Wednesday 31 December 2014

William Wilberforce 1779 book condensed: Chapter III Section II (Part B)

Ch III Sect II (part B)

Many people who object to emotion in religion have simply confused the issue. They are thinking in terms of some sort of empty hysteria. I am talking about something totally different. Hysteria can of course be whipped up in a crowd. In an individual “emotion” can be just a sham – like the man who puts on a big show of how much he loves a woman but then treats her badly. True emotion must be judged by two things: what it is based on, and the actions it produces.

Basis : Is the person stirred to their religious emotion by a deep knowledge of the great truths about God, or is it something whipped up out of vague and ignorant ideas?

Actions: What does their religious emotion produce? Are they joyfully devoting themselves to prayer and praise, contemplation and study or are they content to neglect these religious activities? Do we see them struggling to increase their self control, and continually improving their behaviour and way of life in accordance with the scriptures? Does their religious emotion have the effect that they diligently fulfil their duty to their families, their employer and their community? Anything that does not produce these is fake.

This - the evidence of its fruit - is the only real test of true religious emotion. As Jesus said of love: “If anyone loves me they will obey my teaching

Now back to the objector who points out that religious emotion can go up and down over time, and also be shown more by some people than others. That is all true – but it is no ground for an objection to religious emotion per sec.

Look at it this way: giving money to charity is a good thing, right? We would laugh at an objector who said: “No, you can't say that! Some people can afford to give heaps, others can only afford to give a little, so until you can specify how much each should give you can't say giving to charity is a good thing” Similarly we should laugh at an objector who says that because people feel religious emotion more or less strongly at different times, and some people more strongly than others we cannot say that religious emotion is a good thing.

I have another thing to say about the importance of religious emotion: we need it! The Christian life calls for total commitment and vigorous and continual resolution, self denial and activity. But we are surrounded by distractions, and the temptations and false glamour of this world. If we give in to the objector and throw out our religious emotions as “against Reason” we are fighting these with one hand tied behind our back.

Take an example. Suppose you are a parent and your child has convinced their school to let them represent it in a big competition by boasting that they can win it. Suppose you know that if they work really hard they have the potential to win, but you also know they are not good at knuckling down and doing the hard yards. How would you encourage them – remember it means praise, honour and all the rest if they win: humiliations galore if they fail. Wouldn't you try to get them really fired up to do their best. That's right you would engage their emotions, not just rely on a cold intellectual appeal. Well if that works in ordinary things why deny it in religious pursuit? As Jesus said “The people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light

So it is completely reasonable that when God has given us emotions to help us we should use that help. It is now a simple task to show that Jesus is the proper object of these emotions.

The emotions we are talking about are these: Love, gratitude, joy, hope, trust.

If these had no objective basis they would be sham, but each one does have a solid and reason-based foundation in Jesus our Saviour.

Love: We love him because he first loved us

Gratitude: that for us and for our salvation he “who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant being made in human likeness and being found in appearance as a man he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross...”

Joy: that “to us is born a saviour...” by whom God “has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have received redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

Hope: What can compare to “Christ in you, the hope of glory

Trust: Can there be a trust to be preferred to the reliance on “Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday and today and forever.

............................


Sorry, no posts for the next two weeks …
I will be away on holidays


Friday 26 December 2014

My Adventures with God: Ch 31

Chapter 31: Back to the Drawing Board

Why had it all blown up? Why had we not been able to increase the size of the church and still have it stable? Why could we convert people to Christianity yet not have them in church? These and similar questions needed answers.

When I was studying engineering I quickly learned that studying failures led to advances. For instance one of the most repeated film clips in documentaries is that of the failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in Seattle. It is a dramatic example of forced (by wind in this case) vibration. It is great footage. The suspension bridge writhes snake-like until it finally shakes itself to pieces. Actually a young engineer had warned soon after it was built that given a certain wind strength and direction this would happen. He was dismissed as a nut case. After the failure of the bridge, his work was re-visited! Wind bracing then became standard on large bridges. The engineering world had learned something important from this failure.

This phenomenon of learning important lessons from studying failures is seen in all branches of engineering – and probably most spectacularly in air crash investigations advancing aircraft safety.

