Ministry and Me

Now writing on Substack

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Sat, 16 Sep 2023 05:09:00 +0000

Hey everyone. Not sure if anyone still finds there way to this blog some nearly 10 years since I last wrote. But if so, I'm now writing on substack.

chrisbowditch.substack.com

See you there!

I'm also on Twitter/X if you want to keep in touch

@chrisbowditch

Sermon Series: Christians at Work and in the Marketplace

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 03:19:00 +0000

Back in May I preached my first ever topical sermon series which happened to be on Christian faith in the secular workplace.

You can listen to them by clicking on the links below. I hope they might be helpful for you in someway.

A special mention goes to Tim Keller and his great book Every Good Endeavour which was a great help in my preparation.

Week 1: Work as Good and Cursed
Week 2: Priesthood of All Believers
Week 3: Living as Exiles in the City
Week 4: Agents of Justice and Peace
Week 5: Workplace Evangelism

Hebrews Sermon Series

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:41:00 +0000

I've just finished my first ever full blown exegetical sermon series. I decided to tackle Hebrews over eight weeks. You can listen to them by clicking on the links below.

I'd love your feedback. I think they get off to a slow start (first few weeks) but finish well.

It's been wonderful to sit with this book for such a long time. To put my Hebrews commentaries back on the shelf today felt a bit like saying goodbye to an old friend I won't be seeing for a little while.

Here are the links:

Week 1 - Hebrews 1:1-14
Week 2 - Hebrews 2:1-18
Week 3 - Hebrews 3:1-4:13
Week 4 - Hebrews 4:14-5:10
Week 5 - Hebrews 7:1-8:2
Week 6 - Hebrews 9:11-10:18
Week 7 - Hebrews 10:19-39
Week 8 - Hebrews 11:1-12:3

Tradition vs Traditionalism

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:24:00 +0000

Great quote found in Living Justification by Jonathan Huggins. The quote comes from Jaroslav Pelikan (how can the quote not be good with a name like that!) and goes like this:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition."

Not bad I reckon. What do you think? I feel that there must be a third option out on the other side of tradition from traditionalism that is called something like anti-tradition. Anti-tradition supposes that nothing should ever be done again, that new is the only good thing, that the past holds us back and that we have nothing to learn from it.

Strong Economy, Strong Communities

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 06:42:00 +0000

Last week I went to the ACL's Strong Economy, Strong Communities breakfast. Two talks in particular are worth you taking the time to watch.

The first was by Professor Jonathan West. He spoke about how as a community we're so preoccupied by self interest that we can never take the larger view. His story in this video about how the wine industry in Tassie opposed the expansion of the wine industry is mind boggling!

The second talk of note was that by Professor Ian Harper. He spoke again about the need for things like trust and fairness as the basic building blocks to a strong community and also a strong economy.

They aren't long talks, but they will be stimulating! If you want more information about the Tasmanian Election, and who to vote for, head on over to the Tas Votes website.

Beginning to think about Christians at work

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:41:00 +0000

I've got a series coming up at church in April/May where we'll be spending time thinking about how a Christian should work.

I'm currently doing some reading and research and I was struck by this great quote by Dorothy Sayers in Tim Keller's book Every Good Endeavor (which is a truly great endeavor, and a splendid book!). Anyhow here is the quote:

"The church's approach to an intelligent carpenter is usually confined to exhorting him to not be drunk and disorderly in his leisure hours and to come to church on Sundays. What the church should be telling him is this: the very first demand that his religion makes upon him is that he should make good tables."

There's something more positive and compelling about the second charge than the first right?

Anyway, much of what I've heard in relation to Christians and work is simply, there is gospel work (working for the church, reading the bible with people, evangelism) and there is other implied, lesser work (i.e. everything else that the majority of the world does). Suffice to say, that's never really cut it for me. Well this book is giving great voice to a larger view of work, of how it is integral to every person, and how we were created by a working God to work.

