Wednesday, September 20, 2017

How we develop our theology and ethics

With Australia currently going through the tribulations of a same sex marriage plebiscite, the topic is everywhere. 

E-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e.

I cast my vote today, but, as yet, I won't tell you which box I ticked (I'll do that when the voting closes and even share which way I think the survey will go).

As I've been considering my vote, watching and listening to people on both sides of the subject and thinking about how people engage in healthy debate, it's become clear that we must keep in mind the most important thing in dealing with topics of theology or ethics.

How and why do people come up with the things they believe.

Fortunately, I'm not the first to wrestle with this issue.

John Wesley, when pondering how people developed their theology, developed the paradigm of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

In short, when trying to establish what we believe, we put a topic through the filters of scripture, tradition, experience and reason.

When faced with an ethical or theological quandary we weigh it up against our source of truth - be it the bible, Koran, Dawkins or science textbook - cultural and personal history - including family, social circles and structures - and our intellect/logic.

When we consider how these four things influence what we believe and how they might affect the worldviews of others, then we can be in a place to have a respectful and empathetic depiscussion, even if we're in disagreement.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

In the common shadows of the Reformation divide

Last Sunday morning I went to the first communion of my niece. Accompanied by my five year old, I knew going in that things would be different to what we were used to.

The whole service reminded me of the difference between the rugby codes.

For, while I follow both rugby league and rugby union, I know others who only follow one.

And, if they only follow rugby league, then, frankly, they are lost at times.

At times, on Sunday, I was a little lost.

I didn't know the responses.
I was unsure when to stand.
As was noticed by my five year old, the building was quite different (she liked the pictures of the stations of the cross and the colourful statue of Jesus).

But, also, plenty of things were familiar.

They spoke about Jesus. 
They spoke about forgiveness.
They spoke about reconciliation.

Similar to both rugby codes sharing the dimensions of the field, ball, tries and aim to score the most points, both sides of the Reformation share core things.

Sure, Catholics and Protestants may differ and appear different due to interpretation, history and structure, the central things are held in unison.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

The missing element in a liturgy-free church service

I've shared in the past that I'm not the biggest fan of written liturgy during church services. From my experience, it's easily open to ecclesiastical-monotonal-fakery.

Sure, with disclaimers about the importance of liturgy or intentionally inviting a connection with the words before reciting them can make liturgy more engaging. In general, I don't see it as the most effective way to draw people into an experience of God.

But, liturgy does have one significant advantage - structure.

One criticism I faced when consistently leading an evening church service was that, without the structure of liturgy, an intentional time of confession would be omitted.

And, from what I see in many contemporary church services, intentional communal confession is the first victim once you stray from a set liturgy.

I'm sure it's not intentional.
I'm sure confession gets "touched on" in other areas of the service.
Maybe it's because the leader doesn't want to drag the mood down...

But, whatever the reason, regular, intentional, communal confession is dying out, seemingly sacrificed upon the alter of modern service structure.

Perhaps, as a church, it's something we need to confess...

Thursday, August 31, 2017

Arranging where the butts go

At my previous church I moved rows of plastic chairs. 

A. Lot. Of. Chairs.

Each week I'd set up the hall/church for the Friday youth activities and the Sunday night evening service.

As the architect of the seating arrangements I had a lot of choices...

How many chairs do I put out?
Do I match the amount of last week?
Do I leave room for more?
Do I have the same arrangement as usual?
Where do I want the focus to be?
How do I get the majority of people sitting where I prefer? 

Most importantly...
How do I make it look full?

This is the question which dictates the most time in the mind of a person setting up for church.

Can you make the space feel full? 
Can people look around and see others?
Are there spots where people can feel isolated?

I'd love to say that I had noble, God's-Kingdom-building, intentions when I set out the chairs.

But, truthfully, some weeks were about creating the illusion of a fattened attendance, even if there weren't more people in the room. 

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

A bible study of soft throws or curve balls?

Bible studies come in a lot of forms. 

They vary depending on the make up of the participants, their chronological and spiritual maturity, the amount of time the group has been together, the length of time they have to meet, the openness to new members, the history of those involved, the nature of what book/theme/topic they are looking at and the preference of the leader.

At times, it will be appropriate for the study to be more surface level and exploratory.

On other occasions it will be fine for the group to be lead through a series of in-depth, technical or searching questions

Is one better?

Both have times when they are needed and useful.

And your group needs both.

At the core, the gospel message is simple and you should keep coming back to it. There's no problem when the answers bring you back to trusting in Jesus and being saved by God's grace.

