Asking the Second Question

I have the privilege of being Master of 'New College' at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. We have regular formal dinners for all residents when we eat good food together, enjoy a musical item by talented residents and listen to a guest speaker. One of my tasks is to identify the speakers, invite them and introduce them to our residents. I try to find people of varied backgrounds, interests, life experiences, cultures etc. At our June dinner I invited a remarkable 27 year old man to speak to us - Dr Sam Prince. I asked him to speak about his life as a doctor and his entrepreneurial activities building a chain of restaurants and initiating varied projects designed to fight inequities of one kind or another.

He shared many interesting things, but one idea in particular has stayed with me. He suggested that as a young many he has learned that it is important to ask people the 'second question'.

What did he mean by this? Something quite basic, but in it's own way, quite profound. As an innovator, entrepreneur and consummate networker, he had found that it's easy to ask one question, hear the answer, then keep talking about your self, or move on to the next person. He suggested that it was important to 'listen' well enough to ask the right second question. He shared several powerful examples of strangers he had met and with whom he now had significant relationships after asking a second question. He stressed that each of these conversations could have ended with just one question. But it was the second question that often opened the door to more substantial discussion. While I assume that Sam Prince isn't the first person to think about 'second questions', it is a helpful reminder.

I should stress that he shared his insight, not as an apologetic strategy for any faith. In fact, I don't think he has a religious faith of any kind. But his insight about the second question is of immense relevance to apologetics. There are many books and blog posts that talk about asking good questions, leading questions, tough questions and so on. But the role of the question is to hear what someone says, particularly what's on their heart. Our questions should hopefully open a door that allows us to understand the person we're talking to, and understand their deepest needs.

What is troubling them?
What are their fears?
What are their hopes?
In what do they put their trust?
What do they see as the need of the hour?
What are their passions?

Often the first question we ask of anyone - friend or stranger - is simply an opening. How are you today? Having fun? Been here long? Are you okay? Questions of this type often receive a response, but frequently they offer little and sometimes are not even truthful. "How are you?" "Oh, I'm fine". But the good friend, neighbour or work mate will assess the words of response in the light of other things. Is he or she really 'fine'?

It is remarkable how many times I have approached a friend and received a response like 'fine' and then followed it with a second question that has elicited a different response. "Are you sure you're fine, you look tired?" To such a second question I have often received a much more honest response. "Not that flash really." Such an honest response might lead to a significant conversation that opens the door to those deep fears, troubles, hopes, passions and so on. It is only if conversations get to the 'second question' and beyond that you will have the opportunity to share your own hopes and the God in whom you have placed your trust.

John Flynn & the Australian Inland Mission: Faith in Action

West MacDonnell Ranges, Northern Territory

My wife Carmen and I are in the Central Australia this week and in our travels from Alice Springs along the MacDonnell Ranges had the chance, not just to see beautiful countryside, but also to gain some insight into the early missionary work of the Christian Church. One inspirational example is the work of the Reverend John Flynn.

John Flynn is buried in Alice Springs, a town located in the centre of Australia's Red Centre. Flynn founded the Australia Inland Mission. He spent almost 40 years leading it until his death in 1951. John Flynn's work was quite remarkable. Throughout his training to become a Presbyterian minister, he worked in remote areas through Victoria and South Australia. His second posting after ordination was to a Mission at Beltana, a town 500 kilometres north of Adelaide in an extremely remote area.

By 1912, after writing a report for his church superiors on the difficulties of ministering in remote areas Flynn became convicted of the need to address the hardship and isolation that people suffered in the remote centre of the Australian continent.  He observed that any serious illness or injury in remote inland Australia almost invariably lead to death because they had no access to medical services.  He was appointed as the first superintendent of the Australian Inland Mission (AIM). Flynn had two clear interests, the spiritual needs of remote people, and their medical needs in the outback. He conceived the idea of the establishment of a 'Mantle of Safety' for all people in remote areas. He established a number of bush hospitals and began to consider how technology like radio and aircraft could be used to care for people over vast distances.

Alfred Traeger inventor of the Pedal Radio

The development of a pedal radio by Alfred Traeger Flynn gave Flynn an opportunity to develop an aerial medical service that could cover vast distances. On the 17th May 1928 the first aerial service began and by the 1930s the service had gone nation wide. Flynn was a visionary driven by a deep faith that led him to action.

Flynn began fund-raising in order to establish a flying medical service. The first flight of the Aerial Medical Service took place in 1928 from Cloncurry in Queensland. Eventually he lobbied government and the service went Australia wide. In 1934 the 'Australian Aerial Medical Service' was formed, and gradually established a network across the nation.

While the Flying Doctor Service is the thing that Flynn is famous for, his work extended well beyond this. He also established nursing homes and instituted travelling ministries across vast distances on horseback. In 1939 he was elected Flynn to the role of Moderator-General within the Presbyterian Church of Australia.