I've got more books to read, more thinking to do, but I'm really looking forward to what God will do through this series! Please pray for me and for our church, that this will not only change our thinking, but it will enable us to be God's people in our places of work.

Taking 2014 one day at a time

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:36:00 +0000

Well 2014 has been going strong now for three whole days. It's a beautiful time of year. Hot, sunny, the Taste of Tasmania is on, there is hope for what 2014 may bring.

Randomly, because they are on my iPhone, I have been listening to some sermons from Louie Giglio at Passion City Church that he preached on the Lord's prayer sometime in the middle of last year. I was really struck by a message he preached on 'give us this day our daily bread'. To cut a long story short, his point was that basically Christians spend to much time focusing on how God will provide from them and help them out yesterday, today, tomorrow and forever. But actually, there is something in knowing that God's promise is for today. He promises to come through tomorrow as well, but only when tomorrow becomes today.

Anyway, as tends to happen around new years. My eyes were firmly focused on my plans to be better this year. I had even prayed that God would help me to do well this year and to guide me this year. What a beautiful but subtle thing to be reminded then by listening to those sermons that my prayer, my daily prayer, is God help me today. Help me to serve you today. Help me to do enough today. Help me to have all I need today.

There's something kinda cool about setting yearly goals, but then knowing that you only need to worry about today. I may want to read this many books, or that much of the bible, or be more generous or whatever. All of those things happen with little steps today. And I know God can provide all the grace I need today to make a few small steps in the right direction.

This has been a profound reshaping of my thinking. Perhaps I've not articulated it well. Please ask me in the comments if you have questions.

On a related but slightly different note, I came across this article about New Years resolutions. Whilst I didn't love the whole article, this blog post titled kinda hit home at something I think. "New Years Resolution" is a nice way for you to say, "I repent". There's a great truth to that. In identifying areas where we want to do better, we are in a sense confessing that over the last year we've been lazy, or lacked self control, or whatever it is for you. Sure my New Years Resolution of clock 50% on FIFA 14 is not a confession of my lack of PS3 gaming time, but my news years resolution to tick off year one of Tim Chester's bible reading plan is indeed a confession of my need for more constant and deliberate personal bible reading.

So I'm going to take 2014 and all my hopes and dreams and the challenges and exciting things God has for me one day at time, knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that I can get through today, because God is always enough for today.

Two mission mistakes

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 01:29:00 +0000

I think there are two mistakes we can make as Christians as we seek to be missionaries or evangelists in our world today.

The first, is to assume that if people react negatively to us it's because we're preaching the gospel faithfully. That is we're confronting them with their sin and need to repent and sinners will obviously get angry about this.

This is a mistake because whilst that may happen, it could also be true that you're just being a bit of an arrogant jerk. You might not be working hard enough to make sure it's actually the gospel they're reacting to and not the fact that you're yelling at them with a loudspeaker.

But the other mistake is to assume that if you walk away from the conversation and people think you're a good bloke, that you've somehow done good mission. That you've presented an attractive message in an attractive manner. Maybe you have, but you might also just be a good bloke and they liked your smile and the fact you seemed to care about them enough to talk to them.

What's my point. It's almost... scratch that it just is impossible to find the perfect strategy to get out there with the good news that God has entrusted to us. And, whilst we should make sure we aren't being barriers to the gospel, in the end the gospel is only effective by the power of God. I think we spend too much time in seminars and conferences trying to figure out the perfect strategy and less time just doing something!

This is on my mind after a talk from John Dickson today. I may have misunderstood him, but what I heard him say was that if we're humble then people will respond well to us as we seek to explain our faith to them. I assume the fact that Jesus got killed (most humble guy ever) and Paul ended up in jail a lot (I assume reasonably humble guy) that humble explanations of the faith do not equal good reception of the gospel. I'm sure John was probably more nuanced than I'm giving him credit here.

Anyhow, I'd love your thoughts on this, or even better, your stories of getting out there with the good news!

Two sermons

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Sat, 28 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0000

My most recent sermons that I haven't posted here yet.