On the other hand, we shouldn't be scared of delving into some of the more complex/confusing passages of the bible or topics. If we're going to develop an intellectually defendable faith, then the tough things of faith should be seriously wrestled with.

So, you need both.

Some weeks will reassure you of the beauty, truthfulness and simplicity of the gospel.

Other weeks can leave your brain whirling from the way you've been challenged of the new revelations which have unfolded.

The danger is when we don't get the balance right and only do one. 

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Do we consider the believer's drain caused by religious schools?

I didn't go to a Christian school, but there was an active scripture presence in the school, and nearby there were a number of Catholic, Anglican and independent Christian schools.

Furthermore, I've be attached to numerous public and private high schools while I was a youth minister. In some cases, these were schools connected to my denomination. 

A few weeks ago I heard a scripture teacher from the local high school, the one I attended, speak in a church service.

Amongst other things, prompted by a question, he mentioned the role of Christians within public schools.

In his response he said, while the local public school is a rich ministry field, a part of the reason is the Christian drain which occurs due to religious schools.

Without doubt, religious schools serve an important communal, educational and spiritual purpose, but it can come at a cost to the public system.

With the vast majority of Christians withdrawn from the public system, where does this leave the Christian presence in, primarily secular, state schools, especially peer-to-peer?

One inadvertent effect of this funnelling, with the Christians in their own special conclave, is it gives the appearance that their are far fewer believers than is actually the case.

Additionally, it isolates any new believers or genuine enquirers who might emerge through the scripture programs.


So... Does the heartfelt desire to cater, or even worse, shelter your child from public education hurt the wider Christian witness?

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The church without old people is weak

Now that I'm not in vocational ministry, I've changed denomination away from the one with the oldest demographic in the nation. Thus, when I look around during a church service I now see a lot less wrinkled faces.

Usually, frankly, pensioners were the majority of people filling the pews. Now they are in the minority.

Seemingly, they only number a handful.

And I'm not sure this is a good thing.

Being someone with a history in youth ministry, this might sound backward since I should be exclaiming the value of youth, but... If I'm honest... I feel a little uneasy in a church devoid of oldies.

Why?

Because, when you're looking for wisdom, this is where it can be found.
When you're looking for peace, this is where it can be located.
When you're in need of a prayer warrior, the older generation are the place to turn.

Sure, not every oldie will be overflowing with positivity and spiritual heroics (the grumpy old person is very much alive and well within the church), but, with a lifetime of positive, negative, uplifting and crushing experience within the church and amongst society, they can be much needed fountains of faithfulness and support.

This is why the church needs old people.

People who can speak up in times of trouble or crisis and say that they've seen it before.
People who can tell you when they went through the same thing you are.
People who can guide you through the steps of life they've already walked down.
People who have the perspective to know what's actually important in life and the church.
People who know what it's like to give consistently and sacrificially.
People who have seen God work and heard prayers answered.

These are the faces and stories which strengthen the church and uplift those who work within it.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Young and opinionated is ok

When it comes to the development of faith, one of the final stages is, as I describe, mega-confidence.

Fuelled by an expanding exposure to church culture and leadership, a plethora of books, numerous questions and "profound conversations" and infinite articles/blog posts on the Internet, nowadays a young Christian can both devour and develop theology at a previously unforeseen rate and depth.

The result is a knowledge, and confidence, which is common in Christian young adults.

As young adults mature chronologically, cognitively, experientially and spiritually, they establish what they do and do not believe. They decide what they will and will not stand for. They, especially if immersed in the university mindset of intellectual exploration, will mine the depths of things which both confuse and stimulate them. 

As a result, Christian young adults can be quite opinionated.

And, frankly, annoying.

And that's ok.

I want young adults to be confident in what they believe because they've examined the challenging things of faith.

In many settings, like university, they'll need to be confidently armed with answers in order to thrive in an, occasionally, confrontational theatre.

In general, young adults don't deal greatly in shades of gray.

Again, that can be annoying.

And, again, that's ok.

Especially if you're aware of this going into a conversation/discussion with a headstrong young adult.

For, they'll think they're correct and have a handful of evidence, both biblical and theological to back them up.

What they might lack is the experience and wisdom to apply and explain their confident knowledge.

But, in order to confidently stand on their own two legs - knowing what they stand upon, for and against - this is the exact stage they need to be in.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Should we retreat?

I've been on plenty of "retreats."

Some have been personal, most professional.

Every time I've returned I've felt a little squeamish about the term retreat. Why? Because words and titles matter.

They matter in terms of what they communicate about the events, particpants and those on the outside looking in.

So, with that said, do we always want to "retreat?"

