Now Posting at Solapanel

For those of you who are interested, I am now part of a team blog hosted by Matthias Media, and I post there regularly rather than here. The blog is called the Sola Panel.

Christians and Work

Why do we work? What value do we attach to our work? Does our choice of jobs matter?

There’s a lot of talk in Christian circles these days about work. Much of that talk seems to put a value on work that I simply don’t find in the bible.

What does the bible actually teach about work?

• God works… and then rests. (Genesis 1)
• As God’s creatures and agents in the world we work. (Genesis 1:28-30) That means that work is a core part of what it is to be human. Work is not something that gets in the way of leisure… work is good.
• However, work in a fallen world will be frustrating and difficult (Genesis 3).
  
• Work in a fallen world can also express our desire to find identity and meaning apart from God. (Genesis 11)
• God cares that we work honestly… being fully conscious that he can see us working (eg. Col 3:22ff.)
• The general expectation is that we all should work. However, those whose task is the preaching of the gospel aren’t required to work in the conventional sense, instead, they are to be supported by God’s people. (1 Tim 5:17-18)

I can really only find two reasons in the Scriptures as to why we work…

• We work in order to provide for our own basic needs and those for whom we are responsible… in so doing we are not being lazy or a burden to others. We work to survive. (2 Thess 3:6-14)
• We work so that we might be generous (Eph 4:28)

I often hear people adding a third reason based on the mandate in Genesis 1:28. However, Genesis 1 is teaching nothing more than that God gives human beings the right to use the resources of this world in order to enable them to thrive. It is really just an aspect of the first reason above… we work to survive in God’s world.

If all of this is true then it means that we don’t work to find fulfilment, meaning and satisfaction. We don’t work to find status and significance. We don’t work to exercise power. AND we don’t work in order to advance the kingdom of God or advance the gospel.

To be honest I hear young workers saying the last of those things all the time. It represents a confusion about how God is at work in the world. God is working in the world through the proclamation of Christ crucified. Work itself doesn’t proclaim Jesus… our lives in themselves don’t proclaim Jesus… the only thing that advances the kingdom of God in this world is the verbal proclamation of the message about Jesus Christ and him crucified. We may do some of that gospel proclamation during our work life, but our work itself is not the work of the kingdom.

The implications of that are massive. It means that our paid work is less significant than the gospel proclamation and ministry that we do. Sharing the gospel, teaching a bible study group, a Sunday school class or our own children about Jesus, is far more important than the work we do in order to survive and enable us to be generous.

Now, if that is the case, then we will make decisions in life based on that priority. We will choose to turn down the promotion or the transfer, if it will get in the way of the gospel proclamation ministry we are doing. Conversely, we will stay in an otherwise unsatisfying job if it is providing us with excellent gospel opportunities.

Of course, if someone was to offer you the chance to no longer have to work in order to survive, but rather to spend more of your time in your real priority (gospel ministry) then you will want to say ‘yes’ straight away. And unless you have excellent reasons for saying ‘no’ that are ground in the priority of gospel proclamation (and some of you may, although probably less than we think), to decline that opportunity exposes that in reality your work is a greater priority to you than the proclamation of the gospel. I’m pretty sure that’s called idolatry!

Why should we believe in the Trinity... and does it matter?

Recently we turned our minds to two big questions

1. Why should we believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?
2. Why does it matter... what is the 'cash-value' of holding to such a doctrine?

So... why should we believe that God is Trinity... 1 God - 3 persons?

The question of the Trinity really arises out of the impact of the person of Jesus.

The New Testament teaches unequivocally that Jesus Christ is divine. For instance listen to the testimony of the apostle John...

• John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That is, Jesus is the preexistent Word... both God and with God. Jesus is the incarnation of the preexistent God
  
• John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God; the only God who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."
  
• And then in John 20:28, Thomas turns to the resurrected Lord Jesus and declares, "My Lord and my God." A statement that Jesus commends Thomas for rather than rebuking him.
  

So that's the first step in the argument that leads to the Trinity... the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God.

The second step is the universal witness of the Scriptures that there is only 1 God. For instance listen to the prophet Isaiah...

• Isaiah 43:10 "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me."
  
• Isaiah 44:6 "I am the the first and I am the last; beside me there is no god."
  
• Isaiah 45:5 "I am Yahweh, and there is no other, besides me there is no god..."

The conundrum for the early Christians was how they hold those two things together. Jesus is God... AND... there is only one God. No wonder it took them the better part of 3 centuries to confidently affirm a solution.

There are several options:

1. Modalism teaches that there is one God who takes 3 successive forms. God is Yahweh the Father in the Old Testament, then he become Jesus Christ, and now God is the Holy Spirit. There are any number of problems with that. For instance, how does it account for the fact that Jesus was preexistent? How does it account for the command to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit?
   
2. Adoptionism teaches that Jesus was a good man whom God adopted as his Son. Once again, it does not explain the teaching about Jesus preexistence.
   
3. Arianism teaches that Jesus is the first and greatest creature created by God. However, that does not take seriously the teaching of the New Testament that Jesus is not just god-like, but that he is God.
   