In our church we had run a dynamic revival, something rarely seen in those days in Anglican country parishes. People with no church connection had come to faith in Christ. ... But ... Firstly we had not been able to bring the new converts into the existing church structures. Secondly the parish had all spectacularly blown up.

We realised that if, like many career minded ministers we had moved on to a more prestigious parish while things were going well, we would have looked successful and the inevitable blow-up would have happened later and been blamed on the next minister. We could have (and perhaps many clergy have) gone through many parishes making the same mistakes and sowing the same seeds for disaster each time. In his mercy God had kept us there to see the outworking of the mistakes. So we believed it was our duty to find out why.

So, once we started to recover I set out to do some research.

Since we had no difficulty converting people, I decided the problem lay in the area of human rather than spiritual factors. (Apart from the triple whammy attack by the devil described earlier. The books and seminars on church growth had not prepared us for that attack, but we had since then worked out the lessons). So I set myself to study sociology and especially the sociology of churches.

I need to do a flash back here to show why I thought I was the sort of person who could find out anything valuable, or find any solutions. The answer lay in my past experiences working as an engineer.

Theologians and other theorists can indulge themselves in fantastical theories in their ivory towers – they can hardly ever be proved wrong. They don’t have to stare reality in the face. Engineers do not survive long if they believe post-modern rubbish like “truth is relative” or “language has no objective meaning". ... Reality always wins!

Kids playing at “Superman” and jumping off the garage roof have universally found that gravity puts a painful end to their pretence. Engineers likewise deal with the real world where if you are wrong the laws of physics will tell you so, sometimes very painfully. I had been trained to think under this discipline. I also knew I had a track record for getting it right. It was not pride, it just was. Let me illustrate.

I first worked in a government department that designed buildings that were more in the “special projects” line. I was in mechanical building services – air conditioning, noise control, any anything else “mechanical”. It soon became apparent that while I still had a vast amount to learn from the older engineers (and even the draughtsmen!) about the art of air conditioning, I had this quirky ability to solve baffling problems and to be able to invent new things where needed. So if there was something outside the square, I got called in. If I then left the office (we were right in the city) and spent a few hours wandering round the botanic gardens sniffing the roses, no one minded. They I knew I would come back with a problem solved.

Just one anecdote.

We were designing a new printing works for the Reserve Bank. Yes, printing money! This needed a vault which would hold about three months worth of Australia’s currency – at that stage paper money had a short life in circulation before it was so tatty that banks sent then back to be exchanged for new notes. The bank was understandably concerned about security. A successful theft of that magnitude could cripple the country.

One day our chief engineer showed me a proposal for this vault by a world famous safe company. “Look at this” he said “but don’t worry about the details of the vault door. Bank-vault doors are just a trap for young players; any smart thief goes for the wall.”

I read their glowing accounts of the performance of their patent system of vault wall reinforcement. My attention was grabbed by the assertion: “One third of an ounce of pure Nitro-glycerin exploded on the surface had no ill effect” This made me suspicious. So I studied up on explosives and called up a relative who was in army intelligence and quizzed him (he was most enlightening). My suspicions were confirmed.

For fun I drew a cartoon of how I would crack this vault if I were a thief (terrorists were not an issue then). I had it lying on my drawing board when one of the Reserve Bank chiefs walking past chanced to see it. He was not amused! But I was given funding to have a model of a safe manufacturer’s device for ventilating the vault and a model of a device I had invented and have them tested as part of tests being done by army engineers. After the sappers had done their work they picked up pieces of the safe manufacturer's device 200 metres away. Attacking my device they cut into it and exploded five kilograms of plastic explosive (so much for a third of an ounce of Nitro-glycerin!) as I intended, it “failed to safety” leaving only a hairline crack in the vault wall.

My point is that from that and many other escapades I knew I had proven ability to research new disciplines and come up with solutions that worked!

So I set out to study and apply Sociology.

I read the renowned “fathers” of sociology, Weber and Durkheim. I took my self off to the nearest university library pouring over books. I took a course at the university taught by noted sociologist who was also an Anglican priest. I talked to him and he set me a reading list, even lending me some of his own books.