I ask because, in some instances, retreating is negative.
Retreating is surrendering.
Retreating is defeat.

Is that the message we want to send?

In some cases, you need to retreat. 

In most "retreat" situations, you're going to rejuvenate. Or relax. Or escape.
But, if our intentions are to do some of the latter terms, why don't we honestly use them?

Furthermore, how does our "retreating" sound to the outsider?
What, exactly, are we retreating from?

Monday, August 7, 2017

Does the church have an intimidating BMI?

Some churches are... Well... Full of beautiful people.
Or, with a glancing overview, appear that way.

Or, at least apparently, be filled with relatively talented, nice, mono-cultural, 6+/10 looking people.

I wonder, can this be intimidating to outsiders?

Is it intimidating to minorities?
Is it intimidating to the obese?

Does it run through someone's mind when they're going to invite someone to church?

Of course, it shouldn't.

Our churches are more welcoming than that...
We care more about their salvation than comfort...
People, in general, aren't that insecure...

But, are we really welcoming to those who are different?
Do we care more, or at least equally, about our friends or family fitting in?
If someone's already unnerved about a characteristic or setting, does our church congregation provide a barrier that they'd struggle to overcome?

I don't know what the answer is... There might not be one. 
I don't think we should instigate services especially for the chubby or less athletically gifted.

But, when I look around some churches, I think I'd be a little intimidated if I weren't as beautiful as the rest of the congregation.

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Could we now describe a fearful hell?

Fire.
Brimstone.
Sulphur.

Traditionally, these are the images associated with hell.

For a time, these were the images which communicated aspects of hell.

Fear.
Torment.
A place to be desperately avoided.

To be honest, I'm not convinced they communicate the same ideas now.
Today, they are images from cartoons.

They're, certainly, no longer scary.

Is this a bad thing?
Have we, now, stripped hell of being scary?
Do we even have the images available to us today in order to communicate fear of hell?

Frankly, I'm not sure.

Nowadays, and it's something I often did, we use abstract ideas for the afterlife.

Darkness.
Absence.
Isolation.
A lack of all that is Godly or good.

I'm not sure these images are scary in the same manner that the picture of fire and brimstone were.

On the scale of fear-inducing, we've gone backwards.

And I'm not sure we can wrestle it back.

You could argue that fear isn't a motivator which should be used in or by Christianity, but this option has now been neutered.

But, if we did want to resurrect a scary image of hell, what would we use?

The twin towers on 911?
The London unit fire?
The Boxing Day tsunami?

I don't know what image you could use, but truthfully, I suspect that many strands of Christianity and induviduals would shy away from using them anyway...

Thursday, August 3, 2017

The message of "Dear Graeme..."

A few days ago I got forwarded an email from my immediate superiors' boss.

While the email was nothing more than passing on his gratitude for a task I had done, it included one detail which largely undid all the goodwill he intended.

He misspelt my name.

Now, this isn't the first time it's ever happened to me, nor till it be the last. It's just a part of life if your name happens to be spelt in multiple ways.

And, while I'm sure this was an innocent mistake,  it did communicate one thing clearly.

I don't really know you.

I might be aware of you, but I don't really know you.

And, in ministry, I sent this message far too often.

Because I was crap in remembering names.
It was a constant struggle.

Sure, I could blame my history of concussions.
Or the number of people I'd come in contact with over my church life.
Or the hundred-odd children I'd teach scripture to each year.

But, every time I'd struggle to recall or misspell a name, I sent a message - even unintentionally.

I don't know you.
You're not important enough for me to learn your name.

As an adult, boss' misspelling was inconsequential.

As a child, looking for approval and a place to belong, the message could be quite damaging.

Monday, July 31, 2017

Wondering about the past

In 2005 I started sponsoring a child, then aged 8, from the Phillipines.

Today I found all the letters he sent me up until he moved in 2015.

Since then I've heard nothing.

After a decade...
Well over $5000 in sponsorship...
Dozens of letters...

Nothing.

Assuming that Compassion isn't a giant scam and the letters were genuine, thus making my kid alive and mobile at 18, all I can now do is wonder.

Did he go to university?
What does he do for work?
Is he married?
Does he have a family?
Is he still in poverty?
Is he even still alive?
What, if at all, does he think of me?
Does he still have, or even remember, my letters?
What would he say/write to me now?
Would I, if so inclined, be able to track him down?

Potentially, he now has a far better life because I was an, albeit small, part of it.

These questions remind me of the young people I've come in contact with at various churches as their youth minister.

What are they doing now?
What memories, if any, do they have of me?
How would they have described the youth ministry I were the leader of?
Are they connected with a church?