First one was in our series on Taboo Topics and it was on the 'Uniqueness of Christ'. Listen in here

Second one was in our series on the four purposes of our church. It was on Become based on Titus 1:1-16. Listen in here

An open letter to the Tasmanian Parliament concerning Euthanasia

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:27:00 +0000

It is with much shock that I read of the tabling of the Euthanasia bill before our parliament today. Not only that but the sponsoring members are our two most senior political leaders, the Premier and the leader of the Greens.

I urge you all to vote against this bill for a number of reasons.

Firstly, whilst on the surface, the argument that I should have the choice to end my life when I want in order to avoid suffering, whilst seemingly powerful when we scratch the surface we see some dire consequences to this line of thinking.

Firstly, it dramatically changes the role of doctors who instead of being promotors of life are now expected to be involved in the ending of life. This is a dangerous element to add into the mix, not because Doctors are not trustworthy, but because people do silly things. People take advantages of laws that give them legal protection for killing vulnerable elderly people. In countries where Euthanasia has been legalised we see that the elderly are often too scared to go to the doctor to get treatment because they are scared that their doctor and their families have colluded against them in order to end their life. No one should ever fear going to the doctors. With Euthanasia legalised we have every right to fear our doctors appointments as we get older because them killing us becomes a viable option.

Secondly, I believe that as a society we can be measured by how we treat the vulnerable. In this case vulnerable sick and elderly people. Euthanasia sends completely the wrong message here. It says that as a society we're more eager to send you off to an early grave than we are to care for you, and respect your life. It says to the elderly, you are not a blessing to our community but a burden. This is simply not something that I want any person to feel.

Thirdly, I find it odd that as a society we find suicide such a tragedy yet some feel that we should allow Euthanasia; which is effectively old person suicide. We have read recently about the tragic death of a young girl in Hobart who took her own life. This is a tragedy and it is right that we be shocked and saddened by her death. But I wonder if by the same logic we use for Euthanasia, then in fact we should see suicide as a great blessing. We should be happy that this young girl took the choice to end her suffering, and escape her life. Yes it might have been mental suffering and not physical (though I believe she was physically attacked at times), but she no longer faces those things. She is free. We should in fact, by the same logic that leads us to support Euthanasia, be encouraging people to commit suicide if they feel life has gotten to hard.

My right to chose is a powerful argument. But it is not the only argument that has to be considered when looking at Euthanasia. We have to consider the effects this will have on our society. We have to realise the dangers and we have to stand up and say as a society that we are better than this. That we value care over killing. That we value life over death.

I hope you vote against the bill and I ask that if you decide to vote for this bill that you could provide me with your reasoning. I cannot vote for a person who supports the state sanctioned killing of my grandparents by doctors. So this issue is of great importance to me.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this. I am praying that you will have great wisdom and understanding as you examine the issues.

How to vote tomorrow?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:07:00 +0000

I've got one day left to figure out how I'm voting tomorrow. It's not an easy thing and much ink has been spilled over how Christians should vote. John Dickson has this article where he outlines some guidelines for Christians. They are helpful on one level, but on another I'm still left with some 'who to vote for' problems. So what does Dickson say and how does that help or not help us?

Vote for others:

Dickson says,

"a Christian vote is a vote for others, not oneself. It is fundamental to the Christian outlook that life be devoted to the good of others before oneself..."

I get that on one level, but I find that hard to figure out on another. For example I take it what's ultimately best for all people is to hear about Jesus. I take it then, that a vote for others has to be a vote for a party that does not have a semi militant secular world-view at its heart no matter how nice their policies are in some areas.