A Royal Australian Flying Doctor Service Reaching a Remote Patient

What struck me about Flynn's work is that it was motivated by his awareness of the hardships of people in remote areas. He had a passion for the salvation of the people spiritually, but his concern for them extended to easing the suffering of the people in remote regions.

Classroom where teachers broadcast daily lessons

Flynn's vision was eventually translated into the establishment of the world's first 'School of the Air'. One of the Board members of AIM, Adelaide Miethke saw that the radio infrastructure developed as part of Flynn's 'Mantle of Safety' could also serve as the foundation of schooling to children in remote areas. This idea led to the establishment of an educational service to children in remote locations all over Central Australia. On 8th June 1951 the 'School of the Air' was established. Today just weeks after its 60th anniversary, the School of the Air has spread to 16 different services that cover all remote regions within Australia.  In recent times the radio contact between teacher and student has been upgraded to computer and video contact.

Flynn's work is a good demonstration of what James was getting at when he wrote that we  must "...be doers of the word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). John Flynn's life demonstrates what it means to live out one's faith and to turn this faith into action.  Our response to the gospel of Christ and God's word as it takes root in our lives is to take action as we share our faith in word and deed.

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. (James 1:19-22)

You can read a fuller biography of Rev John Flynn HERE

What is the True Scandal of the Evangelical Mind?

Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame, Mark A. Noll suggested almost 20 years ago that the Evangelical Christian church had headed down a path towards anti-intellectualism. He opens his challenging book ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind’ with the confronting words:

“The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind…They have nourished millions of believers in the simple verities of the gospel but have largely abandoned the universities, the arts, and other realms of ‘high’ culture’.”

While many Christians found his book helpful and challenging, its central thesis has been contested by many and for varied reasons. While some would agree with his most obvious point - that many Christians have failed to engage culturally and have spent even less time thinking theologically about their life in the world - some might question the justification for his thesis. Certainly, Creation Scientists and American dispensationalists would question his arguments, for they bear the brunt of much of his criticism.

Carl Trueman in his eBook 'The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind'  has sought to turn Noll's claims on their head by making another obvious point; there is no clear definition of what we mean by an Evangelical. For Trueman, the real scandal is that for too many Christians, there has been a disconnect between their intellectual and moral lives and their biblical and theological foundations. Trueman argues well that Christians who claim to be Evangelicals have failed to spend time grasping even the most basic elements of the faith and avoiding engaging their minds about issues that matter. Many have failed to consider God's nature and character, our personhood as his created beings, moral issues as basic as gender and sexuality, biblical authority and so on. Instead, we have avoided awkward discussions and distilled what are seen as the essentials of being an evangelical to anyone who "sees the Bible as a jolly good book and that Jesus was a decent bloke". 

Theologically I find myself in agreement on many things with Carl Trueman and I share his view that the term evangelical has become so loosely defined as to be unhelpful or useless for communicating with other people. But, I'm not prepared to so easily dismiss Noll's point. Both Trueman and Noll manage to put their fingers on two aspects of the problem of the disappearing influence of Christians in public life. For me, this isn't a matter of academic vanity or lamenting Christians becoming "less important, more marginal, and increasingly despised" (as he 'gently' puts it). I don't think the point can be won that easily. It is important for Christians to have a voice in all aspects of life and be able to offer a biblically informed view of the things they believe and the actions they take.

There is certainly some evidence in Australia to suggest that Evangelical Christians are less visible in the secular academies than they once were, but evangelicals have not abandoned university campuses, they have simply become ‘outsiders’ involved primarily in chaplaincy and student-based ministry. And those Christians left on university staff on campus have often made themselves small targets, keeping their religious views and often even their faith, well hidden. The Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students (AFES) with its ministry to university students has experienced phenomenal growth in the last 10 years. But the number of Christian staff on faculties appears to have declined. This could be claimed of other professions and other social institutions.

Noll’s point is not that theologians and theological colleges have shown no intellectual muscle, quite the opposite, but that evangelical Christians while placing a primacy on the serious study of the Bible, have spent much less time considering “sober analysis of nature, human society, and the arts.” Evangelical Christians he suggests have neglected the ‘life of the mind’. By this Noll means the effort to think like a Christian about the world, that is, to think within a Christian framework or worldview. His challenge is for the Christian to consider, critique, understand and think about the physical world, as well as the nature of human structures like government, education, the economy, the past, the aesthetic, and the nature of humanity.

Of course, Trueman might be right in his claim that the reason so many have become impotent as Christians in the academy and other places is simply that they have ignored the fundamentals of their faith and have failed to grasp the deep things of God.

We know that as Paul reminded the Corinthian Church, that we do not impart "...a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory"(1 Cor 2:6-7). No, with Paul we come in weakness, fear and trembling with knowledge of nothing "except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor 2:1-5). But of course these deep things must change us and lead us to live our lives under God's authority. Lives that are informed and shaped by his Word to us, surrendered to his Son and lived sacrificially for his glory.