It was absolutely fascinating! The top sociologists were remarkable people. I remember avidly reading one sociological study of a small town 70 km outside Washington DC made some 30 years earlier. The team had visited the town over many months, looked at all the institutions and groups and just looked and listened until they understood. Then they wrote it up.

As I read a verbatim of a church council meeting I found I could do more than identify with it, I could put names of people in my parish council to the ones whose words were recorded in the book. They were just the same! It was just what they would say! (and often had said!)

When I read about the town groups and how it all worked it was just like Koo-wee-rup (which was a town the same size the same distance from the big city, likewise a farming area - just in Australia and 30 years later!) It was a revelation.

One thing I will mention – and it is why I commented that the men in our church “rebellion” had all been Masons. The study observed that the Masonic Lodge had men in key positions in every church in town “whose apparent function was to control the minister” – the sociologists were not making a religious or value judgement – just a scientific observation. An observation which was particularly relevant to me!

I went on to read sociology of churches – works like David Moberg’s classic and some Australian studies of rural church life. From the latter I found out why I had met opposition from the stakeholders in the church as it had been. The sense of “Identity” for people like Jan (and others) was strongly bound up in their church leadership role. Any change to the church let alone their role was a threat to their sense of “identity”. They might not be able to see let alone verbalise this as the reason. But they would fight to the death to protect their vital sense of identity. It was, the books informed me, no surprise I had encountered hostility and opposition. One book I recall was titled “Conflict and Decline - Rural Churches in Australia”. According to their findings, the real surprise was that I had survived! In their studies, ministers who had tried what I had tried had uniformly perished in the attempt (generally suffering a breakdown in their health and/or marriage and leaving the ministry). So now I knew!

From Moberg I found even more fascinating things. The problems country churches were facing in my part of Australia were not new. They had happened (probably many times) before. Here were studies of exactly the problems we were facing. Here were studies of the various solutions which had been tried, analysis built up from many case studies that pointed to which solutions worked and which made things worse. It was a gold mine!

In country Victoria rural churches were in decline. The situation was universally acknowledged as most serious. Bishops were lamenting the decline of country parishes and wringing their hands and running around saying “What will we do in this new frightening situation”

I don’t know why but the bishops and church leaders, faced with a new perplexing problem never stopped to think that someone might have faced this problem before. They held endless conferences but never wondered if better minds than theirs might have actually found a solution. They never considered that someone somewhere might already have invented the wheel!

I tried to tell the head ministers in our diocese that I had done some research and found that our problem was neither new nor unique. I told them that up to 50 years ago these same problems had occurred, had been researched, and that solutions had been found, tried and proven in the US. I tried to tell them that the solutions they were putting into practice were precisely the ones which had been found make the situation worse. As with the young engineer who tried to tell the experts that the Tacoma Narrows bridge would fail, I was dismissed as a nut case.

How could I prove that I was right?



Tuesday 23 December 2014

William Wilberforce 1779 Book condensed: Section II

Sect. II On the Admission of the Passions into Religion (Part A)

Question: If we express our love for Jesus are we replacing reason with emotionalism?

Reason is indeed important, but Love is not in itself against Reason and in Christianity Jesus would be the proper object of love. So the real question is: “Does a religion that honours reason exclude expressions of love?”

Popular opinion does seem to be that affection is out of place in religion. People see that various extremists exhibit this kind of behaviour so to 'spike their guns' they say “Religion must be cold and cerebral” but really this is like chopping off someone's head to cure their toothache.

Surely humans possess the capacity for passion for a good reason. Certainly in us sinful humans our passions need to be controlled by reason and conscience, but that does not mean passions should be completely erased - That is barbaric. Christianity can do better. Christianity aims to bring all our human faculties into balance and control, to bring our whole person into wholeness in Christ.

The Bible is clear that God values all our affections – Love; Zeal; Gratitude; Joy; Hope; Trust. Offering all these to God is commended as our acceptable worship.

Just as the Bible praises offering these passions to God it condemns having a cold hard unfeeling heart towards God as criminal. It even says if we are only lukewarm towards God it make him want to vomit and that God wants to take away our hearts of stone and give us hearts that feel.

Paul longed for converts to “abound more and more in love”. Worship that stirs the feelings, especially using music and singing is set forth in the scriptures. For passion take Paul – this zealous persecutor when confronted by Christ became more, not less zealous, but now for Christ instead of against.