Vote for the moral health of the community:

Basically he says, we need to figure out how our vote will reflect and shape the moral health of the community. A fair point. As an aside at this point, he argues that 1 Corinthians 5:12 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" means Christians have "no right to seek to impose a Christian way of life on a largely secular society." This doesn't quite wash for me. Firstly, it's hard to make Paul's statement in the context of church discipline a statement backing up how a Christian should live in a democracy. Secondly, Christians don't impose a Christian way of life on a largely secular society ever or at all. What we do is advocate for the best positions. We advocate that the best marriage is between a man and a woman, we advocate that children shouldn't be killed before they are born, we advocate that euthanasia is more complicated than simply 'individual rights'. We advocate that life is special and that people shouldn't be killed. We advocate that we should be good stewards of our environment. And on and on we go. What happens after we state these positions is the government must make a choice. It is and always has been the government that 'imposes' a way of life on those it governs. If Christians do not advocate their views, then the government will impose/allow what we believe to be poorer ways of living life. As it has done in places already. What am I saying in all this. That Christians should use their vote as part of their role as advocates for a better world. The problem is... no one has the perfect vision.

Vote for the poor and the weak:

Next up, Dickson says that,

"in voting for the ‘other’ the Christian will principally have in mind the poor and powerless. We will use our vote for those who need our vote more than we do."

But I'm in a bit of a bind here too... How do I weigh the treatment of poor people (refugees and overseas aid) against issues such abortion and euthanasia? I leave the marriage question out of this for a moment, because as I take it that these issues I've just mentioned are about the protection of people. Yes the question of abortion and euthanasia might be framed in terms of 'individual rights', but in actual fact these questions involve the protection of people who cannot speak for themselves (babies not yet born, and the elderly who may be feeling rejected by family and society). So too those overseas and fleeing who cannot vote for us to be more compassionate. I have no idea how I can weigh up these things. For me then, my vote therefore must be decided on other categories.

Vote for the gospel:

Here he says,

"Concern for the advancement of the Christian message throughout Australia, therefore, will potentially play a part in a Christian’s voting patterns.  Is one party better for the gospel than another?"

That's a good question. And people will go either way on the answer. I don't think the answer to that question can be discovered through individual policies. A broader approach is needed.

Michael Tate (former Labor minister in the Hawke Government and now our neighbouring Roman Catholic parish priest) debated Andrew Wilkie at our church a few months ago around issues of church and state. His view was that in the end the role of government is primarily about the distribution of wealth. That is, the left wants to kinda level the playing field (tax the rich give back to the poor, very crude understanding I know) and the right wants to encourage incentive, some say let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (though that's an unfair understanding also I think).

And I think this provides something of a window into how I will decide to vote tomorrow. If I'm voting along party lines then what I need to take into account is not policy but worldview. Not abortion vs refugee but which party's worldview is best. Which party has a less troubling set of guiding principles? And in part, if government is primarily about economics, then who has the best economic policy that allows us freedom as individuals to be generous, that creates work for people to do which from a Genesis 1 point of view is one of the best things we can give people. Which party ultimately will not only allow churches the freedom to speak The Gospel but also the homosexual lobby the freedom to speak their gospel.

I'm still not sure how I will vote tomorrow but one thing I do know is this. I will be praying for whoever wins and this is Dickson's final point.

Vote Prayerfully:

"A Christian vote is a prayerful one. The Scriptures urge believers to pray for leaders and for governments. And, ultimately, believers will see this as more important even than their vote.

I couldn't say it better myself.

What principles or ideas are going to shape how you vote tomorrow?

How Kevin Rudd lost my vote last night

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 00:13:00 +0000

Last night I saw Kevin Rudd twice on TV. The first was at the Australian Christian Lobby's national webcast. Here Kevin Rudd said this:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's address to Christians at the Make it Count 2013 Election Panel webcast from Australian Christian Lobby on Vimeo.

Now I don't mind if he changes his view on same-sex marriage. For me same-sex marriage is not a deal breaker, however what is a deal breaker is what happened when I saw Kevin for the second time last night. On ABC's Q&A I watched this interaction between Kevin and a local Pastor...

And here in lies my issue. In the first video he said this...

"Many in the Christian churches may be disappointed with some of the decisions I have taken as prime minister or as a person, I have also undertaken those decisions in good and prayerful conscience, even though people in equal prayerful conscience may disagree with some of those conclusions."

