Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The loaf and the cup
On my work desk today there are two everyday items: a loaf of Vienna white bread and a container of rich red grape juice. I bought them from a shop as I walked to work and doubtless the ones next to them will soon be put to everyday use.
Later today this loaf and juice will be used in a college communion service that I am assigned to lead.
There they will remain bread and grape juice (no accidental substance change here!).
However, their use will change. Hopefully they will provide pre-lunch refreshment (as we use prodigal portions not puny Presbyterian ones). They will also be presented as symbols of grace.
The loaf reminding us of the body of Jesus. Real incarnate flesh with muscles and sinews and sweat dripping from his brow. (No docetic deceit here.)
The grape juice (sorry folks, no wine in Oz land) reminding us of the blood of Jesus. Real blood, rich in red blood cells, iron and such like, pumping through his heart to blood vessels, tissues and organs. (Wonder what blood group he was?)
The loaf and the juice, the body and the blood. Reminders of the grace that led the Father to send the Son to make atonement for my sins and those of the world. Symbols of the grace that saves and enables people like to reconnect to God, start recovering creational identity, escape sin’s dread hold and to live now in anticipation and hope of resurrection to eternal life.
The loaf and the cup certainly should not be idolised (and our low church order will keep us well away from that). But nor should they be despised or neglected as some are in the habit of doing.
So, as I later break the loaf and pour the cup it will be my prayer that they lift minds and hearts to eternal things as Christ is present in his sacrament by his Spirit. And then, having been thus lifted, we go back to the everyday world of bread and juice and there live worthy of the body and the blood.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Cup of coffee?
I like coffee and in fact I’m drinking a cup as I start writing this.
However, it seems that not all cups of coffee are equal.
In my early adult life instant coffee was all the rage: cheap, accessible, instant and tasty enough. Sure, there were brands that were more or less tasty (cup of International Golden Roast anyone?). However, instant coffee made its mark and was everywhere.
More and more coffee-making devices came along. When I was married in 1972 we were given a percolator that came out for special occasions (and very fancy it was too!). Then came drip-filter machines and the plunger era. More recently, fancy coffee makers have moved from cafes to homes and every dad is a barista. Old technology comes back too: my wife and I recently bought a cheap old-fashioned Italian stove-top device that makes a great cup.
The same upgrade has applied to the ingredients. Good commercial ground coffees are eschewed. We want fresh beans from the best source to process in our home grinder just before brew time.
All this is welcome and I’ll put my hand up as one who likes a decent cuppa. And again, why not pursue excellence in coffee making and enjoy the best that God’s creation offers?
However, something less welcome happened alongside the upgrades. Attitudes also changed. Its now common that instant is regarded as beneath contempt and some skip their cuppa if that’s all that is on offer. A plunger is barely acceptable and we go to great lengths and expense to get the genuine article. This sounds like a coffee snobbery and is found in surprising places. Is coffee-sophistication a new badge of Christian orthodoxy alongside having the latest book from the current guru?
Are we missing something?
What about the grace of contentment with God’s provision, even if its poor instant coffee (Phil 4:12)?
Is our disdain for poor coffee and longing for the best becoming the greed that is idolatry (Col 3:5)?
Is our search for coffee satisfaction an example of the hebel of Ecclesiastes (Eccles 2:1)?
Can we imagine a coffee snobbery in the one who had nowhere to lay his head (let along his coffee machine) and who calls us to deny self in following him (Mat 8:20; Matt 16:24)?
Do we fail to love our neighbour in poor coffee-growing lands by demanding great beans at cheap prices rather than buy through a fair trade organisation?
Hmm … maybe it’s time to brew a cuppa and think about these things.
However, it seems that not all cups of coffee are equal.
In my early adult life instant coffee was all the rage: cheap, accessible, instant and tasty enough. Sure, there were brands that were more or less tasty (cup of International Golden Roast anyone?). However, instant coffee made its mark and was everywhere.
More and more coffee-making devices came along. When I was married in 1972 we were given a percolator that came out for special occasions (and very fancy it was too!). Then came drip-filter machines and the plunger era. More recently, fancy coffee makers have moved from cafes to homes and every dad is a barista. Old technology comes back too: my wife and I recently bought a cheap old-fashioned Italian stove-top device that makes a great cup.
