Maybe we should cut down on telling people to love Jesus... Do they really have to?

Jesus asks Peter, at the end of the gospel of John, if he loves Jesus. Clearly, in this case, the question mattered.

But I can’t think of to many other parts of the New Testament that we are explicitly told to love Jesus.

Sure, lots of places in the bible tell us to love God throughout the entirety of the bible - with the incarnation obviously pointing this to including Jesus, but “loving Jesus” isn’t stressed to the degree that we do within the modern church.

We tell everyone to love Jesus.

This is what you need to do.

This is what will inspire you.

This is what will strengthen you.

This is what you aim for.

But, does it need to be?

Could we just follow Jesus, but not love Him?

Couldn’t you just obey Jesus, but not love Him?

Isn’t this what you do when you first convert? 

Sure, obeying and following may result in loving Jesus...

Appreciation for what God has done, through Christ, can result in loving Him...

But... do you HAVE to love Jesus?

Is this a nonnegotiable?

Does this make you a Christian?

Frankly, I don’t think so.

And yet... we stress it soo much.

And I wonder what effect this has upon those - especially men and younger people - who struggle with our primacy to “love Jesus.”

How much angst would be reduced if we withdrew the dependency on “loving Jesus”? (Plenty of people have Googled the question “I don’t know if I love Jesus enough”)

Should a preacher wade into the waters of controversy?

A few weeks ago I wrote something on Tiny Bible Bits about doing the right thing while I was stuck in a fortnight of COVID isolation.

It’s not the first time I’ve mentioned COVID over the last year-and-a-half. Usually I escape unscathed.

As I do periodically, I boosted the post, resulting in it being seen by over 1100 people (which is around ten times the usual).

If you’ve ever posted anything online, you know that you’re potentially setting yourself up for an internet grilling. Expectedly, I copped a small dose of pushback. 

Frankly, it wasn’t a lot and it wasn’t too bad. 

I got accused of spreading blackmail...

Using the bible to spread propaganda...

Using the bible to support lockdown extensions...

And... one “Oh ffs”

All in all, not too bad for over a thousand sets of eyes.

Any heat was well and truely cancelled out by the 80 likes and 12 shares.

But I did hesitate in mentioning my release from isolation and firmly avoided linking it to a passage about freedom.

Rightly so, this would have been pilloried.

In that case, I would have been “drawing a long bow” and applying my situation into a place in the bible it didn’t belong.

But I wonder, how many preachers are currently walking a tightrope like never before?

Will they avoid speaking anything into the current pandemic? How about vaccinations?

How about the government last year? Or voting? Or... Trump?

Really, there are dozens of hot button issues which might make a preacher hesitate to wade into - Same sex marriage, homosexual ordination, abuse by clergy, racial reconciliation, BLM, class or gender equality...

To what degree does the political makeup of your audience make a preacher hesitate?

Should it ever?

Do the current circumstances a preacher finds themselves in create increased anxiety that they may be more readily misinterpreted?

Should it matter?

Should any controversy be totally avoided?

Is this responsible? Aren’t these the exact situations that those in the pews want to - nay, need to - hear about? Shouldn’t they hear what the Bible says about the controversies unfolding around them?

Or, does wadding into areas of controversy just force the speaker to be clearer and even better in both their theology and exegesis?

The not-always-risky percentages behind “there’s somebody here tonight”

There’s always a risk behind boldly saying that your point will apply “to somebody here tonight.”

There’s always a risk in stopping to boldly state - “inspired” - that what you’re saying directly applies to a certain person.

But, your odds rise with the amount of people hearing you.

And they will rise the more generic your statement.

And they will continue to rise the more disclaimers you stack up.

To a crowd of three hundred, someone will definitely be struggling with habitual sin. Or feel distant from God.

To a group of fifteen, it will be a far greater risk to say that someone present is identifying directly with the conditions laid out in a passage.

I don’t think that I’ve ever “felt led” to make my points directly applicable to “someone” but I am increasingly wary once the odds improve and the amount of “inspiration” is reduced.

For, in a crowd, simple percentages say that “someone” will be struggling with watching porn.