Finally – the worship and service of the glorified spirits in heaven, is not represented to us a cold intellectual investigation, but as the worship and service of gratitude and love. And surely it will not be disputed, that it should be even here the humble endeavour of those, who are promised while on earth “to be made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light” to bring their hearts into a capacity for joining in those everlasting praises.”




Friday 19 December 2014

My Adventures with God. More Gifts from God


Chapter 31 ... More Gifts from God

For the next period of time we survived, just. Wonderfully God provided all we needed

This gift of preaching God had given me (which extended to Religious Education lessons in the local schools), and the fact that otherwise most of what you have to do to keep a church ticking over is pretty mechanical and can be done even with your brain chemicals shot to pieces, meant that I was able to keep my parish running as well as most clergy do.

I had to look after the family and I did. “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim:5,8)

Sue survived with God talking her through each day. I won't say much here because that is her story, but basically her brain chemicals were such that she only had enough for a tiny amount of emotional energy each day, so that reserve had to be shepherded meticulously. God was talking her through it constantly so she did what he said when he said and no more, that way she got through. Could God have just miraculously given her more or healed her completely, of course he could, but he didn't, he did it this way and this way was still a miracle.

Inez was the main human looking after Sue at this time. Being in the grip of a depression myself I was a drain rather than boost to Sue’s already dangerously low emotional energy levels. So it was better for me to minimise contact with her and concentrate on spending time with the kids. I can remember there were a run of old movies on TV on Sunday afternoons and if I lay on the floor the kids would all pile up all over me like puppies and we would watch it together.

We were, as I said earlier, spending our savings at a great rate hiring home help and babysitters. However I always took one of the kids with me when I went out visiting – for two reasons. Firstly in my depressed mental state I was not bright sparkly company, so a baby as a “conversation piece” especially when visiting elderly shut-ins it was a great advantage. The second was more serious. If you have never suffered real depression you may not understand this, but I was continually on the verge of being overwhelmed by despair and haunted by thoughts of suicide and harassed by persistent temptation to think that the pain would all end if I just killed myself. I took one of the kids with me because I was not going to do anything silly with one of them in the car!

The bishop did not ever say anything to me directly but at clergy days there were denunciations of unnamed clergy who spent too much time with their families and took their baby parish visiting. I think I was the priest he meant. Needless to say I ignored these jibes, although they were an added burden.

Spiritual Grandparents..

Right back when we first moved from Sydney where both my parents and Sue’s parents lived, Sue asked God to provide substitute “grandparent” figures for the children. He did. Brilliantly!

Here in Lang Lang in the time of our and their greatest need God delivered big time. Inez was the ultimate example. The kids called her Aunt Inez, but that contracted to Ankie and stuck. As well as being the mainstay that kept Sue alive she was a substitute grandmother to all the children. Her husband “Uncle Orrie” also fulfilled a very special role in their lives. I have not words to convey how much she did. But she (and God) did it.

Leon Puddy was babysitting young Elizabeth and cooking for us. Her husband Ian became very special in Elizabeth’s life. He emptied out the garden shed to make a play house for her and even spent hours playing her favourite “tea parties”. The special place this time had in her life can be judged from the following account. One morning as Sue dropped off Elizabeth off at Puddy’s (a few years must now have passed and Sue was back working a bit as a GP with Orrie) Elizabeth ran ahead to find “Daddy Pud”. Sue and Leon followed. The ladder Ian had put up to clean the gutters was still standing. Elizabeth was bent over the crumpled heap below it. Rushing forward and pushing Elizabeth back Sue quickly saw that Ian was dead. Minutes later when Orrie arrived Sue said over Elizabeth’s head “He's gone” A little voice from her side chirped up “He's not gone. He's dead”. Elizabeth kept a picture of “Daddy Pud” in a frame by her bed for many years. One time her younger sister picked up the photo and asked who it was. After Elizabeth had explained the still very young Jenny asked “Where is he?” Elizabeth just pointed up to heaven. A very literal minded Jenny responded “What, on the roof?”