The same upgrade has applied to the ingredients. Good commercial ground coffees are eschewed. We want fresh beans from the best source to process in our home grinder just before brew time.
All this is welcome and I’ll put my hand up as one who likes a decent cuppa. And again, why not pursue excellence in coffee making and enjoy the best that God’s creation offers?
However, something less welcome happened alongside the upgrades. Attitudes also changed. Its now common that instant is regarded as beneath contempt and some skip their cuppa if that’s all that is on offer. A plunger is barely acceptable and we go to great lengths and expense to get the genuine article. This sounds like a coffee snobbery and is found in surprising places. Is coffee-sophistication a new badge of Christian orthodoxy alongside having the latest book from the current guru?
Are we missing something?
What about the grace of contentment with God’s provision, even if its poor instant coffee (Phil 4:12)?
Is our disdain for poor coffee and longing for the best becoming the greed that is idolatry (Col 3:5)?
Is our search for coffee satisfaction an example of the hebel of Ecclesiastes (Eccles 2:1)?
Can we imagine a coffee snobbery in the one who had nowhere to lay his head (let along his coffee machine) and who calls us to deny self in following him (Mat 8:20; Matt 16:24)?
Do we fail to love our neighbour in poor coffee-growing lands by demanding great beans at cheap prices rather than buy through a fair trade organisation?
Hmm … maybe it’s time to brew a cuppa and think about these things.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Whose interest?
Australia, like other countries, is considering how to contain its harmful impact on the physical environment.
And so the government proposes a carbon tax on heavy polluting industries and then a later emissions trading scheme.
Public discussion has started. Proponents of the tax argue point to the compensation scheme and argue that few will be worse off than at present. Opponents of the scheme argue that the general will be worse off through trickle down effects etc into the wider economy.
Consider however where the discussion is largely focused. Its on the immediate economic self-interest of the individual.
How about considering some other interests:
- Social and environmental good as well as economic;
- Longer term as well as immediate.
- Other people, and especially the vulnerable in the community.
In Christian perspective we may also consider:
- Our responsibility towards the physical creation as its God-appointed managers (not damagers) who are charged to use it and care for it (Gen 1:26-28; Gen 2:15).
- The great commands to love God and neighbour (Matt 22:37-39).
Short term, economic self-interest really is such a sub-Christian way to think about the carbon tax and many other public questions.
And so the government proposes a carbon tax on heavy polluting industries and then a later emissions trading scheme.
Public discussion has started. Proponents of the tax argue point to the compensation scheme and argue that few will be worse off than at present. Opponents of the scheme argue that the general will be worse off through trickle down effects etc into the wider economy.
Consider however where the discussion is largely focused. Its on the immediate economic self-interest of the individual.
How about considering some other interests:
- Social and environmental good as well as economic;
- Longer term as well as immediate.
- Other people, and especially the vulnerable in the community.
In Christian perspective we may also consider:
- Our responsibility towards the physical creation as its God-appointed managers (not damagers) who are charged to use it and care for it (Gen 1:26-28; Gen 2:15).
- The great commands to love God and neighbour (Matt 22:37-39).
Short term, economic self-interest really is such a sub-Christian way to think about the carbon tax and many other public questions.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Test
It is a truism that all people are tested. However, not all tests are alike.
Here are two true stories.
Wendy was happily married with a loving spouse and two children. She had good qualifications and a job where they were well used and in which prospects were good. One son was expelled from school and has persistent problems in social adjustment. Another developed a life-threatening illness that was not covered by medical insurance. Wendy’s spouse died suddenly at a young age and she was forced to move countries. Wendy could not find suitable work and ekes out a living doing a job far below her qualifications and outside her key abilities. She is financially stretched in middle adulthood. She has remarried but the new family is not yet happy.
Wendy has the test of deprivation. This is a Job-like pattern, where all was taken from her and her confidence in God was tested to the limit.