And they will be liars.

And a fair slice of the crowd will have a trauma in the past that they are still wrestling with.

Or they have been hurt by the church in the past.

To pick them out requires little “inspiration.”

How expanding your strengths can shift a drifting church

There’s an old saying that says if you’re not moving forward then you’re going backward.

It’s probably one of those “quotes” by Waldo Emerson that are in Quote-A-Day Calendars.

Nonetheless, if this quote is accurate, I wonder how many churches are, by default, going backwards.

The pessimist inside me thinks that there a lot of - at minimal - drifting churches.

But, when it comes to looking for ways to advance, there are two avenues which churches usually explore.

Old and New.

Do the familiar or try something new.

Either can work.

Either can flop.

But, I suspect that the former option is looked down upon.

Who wants to do the old thing?

But, if the other option is decision paralysis because the options are too daunting, then why not double down on what you know? 

Why not investigate your strengths and seek to expand them?

Do them better.

Share your knowledge.

Join with others.

Your strength can be a new shoot of growth elsewhere.

If the other option is to do nothing... stay stagnant... go backwards... then why not use what you already have/already know/already do to remain active?

Who knows, when you link your strengths with others, then they may reveal areas where you yourselves could grow in fresh ways...

Why you should pay attention to the questions which set the platform

Last semester I went on my first six-week teaching prac for the year.

While I was on prac I marked my first set of assignments.

In doing so I quickly found out why teachers mark students work accompanied with a hearty dose of wine.

The buzz of marking quickly wore away.

But one important thing was exposed.

Always start with multiple choice questions.

Why?

Because they quickly reveal the level of knowledge of the student.

Of course, multiple choice questions are easier to mark, but once they are completed and ranked, then you have a fairly clear order of the best-through-worst students.

This helps further marking because, as you subsequently mark from the best-to-worst, then you’ll quickly be able to discern what a quality answer (at least for that class/year) looks like.

We should do a similar thing when it comes to bible studies.

It is tempting to dive right into the “deep” questions, but this can be problematic if we overlook the questions which lay the platform.

No only do introduction and comprehension questions warm the group up by opening up avenues to talk and actually delve into the nuts-and-bolts of a passage, but they expose the depth that the group may be willing or capable of going.

These are the equivalent of the multiple choice questions in a school exam.

They give a foretaste of what to expect.

So, if you have a group that struggles to share or is having trouble grasping the details of a passage, then you’d be amiss to dive into deeper topic prematurely.

We need the God of bush chapels and cathedrals

A few weeks ago I was sharing the story of the worst, and most influential, time of my life and faith - 2010 - the year my dad died and my ex and I had two miscarriages.

It was a rough year.

But, my then wife handled things far better than I did.

I saw God as a cosmic sadist. He has omnipotent. He has in control. He was distant.

My partner saw God is a heartbroken friend. He was close. He was sympathetic.

I saw God as transcendent - big, holy, far above.

She saw God is immanent - intimate, close, incarnate.

He is both.

Gods is both transcendent and immanent. 

He is both the God of the awe inspiring, overpowering cathedrals and the gentle, quiet bush chapels.

We need both.

We learn from both aspects.

It is when we get the balance between the two askew that we can harmfully respond to situations and negativity impact the relationships around us.

My inspired thoughts are the equivalent of my kids paintings

Having two children, with my youngest being five years old, I’ve seen a lot of kiddy artwork.

I’ve delighted in every drawing, painting and scribble.

But they won’t be hanging in an art gallery. Anywhere.

Why?

Because, frankly, they are of dubious quality.

Lots of stick figures.

Variable perspectives.

The colour palettes have been less than accurate.

But, again, I’ve shown delight in each one.

I guess this is how God views my “wise” thoughts.

For, I tend to think that I’m pretty clever.

I write things and think that I’m clever.

I speak in bible studies and think that I’m clever.

I look over the things I’ve pondered in the past and think that I’m clever.

In reality, I’m not.

But, when my Heavenly Father sees the “discoveries” that I’ve uncovered, He is glad for the progress and pride His child has made.

Not that I’ve a genius or biblical scholar.