The purpose of CASE

The formation of ‘CASE’ at my own college within a major secular university was motivated by the desire to encourage Christians to addresses the relationship between theology and other forms of knowledge and learning. In the process, we have sought to engage with people who do not share the Christian faith. We don't see our primary goal as evangelism, but we see intelligent application of biblical insights to all of life as foundational to evangelism.

Organizations like CASE have an important role to play. We are not alone; there have been other groups attempting such work for a long time. One which comes readily to mind is the 'Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology' (ISCAST) which is an Australian organization dedicated to exploring the interface between science and the Christian faith. Its membership consists of scientists, theologians and professionals with standing in their own fields and a commitment to the Christian faith.

The content of this post was part of an address I gave at St Mark's Theological Centre in Canberra at its commencement in March. Interestingly, St Mark's is one of the few Christian centres for the study of theology that is integrated fully into a university. You can read my paper titled 'Regaining Our Voice in the Secular University' HERE.

Other Posts

My recent post on 'The Christian Mind' also has relevance to my arguments in this post (HERE)

The need for truth, not seduction, in a pluralistic world

The challenge of pluralism

It seems that for every generation there will be cultural challenges. In the 1960s (my teenage years) the younger generation was focused on a quest for 'freedom'. This showed itself in the questioning of the authority of institutions like the church and the state, the desire for sexual freedom and for women, in particular, feminist challenges to traditional roles and relationships between men and women at work and in the home. In this present age some of the greatest challenges are a consequence of the rise of cultural and religious pluralism and the challenge of postmodernism to truth claims. This has had consequences for Christians and the church and their place in societies like Australia that were once thought to be 'Christian'. Professor David Wells has some helpful comments on this topic in Justin Taylor and John Piper's book "The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World" (Crossways, 2007), a book that I've been reading this week. Wells suggests that the impact of pluralism has been that religions have tended to lose their edge and distinction. He argues, "religions tend to blur in the postmodern mind and become undifferentiated from each other." While some could counter this generalisation by pointing to some sections of major religions that have become more radical and others that have become more fundamentalist (I don't use the term pejoratively) or conservative; but the tendency to water down distinctives ('blending in') is a strong pressure.

New and old spiritualities

In the face of the challenge of pluralism, many have left religions due to the perception that traditional religious beliefs are too narrow and inhibiting; new atheism has been one of the responses. Other people have left mainstream churches and have sought spiritual fulfilment in other places. Wells rightly points to the fact that while established religions have suffered in western countries, that new spiritualities have emerged and some old ones like paganism and Gnosticism have re-emerged. For many, a new spirituality has been sought through peace of mind and inner transformation. A new level of consciousness is being pursued, which in its shallowest form is about self-awareness, self-esteem and self-actualisation. It seems that when there is a search for the sacred, it can be frequently sought for what can be gained personally from this new type of spiritual devotion. The search is not for the God of Christian religion but for the god within; a god found in the self. This is a faith suggests Wells that:

"...begins in the soil of human autonomy and it gives to the self the authority to decide what to believe, from what sources to draw knowledge and inspiration, and how to test the viability of what is believed."

What we have is a conflict of worldviews; people with different frameworks for understanding their world, rejecting things once taken for granted as givens. And of course, Christians see this at its foundation, as rebellion against God and the rejection of Christ. How do we respond? In such a pluralistic world Wells suggests that the Christian church should respond not by adaptation but by confrontation. Not aggressive clashes of behaviour and words but a willingness and boldness to understand people who are rejecting the Christian faith and "to speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15).

Speaking the truth in love and with humility

As I suggested in my post on 'Humble Apologetics' Don Carson has some wisdom for us here. In the 'The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism' (1996) Carson, while pointing out the obvious errors of postmodernism, concedes that there is at least one thing that we can learn from it. He suggests that postmodernism is a counter to arrogant dogmatism for which there is little justification. Dogmatism is the strong expression of an opinion or assertion without evidence. It is not to be confused with expressing our well argued and thought through views with strength, boldness, certainty and conviction.

But giving a reason for our faith with respect and the avoidance of dogmatism does not mean simply avoiding hard topics and critical points of difference that reflect our different views of the world. This would be to give in to what Wells is getting at as a key danger for Christians in our present pluralistic age. This is a danger faced every day by individuals, groups and churches.

The Christian will need to rely on God’s word as their ultimate test of what is right and true. We need to be people who ‘guard [their way]’ according to God’s word, ‘storing [it] up' in our hearts, ‘meditating on’ and ‘delighting in’ his statutes (Psalm 119:9-16). In sharing the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20), Jesus stresses the power of God's word to chenge lives. People clamber after a better life, new purpose, freedom from many things, new ways to be fulfilled and so on. But ultimately, fulfilment will only truly be found in seeking the God who made us for a purpose. It is the power of God, that is expressed in God's Word and revealed by God's Spirit, that will truly transform lives and set us free (Gal 5:1).

The Christian needs to hold on confidently to God’s word as the way to know the truth that is life changing for whoever hears and accepts it. As Jesus taught his disciples: ‘If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ (John 8:31-32).