Darren had a spouse who developed cancer but recovered. After some difficulties, their adult kids are on the feet. His qualifications are mid-ranking but he gained employment above his level and in a post which gave him great significance. He lost this job but another good post came knocking at his door and he had a seamless transition. He is financially secure and could retire anytime. Darren is well liked and has a wide circle of friends and contacts.
Darren has the test of success. He is like King David who won battles, gained popularity and had women falling at his feet. His test was to stay loyal to God amidst these blessings and to walk in humble obedience before God.
Deprivation or success – which is the greater test?
Here are two true stories.
Wendy was happily married with a loving spouse and two children. She had good qualifications and a job where they were well used and in which prospects were good. One son was expelled from school and has persistent problems in social adjustment. Another developed a life-threatening illness that was not covered by medical insurance. Wendy’s spouse died suddenly at a young age and she was forced to move countries. Wendy could not find suitable work and ekes out a living doing a job far below her qualifications and outside her key abilities. She is financially stretched in middle adulthood. She has remarried but the new family is not yet happy.
Wendy has the test of deprivation. This is a Job-like pattern, where all was taken from her and her confidence in God was tested to the limit.
Darren had a spouse who developed cancer but recovered. After some difficulties, their adult kids are on the feet. His qualifications are mid-ranking but he gained employment above his level and in a post which gave him great significance. He lost this job but another good post came knocking at his door and he had a seamless transition. He is financially secure and could retire anytime. Darren is well liked and has a wide circle of friends and contacts.
Darren has the test of success. He is like King David who won battles, gained popularity and had women falling at his feet. His test was to stay loyal to God amidst these blessings and to walk in humble obedience before God.
Deprivation or success – which is the greater test?
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
GE 2011 Singapore
Singapore soon has a general election that is attracting unparalleled interest. Candidates, platforms, alternatives and rallies abound. Normally apathetic people are going to rallies and following the new media for their fresh and diverse perspectives.
How do we follow Christ in the polling booth?
The following Bible study uses the familiar rubric of creation / fall / redemption to give some starter questions on this issue. The study and questions arise from the conviction that there is not a singular Christian way to vote, but what matters is whether our motivations and reasons for voting the way we do reflect our confession of Christ as saving Lord.
CREATION
1. Where do institutions of government come from? How should that shape our attitudes and actions? (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13-17)
2. What boundaries are there to Christian submission to governments (Acts 4:19)? In what ways does that reflect the first commandment? (Exod 20:3) What does that mean in Singapore today – where should our boundaries be? Are we adept at separating our Christian and Singaporean identities?
FALL
3. What sad effects of the Fall do the following passage track with respect to politics? (Deut 17:14-20; 1 Sam 8:10-17) How do we see that playing out in local politics?
4. It is often said that the US constitution has a Biblical sense of human sinfulness in a careful separation and balancing of powers. In what ways can we help maximise this separation and balance in Singapore - given a single-chamber parliament and local political realities?
REDEMPTION
5. How should our identity as followers of Jesus shape the way we vote tomorrow? How is this different to the way others may decide how to vote?
6. How do we love both God and our neighbour in the polling booth (Matt 22:34-39)?
7. How, specifically, should we pray for politics generally and specifically for local Christians in politics (1 Tim 2:1-2)?
8. 'If Christ is not Lord over our all, he is not really our Lord at all.' Discuss the implications of this for how we vote.
How do we follow Christ in the polling booth?
The following Bible study uses the familiar rubric of creation / fall / redemption to give some starter questions on this issue. The study and questions arise from the conviction that there is not a singular Christian way to vote, but what matters is whether our motivations and reasons for voting the way we do reflect our confession of Christ as saving Lord.
CREATION
1. Where do institutions of government come from? How should that shape our attitudes and actions? (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13-17)
2. What boundaries are there to Christian submission to governments (Acts 4:19)? In what ways does that reflect the first commandment? (Exod 20:3) What does that mean in Singapore today – where should our boundaries be? Are we adept at separating our Christian and Singaporean identities?
FALL
3. What sad effects of the Fall do the following passage track with respect to politics? (Deut 17:14-20; 1 Sam 8:10-17) How do we see that playing out in local politics?