For many, even those I'm friends with on Facebook, I have no contact with.

All I'm left to do is wonder...

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Why wanky questions don't work

I've been to and hosted a lot of bible studies over the years. Some where richly engaging. Many were slightly informative. Some have been dull. A few have been awkward.

In general, one trait tends to make things less conducive to productive sharing.

Prepackaged questions.

While I'm generally ok with using material written by those outside of your church they, usually, hold a danger.

Wanky wording.

At times, especially if penned by an author/theologian, the questions posed can be far to wordy or complex to generate genuine discussion.

For, if you're struggling to work out what a question is asking, or are intimidated by the wordiness of the question, then you'll be less likely to chip in with your response.

When a question is, seemingly, more interested in being poetic or theologically sound than clarity, this breeds needless intimidation in the midst of studying the bible.

The worst thing, even if the questions are useful, a lot of people will miss the point because they get swamped in the flood of words and jargon.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Should you point out the mistakes?

There has never been a perfect church service. Ever.

In every public meeting of Christians, something goes awry. Even slightly.

You scramble the words of your point.
Your introduction isn't smooth.
Your ending doesn't quite connect the way you hoped.
Things go out of order.
The musicians play a wrong note.
The microphone stops working.
There's a blackout.
The PowerPoint has a typo.
The computer freezes.

I'm sure, if you've been around church services long enough, you'd be able to list a thousand more...

Some of these are, frankly, barely problems.
Many are glanced over and quickly forgotten.
A few wouldn't even be noticed.

But, when there's a noticeable glitch, do you acknowledge it?
Should you?
Do you have to?

A few factors point to the answer...
Is it noticeable?
Can you overcome it easily?
Who was the cause?
Is an apology warranted?

I think, if you're the cause, then it's your call.
If it's your typo, then you can point it out.
If you didn't turn on the hearing loop, then you're the one who should acknowledge the problem.

But, if it isn't personally your fault, with something monumental like a blackout or medical emergency aside, it's best to usually just let it slide.

If need be, you can deal with the issue later.

But, the worst thing you can do is appear to slam the person who goofed.

The musician doesn't need to be reminded that they hit the wrong note.
Or that the bible reader lost their place.
Or that the techie had the slides in the wrong order.

Why?

Because a) we should encourage those being involved in the service b) it might actively discourage others in getting involved and, importantly, c) unless you can do the task, especially music, then you don't really have the right to criticise since you wouldn't be able to do it yourself.

But, there's one exception.

I think you absolutely should mention a glitch if the problem was your fault, but someone else might cop the blame.

If you put the slides in the wrong order, own it. Don't let the techie take the hit.
If you invited the person doing the notices up early, and thus they weren't quite ready yet, own it. It's not their fault.

Church services, or anything we do, won't be completely flawless.

We need to manage the tension of showing people it's ok to let the imperfection drift by and also acknowledging when you've personally stuffed up, quickly apologise, and continue.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Anything but a Christian...

One of God's children
A member of God's family.
A believer.
A follower of Jesus.
A friend of Jesus.
One of the people of God.

This week I was surprisingly jarred by something I heard during a short talk I listened to.

He said the word Christian.

As the list above shows, there's plenty of others terms he could have used.

But, instead he said when someone becomes a Christian.

Frankly, when speaking, this was something I tended to avoid.

Maybe it was to avoid the baggage of the term...
Perhaps it was because I wanted softer, less threatening, labels...
Heck, maybe I thought these terms were more accurate in depicting what conversion/responding was about...

But, I'd invite you, especially if you were a child, to become God's friend.
As a teen or adult I may have challenged you to be a follower of Jesus.

But, not a Christian.

I don't know why.

I'd like to think it was for some kind of noble reason, but really, it may have been because I was simply a PC wimp...

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Celebrating the non-conversion milestones

When you invite some to church, secretly... Or not so secretly..., you want them to be converted. Or included. Or at least have some vague idea what's going on.

But, a lot of what happens during a church service is foreign to outsiders.

Even if someone commits their life to Jesus by the conclusion of their first service, they might not fully embrace the elements of what a "usual" service entails.

Why?

Because, in general, public singing is unusual. Especially sober or outside the safe confines of the shower or car.
Prayer can be a tough concept to grasp.
Giving is a discipline which needs to be developed.
Meeting others can be awkward.

But, it's these liturgical elements which get overlooked when it comes to those we've invited "making it" in the church world.

Even if someone is still wrestling with the "God and Jesus thing" I think we should still celebrate if they begin to actively participate in the elements of the service.

For me, one springs to mind... Singing.