As I engage with people of all faiths and none in the university environment there is tremendous pressure to avoid topics that will bring me into conflict with others. I have a constant fear of being seen to be arrogant and out of touch, while at the same time having a desire to build relationships with people of other faiths and wordviews and ultimately share the gospel of Christ with them. This is a good pressure if it leads to a heart responsive to God and burdened for those who do not know him. But if it leads me to avoid tough conversations, to water down differences, to accept falsehood without comment, then this is bad! The modern church faces the same pressure, but its response argues Wells, frequently drifts to tactics and methodology for engaging with or "reaching" the culture. He suggests that the church must be aware of differing worldviews and see truth-based strategy as more vital than tactics; for if our focus is about tactics then it becomes:

"...about seduction and not about truth, about success and not about confrontation. However, without strategy, the tactics inevitably fail; without truth, all of the arts of seduction that the churches are practising sooner or later are seen for what they are - an empty charade; and because the emerging worldview is not being engaged, the church has little it can really say. Biblical truth contradicts this cultural spirituality, and that contradiction is hard to bear. Biblical truth displaces it, refuses to allow its operating assumptions, declares to it its bankruptcy. Is the evangelical church faithful enough to explode the worldview of this new spiritual search? Is it brave enough to contradict what has wide cultural approval?"

I continue to ponder this strong comment of Wells'; am I up to this challenge? Are you? Is your local church?

Related resources

You can download 'The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World' free HERE

'Truth and the Internet' Case magazine, #15, 2008 (here)

All CASE posts with the label 'truth' (here)

Being a church that welcomes children

I wrote a post last year that focussed on the need to love your neighbour's children (here). In that post I stressed the need to understand the biblical definition of neighbour broadly and suggested that the challenge for all of us is to understand that children are precious in the sight of God and that we share responsibility collectively within communities to care for them. In this post I want to focus on the challenge of loving children in the church.

My earliest introduction to attending church was as a 7 year-old boy invited to Sunday school at a Brethren Assembly. I had an older (adult) second cousin in the church and he was keen to see my family won for Christ. He would pick me up and take me there each Sunday for several months before I refused to go any more. I have just one overwhelming clear memory of that time, one of feeling an outsider. It's hard to know almost 50 years later why I felt this way. There were significant challenges just in the cultural practices of the church and the Sunday school, I was a working class kid with the seat out of my pants (literally), and most people were in fact strangers to me. But the strongest memories are of children who made me feel like an outsider. I've reflected on this memory for many years and have never shared it with anyone. In recent times as I've thought about the importance of each member of a church understanding their responsibility to children it has made more sense to me, particularly in light of two important biblical themes the 'stranger' and the 'family'.

How does the Bible help us to understand the way we treat children in the church?

a) Strangers

The biblical theme of the stranger runs right throughout Scripture. The foundations are in the Old Testament. The Israelites as a people from the earliest of times were ethnically diverse and were surrounded by even greater social and cultural diversity. They knew what it meant to have strangers in their communities and to be strangers in the land of someone else. Their expulsion from the Garden was their first taste of separation from what was known and the beginning of their experience of what it would mean to be strangers living with strangers. Later as God made his covenant with Abraham he made it clear to him that the Israelites would know what it meant to be strangers.

'Then the LORD said to Abram, Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But they shall come out with great possessions.' (Gen 15:13)

It is hardly surprising then that God challenged the Israelites that having been strangers and aliens themselves, they needed to be concerned about strangers. While the nations with whom they sojourned would one day be judged (Gen 15:14), they were to show them kindness. The response expected from the Israelites to strangers is seen clearly in the Law and Moses teaching:

'When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God' (Leviticus 19:33-34).

Jesus took this idea of being concerned for strangers a step further by using the word neighbour to bring it home to the expert in the law (Luke 10). Jesus challenged the expert in the law ("lawyer" ESV) who had just tried to challenge Jesus himself. The lawyer asks, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus responds by asking him "what is written in the Law?" The lawyer then quotes from Leviticus 19:8 - we are to "Love your neighbour as yourself." Jesus responds with the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan and makes it clear for the lawyer that the extent of his love and concern for others should extend beyond his family and fellow Jews even to a stranger (Luke 10:25-37), in fact in other places Jesus extends this even further - "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-45).

Above: I took this photo in Indiana, this church at the very least was aware of strangers, how they welcomed them I don 't know

The writers of the epistles, notably Peter, (1 Peter 2:10-12) also remind us that it isn't others that are strangers to us, we are strangers to them. Being a stranger in the world is fundamental to the Christian experience, and a reminder that this earth is not our ultimate home. Like the Israelites, we experience what it means to be a stranger, and while we live in this strange land we seek to reach out to others with the message of the gospel that promises that they can be reconciled to God through Christ.

b) The heavenly family

Children throughout the ages have been treated not just as strangers but also sometimes as less than human. History is filled with harrowing reports of widespread infanticide, abuse, ritualistic practices and neglect. Even today, in middle-class western communities we see more subtle forms of abuse that still reflect a sense that children are objects or possessions to be displayed, promote our used to promote our own self-worth. Jesus made his views clear on the importance of not viewing children as secondary collateral:

Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there. (Matthew 19:13-15)

The key to understanding a response like the above from Jesus is the way he encourages his disciples to place a priority of the Kingdom of God and our heavenly family above all else. The notion of family is foundational to Christian understanding and biblical teaching. In the Old Testament we see how just how central the idea of family was to their lives. In fact, they defined themselves as one family, the children of Abraham. As his children they were part of tribes that were defined based on family lines and within these tribes there were clans based on families. The role of father throughout the Old Testament is key to understanding the way families and in fact the whole nation of Israel was structured and led. The New Testament affirms the importance of the family, marriage, fathers as leaders of families and so on. We are still children of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-4:7) adopted into the family of God through Christ. But it also more strongly affirms the priority that is to be placed on the family of God over the biological family. And so Jesus taught his disciples that

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:37-38)

What Jesus was saying is that allegiance to the Kingdom of God must have priority over the earthly family; but of course it does not destroy it. Jesus does not argue for the neglect of the family; rather he challenges us to have a right view of it. Paul continues this message in his writings. Paul's argument for church as our first family is clear in his letters. Paul makes it clear that as followers of Christ we are God's adopted children and brothers and sisters to one another. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in his greetings at the end of his letters (e.g. Romans 16) where he demonstrates how broads his concern is for others in the church and how their growth in Christ is his priority.

Both these biblical themes help us to understand our responsibility to other people's children in the church. Our starting position for relating to the children of brothers and sisters in Christ is to see that we share responsibility for their children. Yes, the nuclear family has special responsibility to love, care and nurture the children that God has given them, but we too, must see these little 'strangers' as those we must love and seek to see won for Christ and matured in him.


Children in the church

How do we apply this teaching to children within the church? Here are four ways that I think we do this. In each case I've framed the response with a question that we should ask ourselves and our church.

a) In the teaching of the church - Do we place equal priority on the biblical teaching of our children as we do on the adults?

• Do we take the same care in choosing teachers for Sunday School/Kids church as we do when choosing people to teach and lead the congregation?
• Do we include children in church services, acknowledging that they are there, seeking to involve them, praying for them and so on?
• Are we as systematic with the biblical teaching of our children as we are with our adults?
• What resources do we apply to the teaching of our children?
• Do we treat children as important part of the church, who we need to nurture and teach, or simply a distraction and at times a problem?

b) In our prayers for others - Do we pray as earnestly for the spiritual well being of the children of others in the church and outside the church as we do for other adults that we know?

• Do we include children in corporate prayer?
• Do we include the children of missionaries and new people in our prayers?
• Do we include children in our prayers for families in crisis?
• Do we demonstrate in our personal prayers a desire to see the spiritual growth of the children of other people?

c) In our desire to see others won for Christ - Do we have the same burden for the children in the church that we have for the adults who struggle in their faith?

• Do we pray for teenagers who are struggling?
• Do we plead with God to rescue children from lifestyles that them down the broad road?
• Do we do things to build relationships of support with the children of other people in the church?

d) In hospitality - As we exercise hospitality within the church do we give equal consideration to children?

• Do we consider the physical needs of children for food and sustenance?
• Do we give equal priority to the facilities that they have to use (Is the church heated and the hall unheated? Are the seat ergonomically right for young bodies?)?
• As we plan hospitality in our homes, do we plan around the adults alone?
• As we greet families do we talk over the children and pretend they are not there or do we try to acknowledge them and show an interest in them?.
• How do we welcome children at church and how much effort do we make to connect them with other children?

As I reflect on my experience in that Brethren Assembly I wonder whether I too could be guilty of treating other children at times as strangers and aliens in our midst. Furthermore, do my actions teach model for the children within the congregation how they are to treat others. Were the children who treated me as if I wasn't there at times in that Sunday school almost 50 years ago, simply following what they had seen demonstrated in the actions of their parents and other adults within the church? I continue to be challenged by this and to consider how I can demonstrate the love of Christ to children who are so precious to Jesus.

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

A related post

I have written about the importance of communities being concerned about children more generally in a previous post titled "Other people's children"

The Reason for God

I wrote an earlier post on Tim Keller's book The Reason for God in January (here) just before its release in the USA. I've finally got around to reading it and offer a full review in this post.

Timothy Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York; the city that many see as one of the world's most cosmopolitan, pluralistic and liberal societies. Keller has seen his church grow by God’s power and grace to 5,000+ members. The church has now planted over a dozen “daughter congregations”.

Why this book?

Keller has seen a need for a new book to aid him and his church in reaching New Yorkers. He acknowledges that C.S. Lewis has both influenced him and this book. In his own words he states “Lewis’s words appear in nearly every chapter”. In many ways this book is Keller’s attempt to present a new version of “Mere Christianity”. When talking about the book prior to publication he said:

“I think Lewis' book is peerless, and foolish would be the author who tried to replace him! However, the issues in the public discourse around Christianity have become much more complex than they were in the mid and late 20th century. The questions are now not just philosophical (e.g. Is there evidence for God's existence?). They are also now cultural (Doesn't strong faith make a multicultural society impossible?), political (Doesn't orthodox religion undermine freedom?) and personal……when C.S. Lewis was writing, there was general agreement that rational argument and empirical method were the best ways to discover truth. That consensus has vanished."