4. Tritheism argues that the apparent monotheism of the New Testament was not the full picture. There are, in fact, 3 Gods. While it is true that many of the New Testament passages could be read in a way consistent with tritheism, to discount the clear teaching of the bible that there is still only 1 God is not an option open to bible believing Christians.
   
5. Trinitarianism is therefore the only biblically possible solution to the conundrum. There is one God who exists as 3 persons (of course, this is to assume the distinct personality of the Spirit - which is another issue altogether). With 20-20 theological hindsight it is then clear that the way that Jesus speaks in a passage like John 14:1-11 assumes the Trinity.
   

So, why does it matter? What is the 'cash-value' in believing that God is Trinity?

There are countless profound and practical way in which this sort of thinking pays off. Here are two:

1. It shows that at the heart of the universe is not an aloof detached God like the Allah of Islam. Instead reality at its most real is an eternal set of relationships. That is, relationship is at the heart of the universe! And because God is relationship it is possible for him to genuinely include us in that relationship.
   
2. Unless we hold that the way God reveals himself in Jesus is not true to who he is in himself, then the doctrine of the Trinity shows us that it is specifically other-person-centered relationships that are at the heart of the universe. The Son eternally submits to the loving will of the Father. The self-effacing Spirit is eternally directing us to the Father and the Son. This means that loving leadership, willing submission and humble service are the most supreme realities in the cosmos. For us to be made in God's image means that we are made for other-person centered relationships of love, submission and service.
   

Any more suggestions for ways in which believing the doctrine of the Trinity ought to make a practical impact?

Is staying in your career a sin?

Here's an argument to consider...

• First Premise... All other things being equal, spending your life in full-time ministry is more strategic in the light of where God is taking this world, than spending it in secular work. In other words, full time ministry of the word is the best way for a person to be involved in God’s kingdom growing.
• Second Premise... The criterion for selecting people for full-time ministry are giftedness, godliness and opportunity.
• Conclusion... If you have the gifts, godliness and opportunity to do full-time ministry you ought to do it. In that situation, not to take up the challenge of full-time ministry is necessarily an expression of an underlying sin, eg. materialism, cowardice or insecurity.

And so the only good reasons not to enter full-time ministry are...

• Not having the right gifts for that type of ministry
  
• Lack of maturity and growth in godliness
• Lack of opportunity. That could be a family situation like needing to care for aging relatives, or being married to an unsuitable person. It could be illness.

Then the objections come flooding in...

• The Individualistic objection is simply "I don't want to". But that is just code for sin. It's the choice of personal preferences over the eschatologically shaped necessities of the present age.
  
• The Subjective objection is "I don't feel called". But the call is given to all Christians to be involved in the work of the gospel in a way which matches their gifts and opportunities.
  
• The Evangelistic objection is "We need more people in the work-place, particularly good work-place evangelists." But to suggest that there is any danger of a mass abandoning of the work-place by Christian is ridiculous. Also, the best work-place evangelists are not just excellent trainers and equippers of others, they are likely to be our best church-planters.
• The Financial objection runs like this... "I will work so I can give generously". Getting beyond the fact that this is often code for sinful materialism, even if it is genuine, I would want to argue that there is always enough money to fund ministry. In our church you only need, at the most, 6 wage-earners tithing to pay for a trained full-time minister. In other words a congregation of 300 should be able to fund 50 full-time ministers. If there is vision and direction in a ministry people will always generously fund it.
  
• The Humility objection... "I am not gifted enough. There are others far more suitable than me." But when you think more widely than our present situation you will realise that an experienced bible-study or youth-group leader in our church has more preparedness for full-time ministry than the vast majority of people presently doing that task in other parts of the country and the world.
  

The fundamental question is this... is there really a difference between going into and not going into Christian ministry, or are they just equally balanced options? If they are both equal 'goods' then if you have the gifts, godliness and opportunity, feel no obligation... just toss a coin. On the other hand, if there is a 'good' and a 'better', and you have the gifts, godliness and opportunity, the decision not to go into full-time ministry is effectively a sin.

Some things to remember...

• If we are careful to remember 1 Corinthians 12-14 we won't end up thinking in terms of elite Christians. We are all doing ministry according to our giftedness and opportunity.
  
• This is not to devalue secular work. It is a good thing and an expression of who we are as creatures. However, in the light of the fact that the thing that God is doing in the world is calling people to repentance and faith (2 Peter 3), there is a priority on the ministry of the word.
  
• To think like this is to be a despised prophet. To challenge people in this way is to be a voice in the wilderness telling people what no one else will be saying to them. Be prepared to be hated

Any thoughts?

One church plant or two?

You've just received a $100,000 donation for the on-going ministry of your church. How do you spend it?
My take is that you have only two good options...

1. Spend it on revitalizing existing congregations and ministries
2. Use it to plant a new church

What arguments would lead you to think that planting a new church is the way to go?

Many of the arguments for church planting fall into two categories.

