on you
• being encouraged not to be scared of yourself and who you are
• hearing an external perspective of who you are

In God's timing, these things can make all the difference.

A funny tension

How much should we value success in choosing models for our ministry?

If Mark Driscoll has fantastic success in his ministry, ought we to learn from how he has done things in order to better honour God in our own ministry?

There are actually 2 issues, only one of which I am interested in.

The first is that a person's methods may only work for the particular context in which they are involved. So the particular methods which Kent Hughes uses may well not be directly transferable to my context. What must be mined instead is the principle that lies behind the method, which can then find its natural expression in your own context.

I'm really more interested in a second issue, however. How can we be sure that it was the principle behind the methods that was actually the reason for the success? Isn't every heart changed only by God? Aren't we all simply planters and waterers?

So the big question is: What credit ought we to give to the practical wisdom and strategy of a ministry when evaluating its success? Or instead ought we to see only God's sovereign (and unsearchable) decision to bless a particular ministry?

The question then becomes, does God prefer, generally, to do His work through those who are strategic? Or perhaps a better term, through those who are wise.

I know there are some of the dynamics of this from Scripture that I've not mentioned, so please do bring them up in the comments. What do you reckon?

On being young

You learn things right after you need to know them.

Older people, especially those with reputations as being important people, are scary.

So when I deal with an 'important', older person they don't meet me. They meet me scared.

And on the phone is worse.

Later Edit: After you've hung up it's hard to call again and say, "Yeah, I really should have been more assertive and I'd like to ask you to clarify x and give me more info on y, and I have a perceptive comment about z that may change how you look at it."

Hanging by a thread

I'm only this time reading through realising how heavy this sentence is. It's literally a death sentence.

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Imagine the increasing tension in listening to that sentence as it was first uttered.

...

Also, something of the weight of that sentence dawned on me too. The consequences of the fall here are un-creation. The un-doing of the last 2 chapters. Not only that, but the un-making of something that is the image of God!

Everything that was set up in the last 2 chapters now seems like it's hanging by a thread. What next?

Bigger verse than I had realised before.

An interesting question to ask

From Genesis 3:

He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

What an interesting set of questions!

Firstly, why did God ask "Who told you? instead of something like "How do you know?"? (Note the correct use of question marks) The question doesn't even confirm Adam's statement that he's naked. What exactly was God anticipating in asking which person made the assertion? What is the answer to it?

Secondly, how does the first question give rise to the second? What is the necessary link between the two? If you play the imaginary mind-game that God didn't know what had happened, why is this the obvious second question after asking the first?

I'll post some thoughts in the next couple of days.

What's yellow and uncoordinated?

What do you think of the logo I did for my football team?

When I look back

No self-consoling "I did what I could" and move on.

But "I did what I did" and move forward.

The secret

How do you get godly?

How do you become a mature Christian?

How do you grow up in your faith?

Never stop submitting to Jesus as your Lord, relying on him to be sufficient where you are completely inadequate. You don't grow to become independent, you grow by learning to become more dependent.

"So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, ⁷rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness"

And now that you know your real life is found only in Jesus, never forget that! Set your mind on that new life you've got! Your appearing with Jesus in glory is dependent upon him and his resurrection, not on your talents. So make sure your mind is caught up in your new life in heaven.

"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. ²Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. ³For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. ⁴When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory."

I'm not supposed to insult people

But they're stupid.

I'm trying to look up the full version of an awesome joke I've heard, the punchline of which is a pun. Shank says to Jim, "I can really be saved?" And Jim says "Sure Shank, redemption!"

Now try typing "Sure Shank Redemption" into Google and see how many people think that's really the name of the movie...

And yes, I am just bitter that people's ignorance means I can't find my joke amongst the errors.