It’s clear for whom Keller has written the book:

• People who have doubts about Christianity.
• Christians who want to be better equipped to share their faith.

Keller is a pastor/teacher at heart. This shines through so clearly in this book. I suspect it has taken him almost 20 years to write the book that in his words he “always wanted for sceptical New Yorkers”, because he has been so busy engaging with the many people who pass through his church. He states in the introduction that “respectful dialogue” with secular liberal people is his aim. Some might hear alarm bells ringing with these words – is he presenting a cautious and polite gospel leaving out all the hard stuff? I don’t think so. I don’t see him doing anything more than Paul did in Athens on Mars Hill within a society just as pluralistic as New York. Like Paul (on this occasion), he seeks to evangelise the biblically illiterate with worldviews far removed from his own. Paul’s approach here was different to that which he used in other places (e.g. Pisidian Antioch) and was no doubt deliberate. He begins with respect and restraint (Acts 17:22) and seeks to identify what his hearers believe. He then presents or addresses key themes or beliefs that are essential to an understanding of the gospel. And when he has touched on the key elements of his worldview he turns to the resurrection of Jesus. (Acts 17:16-31). Keller uses a similar apologetic approach.

What does the book cover?

Part 1 of the book is sub-titled ‘The Leap of Doubt’. Keller answers the 7 most common moral and philosophical objections to Christianity. Keller’s material in this half of the book is shaped by the many conversations he has had with sceptical New Yorkers who he obviously enjoys asking, “What is your biggest problem with Christianity” (a nice apologetic starter). The seven chapters cover seven key problems or objections to Christianity:

• There can’t be Just one religion
• How could a good God allow suffering?
• Christianity is a straightjacket
• The church is responsible for so much injustice
• How can a loving God send people to hell?
• Science has disproved Christianity
• You can’t take the Bible literally

This first half of the book attempts to tease out the underlying beliefs that lead to the key objections to the faith. Keller strives to find some common ground on which to outline his biblical reasons for the faith. But first, he seeks to shed light on the beliefs that are driving the sceptic’s views before attempting to critique and dismantle them. The chapters are all written in a disarming style that draw on conversations (which he quotes) with people he has met at Redeemer. In taking the reader through these conversations he draws on key writing and thinking from apologists (Lewis key among them), philosophers, theologians, sociologists, new atheists, sceptics and so on.

While the first part of the book is all about discovering why people don’t believe, the second half is all about providing biblical justifications FOR believing in Christianity - ‘The Reasons for Faith". The chapters are:

• The clues to God
• The knowledge of God
• The problem of sin
• Religion and the gospel
• The (True) Story of the cross
• The reality of the resurrection
• The dance of God

So does the book succeed?

My short answer is yes, for both the intended audiences. Keller does succeed in providing a useful new resource for sharing with sceptical friends, colleagues, neighbours and family members. Mind you, they’d need to be middle-class educated sceptics if you wanted simply to give them a book. For others the book would be a good resource to read with and discuss one-to-one or in small groups. Keller also succeeds in writing a book that is a useful reference for any Christian who wants to present the gospel to non-Christians.

Are there any weaknesses? Not many in my view, but some will take issue with some things. For example, some won’t like the apologetic tone (pun intended) when discussing sin and its consequences. While Keller talks of the consequences of sin “personally”, “socially” and “cosmically” he stops short of speaking of God’s wrath and impending judgement. Gordon Cheng has quite rightly (and politely – well done Gordon!) pointed this out both on Tim Challies site and on his own blog where Tim Keller responds to the criticism

Tim Challies when he reviewed the book also pointed to a few areas that will concern some Christians. But in doing so, he also acknowledges how much there is to learn from this book.

“Nobody but Tim Keller could have written this book. It seems likely to me that nobody but Tim Keller will agree with everything he says. For example, many believers will be uncomfortable with his defence of evolution - not the naturalistic evolution of so many sceptics, but a theistic evolution that attempts to reconcile rather than ignore the creation accounts of the Bible. Others will take issue with his description of hell and the thread of ecumenism that runs throughout the volume. But if we heed his exhortation to major on the majors, to look to what’s most foundational to the faith before focusing on matters of secondary importance, both believers and sceptics have a great deal to learn from this book.”

What do I think of the book and should you buy it?