If you catch someone you've invited participating in the singing at church, then it's surely something to smile over.

Why?

First, it shows that they're engaging, at least somewhat, with the words. For a lot of people this is where they learn much of their theology, even more so than the sermon.

Second, if they've been around for a decent length of time, it can show that they are becoming familiar with the tunes sung. Let's face it, many contenpoary services don't have a massive playlist. And, when a song is unfamiliar then you're less likely to sing along. 

Third, singing can show that someone is more comfortable with the activities done during church and those around them. At the start, the very act of people singing can be off putting. Over time, this shock subsides.

Much of this list applies equally to those who mature/transfer to a different service, not just those who are unchurched, be it if they grow into the demographic of an alternate service or move across town and need to join a new church.

But, nonetheless, their participation shows that they are advancing in their belonging, behaving and believing which marks a church.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Your bible study shouldn't be a bunch of clones

One of the worst things you can do in order to grow in your faith is to remain completely homogenous.

Same culture.
Same education.
Same socioeconomic status.
Same life stages.
Same histories.

Ideally, those you go to church beside, and importantly, study the bible with should a different.

The group of people you intentionally study the bible beside should be diverse.

The ministers kid and the prodigal.
Those of different ages.
Those of alternate theologies and denominational backgrounds.
Those who feel like they've always been Christians and those who converted as young adults.

It's with this diverse mix that the bible can be best explored, theologies stretched and beliefs deepened.

It's with this diversity that you can see the bible through a viewpoint different than your own, hear how God speaks through others and better understand how He works through those unlike yourself.

Monday, July 10, 2017

Bravely standing beside your invitee

For the first time in a almost two decades I'm now in a position to invite someone to a church where I have absolutely no leadership impact.

I'm not on staff...
I don't preach...
I don't lead the service...
I don't even give the bible reading.

Thus, if I invited someone to church I'd now get to stand beside them.

I think this is far more intimidating.

For, now, they could hear me sing.
Now I could get a better read on their body language.
Now I could have questions directly asked to me in real time.
Now I can hear them sigh or see them glance at their watch.
Now they could see and hear me cringe.

People who invite others, especially those unfamiliar with church, are a lot braver than those in church leadership often realise.

Why?

Because their self-consciousness is rawly on display.
Because what their faith's about is put in the hands of those up the front.
Because the central thing in their life is thrown open and all they can do is pray for the best.

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

The freedom of only having one service

It seems to me, before the fad of mid-to-late-afternoon-family-services arose, everyone wanted to have two church services on a Sunday morning (with one catering to the older/classic/traditional crowd and the other more family-friendly/contemporary/progressive demographic).

But, having worked in multiple churches with services back-to-back, there's a freedom which is lost with dual services.

First of all, you isolate your congregation by demographic or preference. With the lack of exposure to the "others" form of worship then our preferences only gets further entrenched. This makes combined services a delicate tension to navigate. 

Second, the earlier service is hampered by the start time of the following service. To a vast extent, things cannot go over time. No matter what God might be doing, the initial congregation needs to be vacated by a certain timeframe. No matter how powerful the sermon, how important the announcement or how inspirational the pray is, time will always triumph.

Third, this time restraint also apples to anyone participating in the later service. In the early service, musical and tech prep can be far more relaxed. This, often, isn't an option before the subsequent services. If nothing else, this adds more stress and makes the attractiveness of helping in these areas less.

Fourth, this is incredablly taxing on the minister/preacher. Even if they aren't your typical introvert-minister, then "being on" for 4 hours straight can be quite taxing. Add to this their lack of preparation between services and time-squeeze to "run through" the people they need to speak with or who only "want a moment" of their time.

Although most churches who have dual services won't change, I wonder how often they consider the cost of putting one service immediately after another.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

The danger of an open invitation

"Who wants to come up the front and do a bible reading?"
"Who can pitch in to help with morning tea at mother's group. We will take anyone."

Invitations like the above shouldn't happen regularly in churches.

Why?

First of all, hopefully you're more organised.

Secondly, I'd hope you're far more discerning.

This discernment matters if you value the culture of your church, the importance of leadership and the security of those you minister to.

For, if you toss out the open invitation then you lose a series of important filters.

You lose the ability to filter out those who are inappropriate.
You lose the ability to filter out those who you don't want.
You lose the ability to redirect those better suited elsewhere or totally unsuitable for the task you need done.

For some, the avenue for people to freely volunteer is a worthy gamble.
Personally, I think it's a risk which can be easily avoided and could horribly backfire.

Friday, June 30, 2017

How does our sex talk sound to the outsider?