That's all I'm really looking for in a politician. Someone who can form views, advocate for them and respectfully disagree yet understand the other persons view.

But then when I got home, I witnessed one of the most cruel and patronising moments on TV that I've seen. Kevin Rudd unleashed an unfair, and wrong attack on this Pastor. In fact he sounded more like a member of the gay lobby than a politician who had formed a view. As he points out on Q&A in the video above, the New Testament has an ethic of showing love. What Kevin Rudd forgot was that he has to do that with people he disagrees with, even on matters that he disagrees with people on strongly.

So What's clear is Kevin doesn't respect people, let alone love those, who've come to different prayerful decisions based on conscience. And that is no quality I want in any member of parliament let alone the Prime Minister. So I'm sorry Kevin, even though I own a Kevin 07 t-shirt, and was once a member of the ALP, you lost my vote last night.

As an aside my current sitting local member, Andrew Wilkie was present last night and I wish he'd given Kevin Rudd some lessons. Wilkie is also in favour of same-sex marriage, but unlike Rudd, he actually does respect people who think differently to him and was able to put forward a balanced position that respects those who hold to the traditional view of marriage given he agrees with same-sex marriage.

Coaching

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:34:00 +0000

A few more reflections on our coaching session last Wednesday. One thing I've noticed is that part of leading involves catching up with volunteer leaders and talking about their ministry and life. But a question in my mind has been, how do I make those conversations more intentional? How do I make them more than a catch up with a friend?

Well John, gave us this helpful acronym to run through when we are having those pastoral or leaders catch ups. The acronym, helpfully, is COACH.

C - Connect (you've got to start at the start... so say g'day, build trust.)

O - Outcome (Get clarity around what the person you're 'coaching' would like to achieve from the conversation. I'd like clarity around why I'm a youth leader or whether I should take this new job etc.)

A - Awareness (Listen (see my last post on listening) Ask questions like, Tell me more about... or, I'm hearing...)

C - Course of action (What are you going to do? Make some SMART goals)

H - Highlights (at the end of the conversation ask, what were the things that stood out to you from this conversation.)

Listening

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 15 Aug 2013 00:30:00 +0000

Yesterday I attended a training day at Wellspring on coaching and leading volunteers. It was led by John Rietveld of Novo Coaching in Melbourne.

There was lots of good and salient stuff, and we did a whole bunch of coaching of each other to practice and learn the art, which led to many good outcomes in areas of ministry that we were struggling with so that was very helpful. But the big take home point for me was that a good coach listens. A good leader of leaders listens. And listening is hard. But a good coach has to listen and then reflect back what has been said. A good coach holds up a mirror, by listening and reflecting back what the other person is saying in order for the other person to arrive at greater clarity. But it's hard to listen.

I know I'm a terrible listener. I always want to jump in, to give my opinion (after all I've been to bible college so my opinion is like totally right pretty much all of the time). I think out loud and I like to talk. I'm extroverted in the way I process information. Listening is hard. But I'm endeavouring to get better. To be a better listener and so be a better coach, leader and pastor.

Check out this TED video about the importance of listening and some skills for becoming a better listener

How have you developed your ability to listen well?

Preaching on Doubt

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:10:00 +0000

Recently I preached a sermon on doubt, based (loosely) on the story of Thomas in John 20.

Listen here

At the start I showed this video

Preaching Luke 7:36-50

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0000

This Sunday just gone I had the great privilege of preaching on the story of the sinful woman anointing Jesus' feet with oil from Luke 7:36-50

It was a great story which reminded me about how anyone can come to Jesus, no matter what they've done, no matter how bad they've been. And it also reminded me that all of us are in need of Jesus, no matter how good we are or how good we've been. Everyone has a debt that only Jesus can pay.

You can listen or download it here

Why I didn't like The Bible

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 02:49:00 +0000

Before you accuse me of heresy and demand I resign my post, let me first clear up that in this post I'm not talking about the actual bible, but rather the TV adaptation that aired in Australia on Chanel 9 last night.