For Tim our second child it was Helen Batten. Helen was the one I mentioned being converted by my cold door-knocking, the one who had collected all the children from her street and brought them to Sunday School. Helen had a rural mail run. This meant driving every morning on her extensive farming district round delivering mail to the roadside mail boxes. She took Tim with her every day. She even let him put the mail in the boxes which must have slowed her up considerably. But she was that sort of kindly loving person, and what she did, for Tim in particular, was of inestimable value at that time.

Our eldest, David also got some “quality time” with me. He had done kindergarten year at the local state school. At the suggestion of some of the locals who had sent their children to the Anglican private school at Mount Eliza we took him for an interview and test. In one year he was already six months behind their students. We decided to make whatever sacrifice was needed to send him there. And after his first year at Peninsula Grammar he won a prize for the most improved student – he had caught up! It was a 40 minute drive each way so we got a lot of talking time! Needless to say at clergy meetings the bishop deplored (unnamed) clergy who spent time out of parish driving their children to school! Actually by then there were several families going and we had an efficient car pool, but why waste breath explaining things like that to bishops who can’t even talk to you man to man!

The worst was now over. We were still in pretty bad shape, but the worst was over.



Tuesday 16 December 2014

William Wilberforce 1779 : Ch III Sect I cont.


Objection!

Objectors will reply that it is unfair to say they love so little it is obvious that they believe little.

They will say that they are just not hypocrites like those who put on an extravagant show of religious fervour. Objectors will say that these people are being over emotional. They may also say that different people express their religion differently.

They will also object that they don't want to be like the “Holy Spirit People” either the absolute fanatics of the past or the ones today who are less dangerous only because they are less successful.

Just look” I almost hear objectors say “how their leaders use all the old tricks of deception to make money out of the gullible”. “Just look at how they peddle the Holy Spirit as an easy path to being 'healthy, wealthy and wise'. We on the other hand are not shirking doing the hard yards to remove evil from our lives and grow in virtue.”

And talking about zeal”, the objector will say: “what about all the wars and persecutions that have come from religious zeal – is that the sort of behaviour you want!”

Objection Discussed

That the sacred name of Religion has been too often prostituted to the most detestable purposes; that the furious bigots and bloody persecutors and self-interested hypocrites of all qualities and dimensions ... have falsely called themselves Christians … none will more readily admit than they who best understand the nature and are most concerned for the honour of Christianity. We are ready to acknowledge also without dispute, that the religious affections, and the doctrine of divine assistances, have at all times been more or less disgraced by the false pretences and extravagant conduct of wild fanatics and brain-sick enthusiasts. All this however, is only as it happens in other instances, wherein the depravity of man perverts the bounty of God. Why is it only here to be made an argument … ? ”

As the saying goes: “The best things when corrupted become the worst”. Even science has been used for evil, do we then throw out all scientific achievement?

Look again at the French Revolution: they did throw out religion on these grounds. Look what they got instead: terrible crimes all in the name of “Liberty”. So do we ban liberty next? Then we will have to ban “patriotism” too because of the crimes done in its name. Then reason, speech and every other human faculty will have to be banned: they have all been put to evil use at some time.

Many bad people have pretended to be wise and /or honest. Do we then say there is no such thing as a wise or honest person? No. So why let the objector get away with claiming that because there are evil people who pretend be Christians that there is no such thing as a Christian? Remember what Jesus said in his parable of the weeds: “ 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field, where did the weeds come from?' 'An enemy did this' he replied”.

Also the objector to religious “enthusiasm” is often just being xenophobic – poking fun at people who speak with a particular religious jargon that sounds strange, or poking fun at their different or working class culture. Be careful of intellectual or social pride! Remember Jesus talked about his truth being hid from the wise and revealed to the simple. These people who are so easy to poke fun at because they are of a different social class or sub-culture in our society may be living more moral and godly lives than the objector. The objectors need to grow up and learn to see past cultural and class appearances to what lies beneath.




Friday 12 December 2014

My Adventures with God - An Incredible Gift

Ch.30 An Incredible Gift

In the face of all these calamities, you might ask: “How did you survive?” The answer is both simple and deep: God !

I would not wish our trials on anyone. I would not wish to re-live them. But I could not wish to have avoided them. Our experience of God through these trials is indeed more precious that any suffering. Our knowledge that God is and that God is faithful makes these seem – well I won't say “light and momentary” as St. Paul does – but the benefits were certainly so much more than worth the cost!