During my time in youth ministry I delivered my sex spiel (if you want to look it up then just search for it), or at least snippets of it, many times. I think it was one of the better talks I gave.

Additionally, as one who has been invoked with churches for two decades, I've heard a lot of talks, sermons, presentations and seminars on sex, sexuality, dating and relationships.

But, I wonder how our conversations surrounding sex would be viewed through different ears or base of knowledge.

What would a secular psychologist think?
What would a relationship or school counsellor think?
How do they sound in the ears of a hardcore feminist?
Or someone who is gay?
Or someone who has a child who is homosexual?
Or a teen who is brand new to the Christian message on sexuality?

Ultimately, many of the truths Christians share about sex, and many other topics, only connect with a mind and heart changed by Jesus (even if I think my sex spiel goes beyond that).

But, I wonder if those who speak on controversial topics from a Christian perspective run their talks through the filter of the outsider.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

How your conscience and crying child are similar

As the father of two kids, I've experienced a lot of toddler tantrums.

When you hear you child cry the first few times it breaks you up inside.
It becomes soul-destroying when you can't get your precious little bub to stop wailing.

But, as you get older, you begin to become more immune to the crying of your offspring.
You become immune to the immediacy of its noise.

Sure, you still hear the crying, but you get better at either tolerating it or tuning it out alltogether.

In this way, your crying child and your conscience are similar.

You hear both.
Over time, the cutting edge of your conscience, like the early-life crying, can become dulled.
With pre longed exposure, you build up a tolerance to its nudging or can outright ignore it.

I wonder, when it comes to our conscience convicting us of wrongdoing, do we sometime know that if we just endure and rebel long enough, then the voice of our conscience can be drowned out or silenced outright.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

How do you handle small group mutes?

It's every small group/bible study leaders nightmare.

No. One. Talks.

Under numerous circumstances, your group can become a pack of mutes - 
A group of year 7 boys who haven't developed the ability/vocabulary to share more than a grunt or fart jokes...
A group of year 9 girls who are in the middle of the latest "crisis" in their "social group"...
A newly formed bible study group...
A bunch of introverts...
Perhaps your usually talkative group have all had a hard week at work/a stressful week at uni/a tough week at school...

When this happens, what do you do? 

To some extent, this quietness may just be a characteristic of some groups and is nothing to be really concerned about.

For some members of a group, they will be fully engaged/thinking internally, yet outwardly quiet. This might have to be something which you'll just have to deal with.

In some cases, it may be a result of group dynamics, where primarily the extroverts talk, or at least get their responses/opinions in first.

No matter what the cause, what do you do if you're the poor soul trying to direct the group of mono-syllabic members?

First, you can just make sure they write down their answer, aware if it will be shared or remain private.

Second, you could give the group notice that you're going to give them all 30 seconds to think about their answer before you want them to reply. This may give the introverts a chance to get a word in.

Third, you could have the members pair off and either share their collective answers or the best part of the response from the other person.

Fourth, you could ask what they would add to the answer they heard in a small group.

Fifth, with or without advanced notice, you could call on people by name to give input. This is dangerous if the group is always quiet, but effective if it's an unusually quiet week for a group of regular chatterboxes.

Sixth, you could ask the members to give responses that they think those they know might give, like their friend or family. This gives the additional advantage that they can share their own answer, but under the guise that it's from "someone else."

Monday, June 12, 2017

My gay-and-in-ministry questions?

DISCLAIMER: I'm not gay. And I'm no longer in vocational ministry.

I wonder, for those who are gay, or... if you view sexuality as fluid... become/come out as gay during their ministry tenure, how does the situation work?

I'll admit, a large slice of the answer depends on your denominations stance on homosexuality and/or gay marriage. But, if your church is, at least, open to the possibility of gay ministry agents, how is the situation handled?

Do you volunteer the information during your initial interview?
Do you tell someone when they offer you the position?
Do you only mention your sexual preference to the senior minister?
Is the information open to only those in leadership positions such as fellow staff members or the church council?
If you're in a youth ministry context, do you tell your leadership team? 
If so, when do you tell new recruits?

Is the equation changed if you're in a relationship?
Do you mention your partner up the front of church, or if you do, are they gender neutral?

What happens if your relationship progresses towards, if your civil laws allow, marriage?
With your relationship inevitably becoming public, if not already, are you forced to announce your status? 
Is the engagement announcement to your partner considered too late for some? 
Do you even announce the engagement before the church like many heterosexual couples would?

What happens if someone comes out/begins to identify as gay whilst in a ministry placement?
Do they need to announce it?
Again, if so, who does it need to be told to and when?