And before you accuse me of heresy and demanding I resign my post because I'm saying in public I didn't like something that apparently all Christians are meant to unite behind... well just hold your horses. I'm not critical of the people who made it, or even what they tried to do. I'm not saying it won't be useful for some. I'm not even saying I'm right. I'm just saying I didn't like it and I want to explain why.

For me the reason I didn't like the Bible is the same reason I pretty much don't like any Christian movie that is made ever. And that reason is that Christian movies or productions don't seem to be good at letting me take a step back and think for myself about the themes. For example in the movie World War Z with Brad Pitt that I just saw last week many things happen. Zombies rise up, Brad saves the world. But the cure or the solution to the zombie apocalypse is to make people sick with deadly virus (which somehow can be cured later) because the zombies only go for healthy people. Anyway, without saying anything directly to the camera, this movie has explored the theme of how strengths can be weakness, of how weakness can be strength. In fact I think it gives me a window somewhat into the world of Paul in his letters to Corinthians and helps me understand that actually weakness can be strength. That God is made strong through our weakness. It's not a direct link, but a related theme. And movies, and TV shows or mini-series work best when they teach not through plot but through theme. And this is why I didn't really like The Bible.

Look it's great that constantly the characters turn to each other and say, 'we must trust God'. But it would be better if, and this would take the brains of some far more skilled movie script writers than me, it would be better if we saw the story unfold and implicit in the theme was trust in the face of adversity. I also found the narration clunky, normal TV doesn't do that.

My other problem is that The Bible (like the actual written version) is a story of sinful, imperfect people being used by God even though they fail, give up, and often lack trust in God. Abraham and the Israelites in the wilderness both lack trust in God and His promises A LOT. But the faithfulness of God to His promises remains. Sure the people in the story have some good moments. But I'd like to see more of the bad moments (in the TV show).

So I don't know how you would do this, but I'd be more interested in a show that figured out what some of the big themes in the scriptures were and then figured out which stories best explored those themes. Kinda like how the book of Esther never mentions God but explores themes anyway.

Did you watch it last night? What did you think?

Preaching 2 Tim 3:10-4:8

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 03:02:00 +0000

Lots of preaching going on at the moment. My Senior Minister (aka boss) has been in Cambodia and come back with some sort of exotic infection, so there will be even more to come as he recovers. (Prayer's appreciated)

Here is my sermon from last week on 2 Tim 3:10-4:8. Wrapping up our series on 2 Timothy.

You can listen/download it here

Preaching 2 Tim 2:1-13

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:00:00 +0000

This Sunday just gone I preached on 2 Tim 2:1-13. A great passage written by Paul to Timothy charing him with taking on the ministry of the gospel which will involve a life of suffering.

You can listen to it here

On a slightly different note, tomorrow I head to Melbourne and then to Germany/France and Switzerland on Friday for two weeks soaking up the sights and sounds of the Reformation. Should be good!

Preaching

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0000

I've preached a bunch of times since starting at Wellspring. You can hear them all by clicking on the links below.

John 12:1-8
Easter Sunday
David and Goliath
David and Absalom

To subscribe to Wellspring's podcasts on iTunes click here

I became a Rev - Life Update

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 01:05:00 +0000

It's been a while since I've posted on the blog lately so I thought I'd better give an update of the last six months or so.

We moved from Melbourne to Tasmania where I took up the position of Assistant Minister at Wellspring Anglican Church (located in Hobart). We're really excited to be part of what God is doing in this part of the world.

I became (got ordained) an Anglican Deacon and will hopefully become a 'priest' in the near future.

In a week from now I will head to Germany for my final subject which will mean my Masters of Divinity from Ridley Melbourne will be completed (assuming I don't fail the final assignment when I get back).

I've updated the blog template which I think is a little nicer.

We're really enjoying life in Tasmania and think you should come visit this beautiful part of God's creation!