4. It is often said that the US constitution has a Biblical sense of human sinfulness in a careful separation and balancing of powers. In what ways can we help maximise this separation and balance in Singapore - given a single-chamber parliament and local political realities?
REDEMPTION
5. How should our identity as followers of Jesus shape the way we vote tomorrow? How is this different to the way others may decide how to vote?
6. How do we love both God and our neighbour in the polling booth (Matt 22:34-39)?
7. How, specifically, should we pray for politics generally and specifically for local Christians in politics (1 Tim 2:1-2)?
8. 'If Christ is not Lord over our all, he is not really our Lord at all.' Discuss the implications of this for how we vote.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
On not going to church
Hebrews 10:25 tells Christian people not to neglect the habit of meeting together in order to encourage one another in view of the Lord’s coming. The book of Acts records Christian people meeting together on resurrection day. And, most of us can speak of those many Sundays when meeting with God’s people for worship has helped us reboot, refocus and recommit to be God’s people.
In keeping with all this, it’s my habit as a pastor to encourage church going for the sake of the person themselves (to be fed and encouraged); for the sake of others (to encourage and serve them by our presence) and for the sake of unbelievers (to witness to the priority of God in our lives).
However there are times when not going to church may be appropriate.
… I think of Christian workers who are paid to go to church but then face the danger of a professional piety in which their relationship with God is subverted and subsumed by their ministry identity. Not going to church on occasions can help resurrect that personal identity in Christ.
… Likewise with Christian leaders who are always ‘on duty’ when at church and readily occupied with institutional clutter which clamours for attention and seems so important, but which shows itself to be ephemera when stepping back.
The examples could be multiplied. For example, the believer whose soul is bruised and battered by such things as conflict at church, disappointment at bad decisions, gaps between profession and practice by more senior believers etc. In these situations, going to church may compound a problem of seething anger or disappointment that is worsened by donning a mask to ‘play’ at church.
In such situations, a ‘fast’ from church may be appropriate in order to devote ourselves to the Lord in word and prayer. These can be times of remarkable spiritual refreshment as we see him face to face unmediated by churchly clutter. This, of course, should be only for a season lest we breach Scripture by losing the habit of meeting together and retreat to ourselves with the attendant dangers of a private and introspective piety.
And so I’ll admit to times when I could have gone to church but chose not to. These have not necessarily been Godless times, but times of rebuilding and reinforcing my direct link with God and identity as a Christian person as opposed to my persona as a pastor. And likewise there have been times when I have encouraged / affirmed others in their choice not to go to church for a season.
So let us indeed encourage and keep the habit of meeting together with fellow believers. But let us stop it becoming idolatry by sometimes breaking the habit in order to meet with the Lord.
In keeping with all this, it’s my habit as a pastor to encourage church going for the sake of the person themselves (to be fed and encouraged); for the sake of others (to encourage and serve them by our presence) and for the sake of unbelievers (to witness to the priority of God in our lives).
However there are times when not going to church may be appropriate.
… I think of Christian workers who are paid to go to church but then face the danger of a professional piety in which their relationship with God is subverted and subsumed by their ministry identity. Not going to church on occasions can help resurrect that personal identity in Christ.
… Likewise with Christian leaders who are always ‘on duty’ when at church and readily occupied with institutional clutter which clamours for attention and seems so important, but which shows itself to be ephemera when stepping back.
The examples could be multiplied. For example, the believer whose soul is bruised and battered by such things as conflict at church, disappointment at bad decisions, gaps between profession and practice by more senior believers etc. In these situations, going to church may compound a problem of seething anger or disappointment that is worsened by donning a mask to ‘play’ at church.
In such situations, a ‘fast’ from church may be appropriate in order to devote ourselves to the Lord in word and prayer. These can be times of remarkable spiritual refreshment as we see him face to face unmediated by churchly clutter. This, of course, should be only for a season lest we breach Scripture by losing the habit of meeting together and retreat to ourselves with the attendant dangers of a private and introspective piety.