The other thing is that it gave God the opportunity to show that he can provide. Not only provide but provide in advance!

My first example of Gods provision is an incredible spiritual gift which made it possible for me to continue as a minister through the darkest days, a gift He has let me keep.

The story starts some months before the events of the last few posts:

While the revival was on we had been taking in church growth conferences, as well as reading avidly and listening to tapes by successful pastors and teachers we also used holidays as an opportunity to see what other churches were doing..

I had taken a group of men up to a conference in Sydney where Paul Yonggi Cho leader of the then world’s biggest church (Sunday attendance then I think 500,000) was the main speaker. It was a great conference and there were many other speakers from Australian churches (well Australian AOG churches!) talking about the problems of building up from small beginnings …. I remember one was “breaking the 200 barrier” and the organisational changes necessary as growth proceeded.

The “breaking the 200 barrier” speaker was from a church in Brisbane which had grown to an attendance of about 2,000. We were going on holiday the Brisbane, so I contacted him and asked for an opportunity to talk to him about our work at Lang Lang.

Sue and I duly went to see him. But he didn’t want to talk; he wanted to pray for us to have “the gift” (i.e. speaking in tongues – What is it with Pentecostals and tongues!). So he prayed for us. Well, Sue did but I didn’t. I think it was a sign of God’s sense of humour, but it was perplexing at the time.

So holiday over we went home. One day shortly after, I was praying and said to God “So why didn’t I get to speak in tongues” God replied “Why don’t we try English first? Give me your next sermon” My stomach knotted up.

Now as usual God had prepared the ground. I had been finding the actual composing of the sermon harder and harder. Not the background preparation, that is just rote work: Study the set bible reading; possibly translate it myself from the Greek for New Testament passages; consult the commentaries etc. You just sit down and do that part. But as for finding the words to convey something of the results of that research to my particular congregation; that part was becoming increasingly burdensome. I had been starting preparation earlier and earlier. By then I was starting next Sunday’s sermon the Monday before, and still I was drawing a blank late into Saturday night.

So although my stomach knotted at the thought of it I said “OK Lord”. I did the usual background work for all the bible readings. But I made no plans or notes about what to actually say. Yes, I was nervous,

Kooweerup was the earlier service that week (they alternated). The hymn before the sermon was ending. As usual I prayed silently during the hymn. I had no idea what I was going to do. The Hymn ended, I walked out to the lectern. I turned and faced the congregation. God said in my mind “The Epistle: Go!” I started on that theme and out of my mouth came what sounded to me a pretty good sermon on the epistle of the day.

Lang Lang service was next up. I was feeling much more confident this time. I thought I could even tweak some bits. As I faced the congregation to start the sermon God said “The Gospel this time: Go!” Oops! I didn’t have time to think! I was off talking about the Gospel reading set for the day!

It was the most phenomenal gift – actually having God “ghost write” my sermons. It is from my subsequent reading a less common spiritual gift – but tremendous fun!
That is not to say I adjusted easily to the change! I always felt “naked” going to preach, no matter how much background study I had done, without having some words or structure planned.

An early hurdle was a civic service. This was to be held in Lang Lang after a parishioner there became Shire President. All the shire notables were to be there. I was scared! God was very kind, he told me the opening few words. So I knew I had to get up there and say this opening sentence –I just didn’t know what went next! There is a joke about a politician who fires his speech-writer, only to find that for his next speech after a brilliant start when he turns the page all that is written on it are the words “you’re on your own now”. I knew that joke. I went up to the lectern with some residual trepidation!

I shouldn’t have worried. God had it all sorted. It was a really good and appropriate sermon. Better then anything I could have cooked up!

I would like to say that from this time on I simply trusted God with my sermons. But that would be stretching the truth! I still had low grade anxiety for some time when I got up to preach, and sometimes acute fears. But I did get more relaxed as time passed.

One advantage of this arrangement is that I could never be caught by surprise. If anyone said – even at the absolute last minute “can you do the talk / sermon?” it was always “no problem”.