1. There are arguments that are really just urging us to do church. Eg. Jesus' essential call in Matthew 28 was to incorporate believers into a church community. But the flaw in that argument is that, if we've already got a church to incorporate new believers into, why do we need another one?
2. There are arguments that look to the model of church-planting in the book of Acts. Paul planted churches and so should we. But the problem with that argument is that the situation then was one in which no church community existed. Once again, if we have a decent bible teaching church in our area why do we need another one?

For these arguments to work we need a change of mindset. As long as we think geographically about church (eg. parishes) it's difficult to get away from the mentality that says 'we don't need another church in our suburb'. But once we escape that way of thinking we are free to realise that there are countless people-groups in our community and networks that aren't being reached by the gospel. Faced with that reality the only gospel-minded and mission-minded response is to create new fellowships and gatherings to reach those people and groups. Only in this way will we reach the myriad of 'cities' that exist in our city. We need to be missionaries to the culture around us.

Of course there are countless practical and sociological reasons to plant churches. Here are just some... (without any accompanying evidence... just trust me on this!)

• New churches freed from the influence of established generations and cultures are better about to reach young people or new people groups.
  
• New churches can more quickly integrate new members and get them involved in ministry.
  
• A new church is far more likely to grow from amongst those who are not presently attending another church. Churches more than 10 years old tend to gain 80-90% of their new members by transfer.

So how would you spend that $100,000? One church plant or two?

How would Jesus respond to Islam?

POSTED BY ROBIN KINSTEAD

Alistair McGrath concludes, in his delivery of the 2006 Smith Lecture in Sydney entitled ‘The Twilight of Atheism,’ that atheism has failed historically and is on the wane for intellectuals seeking to explain contemporary life. His analysis of atheism demonstrates that the belief system presents minimal challenge to the Christian faith. His final observation is compelling. He asserts that ‘the most significant, dynamic and interesting critic of western Christianity is no longer atheism, but a religious alternative, offering a rival vision of God: Islam.’ See CASE 10. In recent months we have found that McGrath’s assertion bears out.

Given the immediate publicity in the media surrounding a recent documentary aired by UK Channel 4 program Dispatches entailed ‘Undercover Mosque - the Radicalisation of UK mosques by Saudi Wahabbism’ here (aired 15^th January 2007) and in light of the increasing growth and popularity of Islam both locally and globally, we decided to explore how Jesus might respond to Islam.

Whilst Islam, like Christianity, is ultimately as diverse in its manifestations as it is numbered in its adherents, we can make two broadly accurate assertions. Christians believe the Bible to be the authentic, divinely inspired word of God conferring final authority in all matters of truth and faith. Muslims believe the Bible to be corrupted and abrogated by the Qu’ran.

We shared our experiences and insights of Islam, discussing some of the similarities and differences between the Christian and Islamic faith. We then watched most of the documentary ‘Undercover Mosque - The Radicalisation of UK mosques by Saudi Wahabbism’ and reflected on the following issue... How should we engage with assertions made by Muslim leaders which seem to challenge our commitment to both Christ and country? Assertions like these...

Jews and Christians who do not follow the Kofi of Mohammed are Kuffar. They will go to hell. Anyone who helps or defends an apostate or a pagan or an atheist or anyone who attacks Islam will be cursed.”

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Alsheik (quoted in the documentary)

Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth.

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali (in 'The Australian' here)

On the other hand, how should we engage with a secular response like this?

The jihadi puppeteers peddling Sheik Feiz videos to simpletons should be effusive in their thanks for the support of the civil liberties lobby and the social justice set and the human rights and peace groups waiting to talk to the school students and to the church bodies which see themselves as the consciences of the nation.’

Piers Akerman (in the Telegraph here)

What do you think?

The Evangelism Guilt Trip

A Christian friend lays down the challenge... "Why do preachers always put the guilt trip on me about evangelism? Nowhere in the bible are all Christians commanded to actively share the gospel with their friends. I just try to live a good Christian life, give some money to gifted evangelists and missionaries, and I'm ready to give an explanation for my life if anyone should ask. Don't load this unnecessary burden on me!"
What can we say? Has it ever trouble you that the bible rarely, if ever, explicitly commands Christians to actively share the gospel with those around them.?
Here are our thoughts...
There are at least 3 beliefs taught clearly in the Bible that so completely imply the necessity of evangelism that direct commands to actively share the gospel are simply not necessary.

1. We are commanded to love our neighbours. How can we say we are loving them if we withhold from them the most important gift we have to offer?
2. From Genesis 12:1-3 onwards we see that the nations are on God's heart. The unfolding plan of salvation shows us that the gospel going out to all people is the key thing that God is doing right now in the world. If we are part of God's family then we need to be involved in the family business.
   
3. As the Apostle to the Gentiles Paul's missionary strategy was to preach the gospel in the key cities of each region. Having established the gospel in each major city he would then leave it to each of those churches to take the gospel to the rest of the city and the surrounding areas (see Paul's outrageous boast in Romans 15:19 which only makes sense if this was Paul's strategy). As the product of Paul's missionary endeavors we have now been entrusted with the task of continuing the mission.
   

Any other ideas, angles or thoughts?