Choosing a Bible Translation

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 01:48:00 +0000

We hear it often in church that one of the best things we can do for our personal spiritual life is spend more time in God’s word. And this is true. In Hebrews 4:12 we read that, “the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” But when you walk into Koorong and look at the wall of bibles you will notice there are a range of choices of bibles. This is because the Bible was not originally written in English and so there are a number of different translations to choose from. So how should you decide which one to choose from? How can you know if the Bible you were given when you became a Christian is a good translation?

Well the theory that informs the translators is for another post and if you want more information about that you begin by reading Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart’s excellent book How to Read the Bible for all its Worth. However, a good translation will have used the best copies of the original Greek manuscripts available to us today and will be honest about where there is uncertainty over certain translation issues (this will usually be shown by having an alternative translation in the footnotes).

With this basic understanding there are two translations that you should not use for personal or corporate bible study. The KJV/NKJV and The Message. See what Fee and Stuart say about the KJV/NKJV

‘The KJV for a long time was the most widely used translation in the world; it is also a classic expression of the English language. Indeed it coined phrases that will be forever embedded in our language (“coals of fire”, “the skin of my teeth”, “tongues of fire”). However, for the New Testament, the only Greek text available to the 1611 translators was based on late manuscripts, which had accumulated the mistakes of over a thousand years of copying. Few of these mistakes – and we must note that there are many of them – make any difference to us doctrinally, but they often do make a difference in the meaning of certain specific texts. Recognizing that the English of the KJV was no longer a living language – and thoroughly dissatisfied with its modern revision (RSV/NRSV) – it was decided by some to update the KJV by ridding it of its “archaic” way of speaking. But in so doing, the NKJV revisers eliminated the best feature of the KJV (its marvelous expression of the English language) and kept the worst (its flawed text). This is why you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or the NKJV.’ (How to Read the Bible for All its Worth – Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart: 2003: p40)

The KJV deserves a special place in the history of the western world and is one of the great achievements of the Reformation in making God’s word accessible to the people. But some 400 years later it simply no longer stands up to scrutiny. With The Message the issues are of a different nature. Eugene Peterson wrote The Message to help make the bible more accessible. He said he wrote it for, “those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become 'old hat’” (The Message Version Information: http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Message-MSG-Bible/). And to that end The Message can be great to read from time to time to give us fresh insight into what God is saying through His word. However whilst The Message has great usefulness in helping us look at a passage of scripture with fresh eyes, The Message often goes beyond the bounds of simple translation and steps into the world of commentary or interpretation, but without stating as such or making the reader aware of other translation or interpretation options. Thus Fee and Stuart say that ‘particularly eye-catching moments’ in The Message need to be checked with other translations or with a commentary before they are relied on to form something of our beliefs about God.

So what translations to use for personal or corporate bible study? At Wellspring we use the NIV and we suggest that this is one of the best translations. It is translated by a committee of leading Evangelical scholars and thinkers and is both faithful to the original text whilst being written in relatively simple and easy to understand English. So next time you go into Koorong to update your bible hopefully you’ll be able to make a more informed decision that will help you delve deeply into God’s word.

How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth is available from Koorong or Book Depository.

Jonathan Edwards and Youth Ministry: Wrapping it all Up

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:00:00 +0000

So did Edwards invent Youth Ministry? Well we stated at the beginning of this series that Youth ministry is the ministry of the church aimed at those in the period of human development sociologically defined as adolescence.[1] It is a ministry which must seek to educate young people in the Christian faith and convert young people to new faith in Christ. It is clear that Edwards had a ministry to those who were in a state of ‘adolescence’. With the changes in Puritan society that took place around Edwards’s time in Northampton, young people found themselves caught between childhood and adulthood and having particular needs and struggles. Edwards sought to engage with these young people through a variety of means but most notable holding special meetings for young people and also making changes to his preaching content and style in order to better engage with the youth of his day.