I imagine these, and many, many, other questions restrict a lot of gay Christians from entering ministry.

As a heterosexual, these are questions which I don't even need to, really, wrestle with.

Friday, June 9, 2017

Ministry of being the thermometer

Excited.
Engaged.
Bored.
Spaced out.

Anyone who's at the front of a group, no matter what context, if they want to serve those they are communicating with well, must be a good thermometer.

Every speaker, presenter, host, chairperson & MC must be able to gauge the mood of the room and, if need be, change things up in order to keep connected with their audience.

This is a must when dealing with children and youth.
This is essential when leading a bible study.
This is vital when preaching.
This would serve your people tremendously well during a church service.

Every leader needs to hone their antenna of room discernment, or employ someone else who'll give them a helpful nudge, or their level of engagement/buy-in from the group will always be reduced.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

What the trigger apology shows

I can't imagine what it's like to struggle with an issue so much, or have something so traumatic in your past, that you can be adversely affected by what you might read or see.

Of course, as a society we're now far more aware about these dangers and, wisely and sensitively, give trigger warnings if something is going to delve into a potentially traumatic topic.

The worst thing that can happen, and something that's annoyed me multiple times already during my fresh university studies, is when there's a trigger apology.

This is when, after encountering a potentially traumatic topic, the person speaking apologizes if this has bothered someone listening.

The reason this troubles me is that it shows an awareness of the topic of triggers and, all too often, is nonchalantly brushed off.

Quite frankly, it's not good enough.

Anyone who is speaking in front of a group of people should know if their content might be disturbing to some.

To give a trigger apology shows that you knew, but probably didn't care enough about your audience to give them an appropriate warning of what was coming.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

The perfect-churchgoer killer

With university cranking up and my general absence from vocational ministry, my creative ecclesiastical juices now tend to go to my three-times-per-week Facebook devotional, Tiny Bible Bits, instead of here (if you're not following it on Facebook then you should check it out).

Yesterday I posted something which I thought was pretty good.

1 Corinthians 1:8 - We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself.

We smile at church. A lot.
Sometimes these smiles are fake.


When asked how our week was we reply that it was good.
No matter how bad our week has been.


Churchgoers have a habit of donning their everything-is-fine mask when they enter a church service.
Even if they are in pain...
Even if they feel heartbroken...
Even if their family has been fighting all morning...
Even if they feel like their life is falling apart...


Paul doesn't do this.
Paul shares his troubles with the church in Corinth.


Do you do the same?
Do you share your problems, or pretend that everything's always perfect?
Would you rather others remain uninformed about your sufferings?


Although it's not easy, it's only through sharing our struggles that we can be appropriately supported and begin to tear down the illusion that everyone at church has it all together.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Where's God's mummy?

As my eldest grows, I find us having more indepth conversations about God.

Five year olds have interesting theology.

Very. Concrete. Theology.

So, it should have come as no surprise when I was asked about baby Jesus God's mummy.

It makes perfect sense...
There's a Father... 
There's a baby...
Thus, in the mind of a child, there must be a mummy.

To be honest, the Trinity would be so much easier to explain if this were the case.

Instead, I had to remind Miss 5 that Jesus wasn't always a baby (which she still struggles with) and, being God as a human, He didn't need a mummy as we think of them...
But, here name was Mary.

The lesson? I don't think I'll be writing a kids theology book anytime soon.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Should you say how hard something is going to be?

What we're going to do next will be tough/tricky/hard...

Every so often you'll hear the above sentence in a church service or during a ministry activity.

But, I wonder, should you tell people that the next task will be difficult?
Does it help or hinder the chances of the activity running effectively?

Personally, I cringe every time I hear this phrase.

The reason?

The phrase hangs upon its conclusion...

If the person ends the phrase with "but I think you can do it..." Or "but I believe in you..." Then the entire complexion of the instructions change.

Now they are not near impossible obstacles, instead, now you are presented an opportunity.  

Far too many leaders in churches are too pesimistic when it comes to the capabilities of those within and outside of the churches walls, especially the young.

More often than not, people will raise to the task you set them. The worst thing you can do is send the message that you don't think the congregation will be able to rise to the challenge.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Giving God the out

Pray big prayers.
Pray bold prayers.
Pray for miracles.
Pray for healing.
Pray for God to restore.
Pray for growth.
Pray for dramatic movements of God.

Unless... 

God has something else in mind...
God has another plan...
God wants us to learn something...
God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours...

It's not uncommon, when praying - especially aloud for someone else - to give God the "out".

It's not unusual to leave the door publicly open for God to do something different, or even the exact opposite, for what we are praying for. 