And so I’ll admit to times when I could have gone to church but chose not to. These have not necessarily been Godless times, but times of rebuilding and reinforcing my direct link with God and identity as a Christian person as opposed to my persona as a pastor. And likewise there have been times when I have encouraged / affirmed others in their choice not to go to church for a season.
So let us indeed encourage and keep the habit of meeting together with fellow believers. But let us stop it becoming idolatry by sometimes breaking the habit in order to meet with the Lord.
Monday, April 4, 2011
A note to a friend about both / and spirituality
Why is spirituality tricky?
There's a big bunch of material whose basic strategy is to withdraw folks from this realm into the presence of God for a time with the expectation that this then charges us up to return to the world (which may be seen as a hostile and godless place). At first glance that may sound good, but taken to extremes, this is an essentially escapist spirituality.
You are smart enough to see the basic flaw. Experiential spirituality that becomes escapist easily trends towards a dualism in which creational reality is seen as evil or unimportant. Some spiritualities fall right into that nasty little hole and essentially deny the outside world. Of course, that will be to varying degrees and there are times in which withdrawal to seek God is totally apt and has great Biblical precedent (think of Jesus ducking off for a night of prayer away from everyone and everything). And there are some people for whom withdrawal into experiential spirituality is a natural disposition. That’s fine, but there’s a need to nudge such folk back to a ‘both / and’ relationship with God in which we both withdraw and engage.
(And, of course, there are others of us who need to be nudged away from our primarily objective spirituality and encouraged into the experiential and relational element.)
A better way is generally to cultivate a grounded and world spirituality in which our relationship with God arises from, is conducted within, and is directed to the everyday world in which we are called to live. This is the spirituality of an ‘engager’ who takes the created world seriously as the place where we must relate to God. Indeed, we may ask if it’s worth holding a faith that does not push us to meet and be with God in the creational greys in which we live and move and have our being.
But you are also smart enough to know that all this is another one of the both/ands with which the Christian faith is littered. A purely worldly spirituality needs the complement of experiential relationship with God and a purely experiential spirituality needs the complement of worldly groundedness. Thus Jesus occasionally withdrew, but then he returned to engage with his father’s world and will.
Whatever the mix, its good to apply this test: does this spiritual resource or practice help me know and know about God more closely through prayerfulness and the Scripture, be more Christ-like in an everyday sense, and does it equip me to engage with the world in active discipleship and service?
There's a big bunch of material whose basic strategy is to withdraw folks from this realm into the presence of God for a time with the expectation that this then charges us up to return to the world (which may be seen as a hostile and godless place). At first glance that may sound good, but taken to extremes, this is an essentially escapist spirituality.
You are smart enough to see the basic flaw. Experiential spirituality that becomes escapist easily trends towards a dualism in which creational reality is seen as evil or unimportant. Some spiritualities fall right into that nasty little hole and essentially deny the outside world. Of course, that will be to varying degrees and there are times in which withdrawal to seek God is totally apt and has great Biblical precedent (think of Jesus ducking off for a night of prayer away from everyone and everything). And there are some people for whom withdrawal into experiential spirituality is a natural disposition. That’s fine, but there’s a need to nudge such folk back to a ‘both / and’ relationship with God in which we both withdraw and engage.
(And, of course, there are others of us who need to be nudged away from our primarily objective spirituality and encouraged into the experiential and relational element.)
A better way is generally to cultivate a grounded and world spirituality in which our relationship with God arises from, is conducted within, and is directed to the everyday world in which we are called to live. This is the spirituality of an ‘engager’ who takes the created world seriously as the place where we must relate to God. Indeed, we may ask if it’s worth holding a faith that does not push us to meet and be with God in the creational greys in which we live and move and have our being.
But you are also smart enough to know that all this is another one of the both/ands with which the Christian faith is littered. A purely worldly spirituality needs the complement of experiential relationship with God and a purely experiential spirituality needs the complement of worldly groundedness. Thus Jesus occasionally withdrew, but then he returned to engage with his father’s world and will.
Whatever the mix, its good to apply this test: does this spiritual resource or practice help me know and know about God more closely through prayerfulness and the Scripture, be more Christ-like in an everyday sense, and does it equip me to engage with the world in active discipleship and service?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)