I like it a lot and yes, it's worth buying. Of course, if you don’t like apologetic approaches then you might not like this book. If you believe that the gospel can only be presented in pure form with every element writ clear, and if you’re they type who - lacking trust in God’s sovereignty in using our inadequate words and explanations - is racked with pangs of pain and frustration when you don’t manage to get each bit of the gospel explained, done and dusted; then you might find this book too messy around the edges. But if you’re the type of person who gets up every morning well prepared and desperate to be given conversations with friends, colleagues and family members that you can turn to the gospel, then this is your book. For the Christian there are three key things to learn from Keller if you read this book:

• that gospel conversations are often messy (I don’t think he says that, but he demonstrates it);
• that we need to take the time to listen to the voices of non-Christians, to unpack their beliefs and to present the truth of the gospel simply and honestly;
• that we all need to be ready and equipped to give a reason for our faith.

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (1 Peter 3:15, 16)

Other resources to support the book

You can download a video in which Tim Keller talks about his reasons for writing the book.

Redeemer Church also has a website dedicated to the promotion of the book and to other useful resources. It offers three sermons that relate to key topics:

* How can there be just one true religion?
* What should I do with doubts?
* Why the gospel is not religion or irreligion, but something else (The Prodigal Son)

The site also has a free readers guide for individual or group use.

The book isn't on sale in Australia as yet but you can buy it online as I did and get it quickly. Amazon has it for $US16.47 plus postage.

Belief in an Age of Reason

Tim Keller has a new book ready for release on the 14th February that should be of interest to readers of this Blog. The book is titled The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Justin Taylor recently interviewed Tim about the book on the Between Two Worlds Blog. For more information on the book and its availability you can check out Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

Tim Keller is Senior Pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. In talking about his book he comments:

I've been working for some time on a book for the ordinary (which means very sharp) spiritually skeptical New Yorker. Ever since I got to New York nearly two decades ago I've wished I had a volume to give people that not only answered objections to Christianity (what has been called 'apologetics') but also positively presented the basics of the gospel in an accessible yet substantial way. I had some books that did the one and some that did the other, but only one did both—Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. As you know, I think Lewis' book is peerless, and foolish would be the author who tried to replace him! However, the issues in the public discourse around Christianity have become much more complex than they were in the mid and late 20th century. The questions are now not just philosophical (e.g. Is there evidence for God's existence?). They are also now cultural (Doesn't strong faith make a multicultural society impossible?), political (Doesn't orthodox religion undermine freedom?) and personal. Also fifty years ago, when C.S. Lewis was writing, there was general agreement that rational argument and empirical method were the best ways to discover truth. That consensus has vanished. Today there are deep disagreements over how we know things and how certain we can be about anything. Most of the older books presenting Christianity now are only persuasive and even comprehensible to a very narrow range of people. All this means that there is a great need for new literature that speaks to our time and says, 'Christianity makes sense.'

Additional author comments on the book can be found on the Redeemer Presbyterian website.

The purpose of Corporate Worship - Part 2

In a recent post provocatively titled "Preaching the Word, Not Presenting Entertainment" I pointed readers to an interview with R.C. Sproul about the problems with 'seeker services'. Sproul suggests that such services are based on a wrong understanding of the purposes of corporate worship, as well as the motives of unbelievers in coming to church. In commenting on this I suggested that:

Church services are events where believers come together corporately as part of their all of life worship of God. These events will include instruction from God's word, edification of God, the Lord's Supper, sharing our lives, confessing our sins, praising God, prayer, singing etc. The core and foundation of this worship together will be the preaching of the word! The hope is that, as 'strangers' share in this, they will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and place their faith in Christ.

I want to follow up this topic as one post hardly does it justice. In the process I also want to point to some other resources that people might find helpful in thinking through the topic, including one that a reader of this Blog suggested in response to the last post.

In a helpful article on Evangelistic Worship Tim Keller (Senior Pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan) suggests that while there are at least 9 models of corporate worship in Protestantism alone, most fall into two dominant categories - historic (HW) and contemporary (CW). He suggests that advocates of CW are guided by the Bible and contemporary culture, while advocates of HW advocates look to the Bible and historic tradition. Instead, he suggests we would do better if we gave consideration to the Bible, the cultural context of our community and the historic tradition of our church.

What Keller seems to be suggesting (although not explicitly), is that in arguing about the best way for churches to engage in corporate worship, it is just as easy for HW advocates to be driven by tradition as it is for CW advocates to be driven by contemporary culture. In each case, corporate worship is impoverished.

Keller argues that church evangelism relies on believers seeking to encourage unbelievers with whom they have a relationship to attend church activities, including services. Our hope is obviously that we will see unbelievers commit to Christ either during the services through varied forms of invitation and response (e.g. as part of the Lord’s Supper) or after the service through other meetings, small groups and follow-up of various forms.