My question is why...

Are we afraid of personally loosing face if God doesn't deliver? 
Are we afraid of showing that God is somehow being "unfaithful"? 
Are we afraid that others might think that God is uncaring, absent or ignoring our petitions?

I think these are important questions to ponder when we want to publicly give God the "out." 

Do we, in light of God's sovereignty, pray in the wrong order.

Should we put the "disclaimer" that God might not work in the ways we desire BEFORE we ask? 
Would this make a difference to the way we pray and the way our prayers are interpreted by others?

Thursday, April 27, 2017

What do you do when Her Majesty or the PM walk through the door?

You know who always make the news for appearing at church services during Christmas and Easter?
The British Royal Family and, to a lesser degree, the top politicians in Australia.

How do churches, especially those preaching, react to these "special guests?"

Do they know in advance?
If so, do they proceed as usual?
If not, do they freak out when HRH appears?

Do they slink away from controversial points?
Or, do they hit controversial topics harder due to the influential ears listening?

Do they ramp up the idea of the sovereignty of God?
Do they go out of their way to especially mention the kingship/lordship of Jesus?

Do they avoid readings which deal with leadership or the government, even if they are, by pure coincidence, in the lectionary?

I've never had, from what I remember, a "celebrity" in attendance when I've preached, nor attended at church with a person of significant influence, but I'd hope that everything would proceed as normal.

Unfortunately, I also doubt that I'd be either a) that self controlled, or b) that strong-willed.

Monday, April 17, 2017

Fighting for your Easter foothold?

Although I'm not longer in vocational ministry, my Facebook feed is still full of updates from those in ministry.

As such, I saw a lot of posts about Easter services, particularly during a picturesque sunrise.

But I'm wondering about the problems this annual tradition can cause...

For, a lot of churches want to do a Easter Sunday sunrise service - which they don't necessarily widely advertise the location of - and there's only a finite amount of east-facing lookouts.

What do you do, especially if you're a new church or this dawn-break service is a new initiative, if your location is already occupied?

Worse still, what do you do - having advertised your service - and you're the second congregation which arrives?

Do you politely ask random people to move on?
Do you combine with another congregation?
Does the newer congregation move aside for the more established service?
Do you scope out the spot the year prior?
Do you mark the location as yours like a New-Year's-Eve-fireworks spot, arriving hours previously?

I can imagine the anxiety a minister of a fledgling church would have pre-dawn whenever someone else approached their lookout, wondering if they'll need to fight for their slice of the Easter Sunday turf.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Dressing for the church nightclub?

Now that I've been at university for the last few months, I've noticed two distinct types of students.

Those who dress down and those who dress up.

Some students, and I would fall more comfortably into this category, dress like they've just rolled out of bed.

Other students look like they're about to hit the nightclub, dressed for a smart-casual (or above) social occasion.

A similar thing plays out in church.

Some attend dressed for comfort - shoes optional.
Others attend dressed for the nightclub - makeup compulsory.

I wonder, is one better than the other?
Do you, at the start, begin quite formal and then progressively slide towards casualness?
If so, is this a good thing?

It could be argued that your dress standard moves due to the relationship with God and the people in the church becoming less of a 'special event that you need to dress up for.'

But, again, is this move in a positive direction?

Ultimately, I'm not going to set a ecclesiastical dress code, nor do I think it would do any good for a church to set one...

But, I think the core issue is the heart of a person.

What/Who are they dressing for?
Who's attention are they trying to draw?

Most tellingly, are they willing to change, to an extent, if the way they dress is a stumbling block for someone else?

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Church white-guy privilege

For the vast majority of my Christian life I've been an active part of a denomination which has sort to included minorities and the disempowered - women, the indigenous, homosexuals, refugees, the poor, ect...

As such, on more than a handful of occasions, I've heard someone, or a group of people talk, about how they've felt lesser.

Lesser within society.
Lesser within the church.

They've felt victimised.
They've felt rejected.
They've felt worthless.
They've felt unheard.
They've felt second-class.

I've, basically, never felt that.

Both culture and the church tell me that I'm valuable.
Both culture and the church tell me that I belong.

This is my white-guy privilege.

And, as such, I've never come back from conferences gushing about how I heard about the beauty of being made in God's image or being His child.

There are far fewer conferences that cater to my "needs" or "specific theological issues."

No one is marching the streets for my rights.

Why?

Because I'm white, male, middle class and heterosexual.

At times, there should be an eye-opening announcement which remind those of us who don't have the same requirement for empowerment messages, that this only exists because we already possess much of the power.