Edwards may have had contemporaries who shared his concern for young people, however he seems to have pioneered a ministry to a group of adolescents who were in need of both conversion and education in the Christian faith. This is youth ministry at its core and so the claim that Edwards invented youth ministry is indeed defensible and should be acknowledged in any attempt to sketch a history of youth ministry.

[1] Cannister, ‘Youth Ministry’s Historical Context: The Education and Evangelism of Young People’, 77.

Missional Communities and Youth Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:45:00 +0000

So I've learnt a stack this year as I've undertaken 10 subjects (5 per semester) at Ridley Melbourne this year. But not only that I've been privileged to attend Plentylife which is a new Anglican church plant on Melbournes northern fringe which is built around the Sheffield Missional Communities model. Anyway, I've got to recently thinking about how a missional communities church could structure its youth ministry. And well I haven't got all the answers yet but here's my first draft of a basic skeleton.

Basically I think the youth pastor needs to primarily equipping and releasing the leaders to be missional disciple makers. Those leaders then release and equip those youth whom you have identified as being key or core members of the youth ministry. The leaders then release and equip those youth to run the IN/UPs of the youth missional community and then together as a community you go on OUTs together. Which may or may not look something like regular youth ministry. I think this strikes that balance of low control with high accountability that seems such a key part of the Missional Communities model, as well as actually equipping the youth to step up into greater responsibility.

Now, I haven't ever tried this. I have no idea if it works. I don't even know if it maps 100% properly with Missional Communities stuff. But it's a first attempt. I'd love your feedback. If you're a Missional Communities person and are familiar with all the stuff from Sheffield and Mike Breen and 3DM then tell me how you've structured things? Obviously one of the issues with using a skeleton like this would be working out the timing of everything. The youth leaders need to be at everything (the huddles, the IN/UPs and the OUTs) plus they are likely going to want to be involved in the church at large too. When you start factoring those time issues in, it starts becoming a really big commitment for a working or studying volunteer. You might almost need a monthly cycle. But aside from the timing issue, I think something like this needs to be the aim for a Missional Communities style Youth Ministry.

Jonathan Edwards and Youth Ministry: His Uniqueness

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 02:06:00 +0000

It's been a month of Fridays looking at Edwards and the claim that he invented Youth Ministry. We have see that there is no question that Jonathan Edwards was involved in Youth Ministry. He deliberately sought to minister to young people who where experiencing a state of prolonged adolescence because of the changing social system in Northampton. But is Edwards’s ministry to young people, new and unique? Did he invent it, or was he simply one of many who began working with young people? Brekus cites a quote from one of Edwards’s contemporaries William Williams which stressed the need to convey the truth of scripture to youth in a way that enables them to ‘conceive of it’ and not simply, ‘learn things by rote’. She argues this reflects Edwards view.[1] But in our case it also shows that there were others around Edwards’s time who were beginning to minister to young people.

Chamberlin notes that Congregational ministers throughout New England had a longstanding concern for the reform and conversion of young people,[2] and Tracy speaks of Jonathan Edwards and his father Timothy as being, ‘clearly preoccupied with the same issues’, which included young people and their sexual sins, and the failure of parents to govern their children.[3] Brekus notes that many Puritan ministers had written catechisms for children but that, ‘few (if any) seem to have held separate meetings for them. [4] Edwards however did hold special meetings for children and youth and this seems to have been a new and unique thing.

Next week will bring us to the end of our discussion of Edwards on Youth Ministry and I'll give my opinion as to why I think Edwards indeed may have invented Youth Ministry.

[1] Brekus, ‘Children of Wrath, Children of Grace: Jonathan Edwards and the Puritan Culture of Child Rearing’, 303.

[2] Chamberlain, ‘Edwards and Social Issues’, 331.

[3] Tracy, Jonathan Edwards, Pastor: Religion and Society in Eighteenth Century Northampton, 168.

[4] Brekus, ‘Children of Wrath, Children of Grace: Jonathan Edwards and the Puritan Culture of Child Rearing’, 313.