What do you think of when you hear that the epistles were written to a “young church”?

The biblical letters written to the churches were sent to “young churches.” This is what we say.

But would we define an epistle penned to a church today, which has been established for a decade, correspondence to a “young church”?

I suspect not.

But, this is what we find in the New Testament - Letters written in the 

and 60’s to congregations founded a decade prior.

Of course, this is not comparing like-for-like.

Theology wise, the epistles were written to very juvenile churches. Two or three decades of theology is still a young sprout compared to the two millennia we have today.

Theologically, no church today should be considered young. If anything, this term should be considered a red flag.

But, when we call the churches in the New Testament young, does our mind place upon that phrase our modern expectations?

Do we instantly, evenly subconsciously, consider these churches to be a recent startup of only a few years?

You need to look at both sides of the marriage equation

You need to get a better husband.

This was my response to a young woman who stated that she had an issue with the concept of female submission within marriage.

Now, without going into the cultural or relational circumstances of the first or 21st century, my response had everything to do with the importance of perspective.

I highly suspect that the irking to the idea of submission within marriage was twofold.

First, it immediately - almost subconsciously - rubbed her modern feminism the wrong way.

Second, the “command” to “submit to your husband” seemed to be one of the only rules she had emblazoned upon her concerning marriage.

And here is where the significance of perspective kicks in. 

Anyone considering marriage, what it is to be married, or what kind of spouse they either want to be or have must have a balanced perspective.

You need to consider what the bible says about marriage as a whole and what the bible calls BOTH spouses to be and do.

If a young lady is only aware of what she considers are her responsibilities, then she may feel aggrieved that the ledger is one-sided. (The same could also be said for a young chap!)

The trouble is, it’s not.

The bible has just as many instructions concerning husbands.

Young Christian women should be aware of these instructions as well.

Why?

So they will have a good idea what to look out for in a potential spouse and so they will have a good idea of what kind of marriage the bible presents.

This goes far beyond mere submission.

It includes love. And honour. And sacrifice. For both spouses.

It clearly tells the husband that he must love and cherish his wife like Christ loves the church.

As I’ve pondered before, and I mentioned to this young lady, would she have a problem submitting to a guy who loves you and is doing his best to live out the biblical mandate of a good husband?

What does it mean to be spotted by a student at church?

A few weeks ago I was recognised at church by a student of the school I currently work at.

This was the first time it has happened.

It was, frankly, a little weird.

First of all, it was odd that I was called Mr Baldock. I’m still not used to be called by my surname, especially outside of school.

Second, it was odd because I wasn’t expecting to see a student randomly in the church foyer. My church, whilst not located on the other side of Sydney, is far enough away from my school that I’m not tripping over students regularly.

Third, it was weird because I don’t advertise my faith in the classroom. Sure, I may mention that I worked for the church in the past or that I have a theology degree, but I don’t go out of my way to talk about my faith.

Working in a public school, you have no idea what response you will get and, honestly, I’m not even certain that it would be allowed.

With that said, it raises an important point. What kind of witness, if any, do/should I have within the school?

Sure, one kid may now have an idea that I’m a believer, but very few others would.

Or, is the mission field of a public school only reserved for the staffroom?

The dangers of Build-Your-Own Christianity

A few weeks ago I took a bunch of young adults through an exercise I used to do in scripture classes.

In short, you build your own religion.

This night, the group built a religion based upon the Australian culture. Within it, they had to name their religion and outline what those within the religion must do or believe, should do or believe, what they can’t do or believe and what would identify someone as an adherent.

One we chatted about our new Aussie faiths, we then did the same thing for Christianity. What must you do? What should you do? What can’t you do? What will identify you?

The aim of the exercise is to compare your lists and see that the things you determine as a must or should will not be the same as others. Some will wildly disagree. 

And, the deeper you think about the questions, the more exposed your self-imposed Christianity can be.

Eventually, I ask if the Christianity that they defined could include the following people…

The thief hanging beside Jesus.

An illiterate person.

A persecuted Christian.

A five year old.

Someone with a physical or intellectual disability.

The reason I select these people is that they expose the width of the faith.

The thief never, as far as we know, evangelised. He definitely didn’t go to church.

The illiterate person doesn’t read the bible.

The persecuted Christian may not attend church or partake in the sacraments.

The five year old, or person with an intellectual disability, will only have a limited grasp of theology.

The physically disabled person my never lift their arms to worship.

When we create a list of must’s and should’ve then we risk excluding those that God would not or does not.

This is the danger of such lists.

Lastly, I ask if they themselves would qualify - by their Christian definition - as a believer.

This, finally, exposes why they may shape their lists like they do. It probably looks like them.

What your thoughts about your old patch reveal

Occasionally I think about my old churches.

Honestly, I sometimes stalk them.

I see what they are doing.

I see if the ministery staff are the same.

I sneak a look into the youth ministry.

And I don’t know what I hope to find.

Do I want them to be doing amazingly well?

Would I revel in them struggling?

Would I like seeing people I didn’t enjoy working with no longer being there?

Is it nothing more than church snooping, like you would an ex on Facebook?

I would like to say that I wish nothing but unbridled blessings upon my old churches. I really would.

It would show a “kingdom mindset.”

It would show humility. 

it would show that I trust that God is completely sovereign.

It would show that, ultimately, no success within a ministry was dependent upon me or my skills. 

Of course, the longer I’ve been away, the easier it is to wish them well.

Two decades removed, things should - arguably must - be different. It would be damaging, and a little sad, if they were still the same.

Personally, it is because of what it reveals about my heart, that I keep wondering about my old ministry patches.

Should Christian have faux-Passover?

As we approach Easter I expect that many churches will be doing a Passover memorial meal. I’ve been to plenty, but never personally run one.

But I would have. 

Probably without hesitation.

But, is a Passover meal something Christians should partake in?

Should followers of Jesus imitate a religious feast of another faith?

Further to the point, should they do it and substitute their own beliefs upon another religions sacrament?

How would Christians feel if the shoe was on the other foot?

How would we react if Scientologist had “fake communion”?

How would we respond if Mormons imitated baptisms, stamping their doctrine over the sacrament?

And, why do we stop at Passover?

Why don’t we imitate all of the Jewish festivals? Jesus - being a faithful Jew - also partook in all of them. So, why don’t we do them and cram Jesus in.

Why don’t we commandeer other traditions like Ramadan?

Isn’t the whole practice, the more you think about it, quite insensitive to those whom the practice is still deeply significant?

The cost of omitting the rituals in the evening

Last Sunday I went to my first morning service at the church I usually attend in the evening. And it was… fine.

Nothing unexpected.

In fact, it was a far more generic morning service than I was anticipating.

But, the more traditional structure of the service - and rituals sprinkled throughout the service - did get me thinking.

Sure, many of these rituals are put aside because they are seen not to connect “with the youth.” But, does the church lose something when they keep their rituals away from the evening service, and thus, also the younger generation of believers?

What kind of rituals am I talking about? Fundamental liturgy. The Lord’s Prayer. A time of confession and declaration of forgiveness. Passing the peace. A time of preparation for the sermon or bible reading. A structured blessing and dismissal.

But, if the rituals omitted from the evening are not replaced by anything, do those in the evening then miss the important functions of these rituals?

Furthermore, does this make the integration of the youngsters into the wider congregation more difficult because the service functions in a manner that excludes them from their rituals?

Now, this doesn’t mean that the evening must be an carbon copy of the morning. That would be a mistake. But, surely, some of the rituals - if they are actually important and impactful - then they should still be included once the sun goes down.