For this to happen, Keller argues that we need to make corporate worship comprehensible to unbelievers while not losing sight of the ultimate purpose of our coming together. The purpose of the church service he argues from the Scriptures is NOT to make the unbeliever "comfortable"; in fact, in I Cor. 14:24-25 or Acts 2:12 and 37 we see that they are cut to the heart! As I argued in my last post, services are primarily opportunities for the corporate worship of Christians; but as Christians we should expect (and want strangers) to attend. Hence church services need to be intelligible to unbelieving hearts (1 Cor 14:25). Keller suggests that we can achieve this in a number of ways. His points follow with a number of qualifiers from me.

a) Worshiping and preaching in the "vernacular" – avoiding “ghetto-ized” language that can shut unbelievers out. Avoiding sub-cultural jargon and showing respect and sympathy for unbelievers.

b) Explaining the service as you go along - while not wanting a running commentary Keller suggests that it is helpful to give 1 or 2 sentence, non-jargon filled explanations of each new part of the service. This he suggests is how we instruct newcomers to corporate worship.

c) Directly addressing and welcoming unbelievers – Keller suggests we should talk directly at times to unbelievers, for example "those of you who aren't sure you believe this, or who aren't sure just what you believe."

d) Considering quality aesthetics – While the ‘art’ must never be the focus, Keller suggests that the power of art draws people to behold it. He argues that the quality of music and speech in worship will have a major impact on its evangelistic power.

e) Celebrating deeds of mercy and justice – Keller suggests that effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, "we cannot do without churches like this” and hence they will want to be involved. Again, social justice is not the focus of church, but for many unbelievers, this is their focus. So to make them aware that the church is concerned with justice, and that the Bible teaches about a God of justice who expects justice from and for his people, is important.

f) Presenting the sacraments so as to make the gospel clear – Keller believes that baptism, especially adult baptism, should be made a much more significant event if worship is to be evangelistic. As well the Lord’s Supper should confront every person with the question "are you right with God today? Now?"

g) Preaching grace - the message that both believers and unbelievers need to hear is that salvation and adoption are by grace alone. The teaching of God’s word must always come back to this central message centred on Christ.

There are many other helpful places to go if you'd like to explore this topic further. Tony Payne conducted a helpful interview with Don Carson for the Briefing some seven years ago in which Carson shares his perspective of the way he sees corporate worship. Some of Carson's thoughts in this interview as well as those of Tim Keller, Mark Ashton and Kent Hughes were subsequently published in a book titled Worship by the Book. The Calvin Institute of Christian Worship also has a number of helpful practical pieces on various topics and aspects of corporate worship. While I'm not prepared to recommend all the material on these links there is some very good and practical material for people who lead church services, for example:

hospitality as part of worship;
justice and worship;
evangelism and worship.


As the Westminster Shorter Catechism prompts - What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever - our corporate meeting together at church, like our worship in all parts of our life, needs to glorify God and demonstrate our thankfulness and praise of him. As in the rest of life, the focus is on glorifying God, not the wooing of seekers or our own needs. Such meetings together should be inspired by, shaped and based on God's truth taught in the Scriptures, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and centred on the possibility of salvation through faith in Christ and by God's grace.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:7-9

Such grace, mercy and love should inspire believers to be lost in wonder, love and praise. Our hope is that as strangers gather with us, that through the power of the Holy Spirit they might be convicted of their need of salvation as they share in Christian corporate worship.

Postscript

See other posts on worship and Christian assembly here and here

Preaching the Word, not presenting entertainment

I took this photo when I returned to Indiana (USA) in 2005 where I lived with my family in 1984 while doing postdoctoral research at Indiana University. This small Mennonite Church had at least one thing right. Churches are to expect strangers. But I also want to suggest in this post that their task is not to transform themselves so that strangers will feel immediately at home.

As someone who writes a Blog devoted to apologetics and the presentation of Christian truth to others, I'm keen to discuss how the church can do this better. I have always felt that transforming church services into events that non-Christians would be happy with is not the way to go and have argued against this approach in every church I have attended. Even though, I visited one of these churches as an atheist at age 31 and in just 3 weeks believed in the claims of Jesus.

I'm grateful to Puritan Lad for pointing to this YouTube exchange between RC Sproul and Al Mohler on the problems with the Seeker Sensitive service. It supports my view on the matter (and we all like to have our views supported!) but there is wisdom here. RC argues that the thinking behind such services is fundamentally wrong as the concept misses the point of the purpose of the church service, as well as the purpose for which 'seekers' come to church. He argues that seekers don't come to church seeking Christ but rather trying to escape pain, looking for peace, happiness, wanting voids in their lives filled etc. Sproul is not suggesting that we lose interest in evangelism. Rather he suggests that the priority is not providing services that cater to what seekers see as their needs. Instead, church services are events where believers come together corporately as part of our all of life worship of God. These events will include instruction, edification of God, the Lord's Supper, sharing our lives, confessing our sins, praising God, prayer, singing etc. The core and foundation of this worship together will be the preaching of the word! The hope is that as 'strangers' share in this they will be convicted by the Holy Spirit and place their faith in Christ.

For the word of God is living 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 (Heb 4:12).

Trusting in the power of God's word rather than human techniques and strategies is the answer. As Al Mohler says in the video, churches that miss this point will have much bigger back doors than front doors. Hopefully when strangers visit our churches the preaching of the Word of God in the power of the Spirit will make them feel uncomfortable enough to seek God's truth and accept Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Postscript

See later posts on worship and Christian assembly here and here