It is to this day a gift I cherish and continually thank God for. It has let him do things using me that no amount of rhetorical skill or training could have accomplished. I will give you two examples.

I was about to enter one of the darkest periods of my life. For months on end I was unable to do even the background study for sermons. For some time I don't think I even had the energy to open my Bible. Mostly by the time I dragged myself into church on Sunday morning I hadn’t even read the scriptures set for the day. Yes, often I just heard them read out in the service then got up and preached on them. Yes, I did listen to my own sermons, and yes they were theologically sound. I was amazed to hear things come out of my mouth that I knew as I heard them were things I had learned in theological college but which I had long forgotten I ever knew.

God’s wonderful gift of preaching kept me functional as a minister through the darkest valley.

Later when things were getting better, I never quite knew who was going to be my audience. Time after time the usual ten or so were seated, then half a dozen or a dozen strangers would walk in! God would craft the sermon, the vocabulary and idiom to suit the actual audience. I heard myself do it time after time, I could tell it was totally appropriate, but I know I could not have thought it out.

It really is an incredible gift.



Tuesday 9 December 2014

William Wilberforce 1779: Chapter III Section I

Chapter III : Inadequate Popular Christianity

Sect I : Scripture Doctrines

That: “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

That: our blessed Lord willingly left the glory of the Father, and was made man.

That:He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering and familiar with pain.”

That: “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities.

That: “The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

That: “He humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross.

That: “Jesus Christ who died – more than that, who was raised to life – is at the right hand of God and also interceding for us

That: “being reconciled to God by the death of his Son” “we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need .”
That: “(our) Father in Heaven will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him.”

That: “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.”

That: “(we) are being transformed into his image with ever increasing glory which comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” & “the trumpet will sound (and) the dead will be raised imperishable.”


These are the leading doctrines concerning our Saviour and the Holy Spirit that are taught in the Holy Scripture. They are repeated in our liturgy. Surely everyone has heard them. If only people took them to heart and learned their power in their lives!

Most people who call themselves “Christians” have a defective faith. Surely anyone who really feels the weight of their sins jumps for joy at Jesus' invitation “Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest”. But most people think their sins are so trivial that they set a low value on what Jesus offers. It is amazing how different the strong language of the Scripture the creeds and our articles of religion is from the wishy-washy sentiments of many so-called Christians.

You may object: “The general population yes, but not the church-people surely.” I say: “yes even them”. You may reply: “How do you know – you can't read their minds.” Jesus said: “The mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” So the test is: how do church people talk when we lead the conversation to Jesus' life and teachings – if you can actually get them to talk about it? I'll tell you: they fluff around so much that it is obvious they are not accustomed to thinking about it at all. They show no passion about the fact that he did all this for us. No loving wonder at him who “loved us and gave himself for us” and who “was delivered over to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification.”

But these great truths – even though preachers so often neglect them – shine out of our liturgy. Despite this, people hear them and even repeat them in the liturgy just as though they were only old fashioned fairy tales! Once church is over they are dismissed from thought. How can this be! What Jesus did for us – delivery from eternal misery and the gift of eternal joy and a crown that never fades – this should make anyone who receives it absolutely bursting with love and gratitude. They shouldn't be able to stop talking about it. It should be a delight to tell of his kindness. It should be a joy to worship him. Caring for others he loves should be our natural disposition.

So what does this tell us about the inner faith of most church goers?

They love little that we can say they believe equally little.

The doctrines of the work of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life they treat even worse. They don't seem to even believe in the Holy Spirit. They also seem to think that sanctification is so easy that they don't need any help from God.


Next: Objection Discussed & Answered


Friday 5 December 2014

My Adventures with God : 29: The Wolf

Ch 29 ... The Wolf.

Paul said to the Ephesian elders: “Be Shepherds of the church of God … Savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number people will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28ff)

Jesus said “I am the Good Shepherd ... I lay down my life for the sheep. The hired hand ... when he seed the wolf coming runs away...” (John 10: 11ff)

With such admonitions and examples to live up to, being a pastor is not an enviable task!

The spiritual wolf that attacked at Bayles looked like a harmless old lady

She started to come to Bayles from a town a little distance away at a time when Bayles was getting a “name” as a charismatic church and a few people started to come from nearby towns. I suspect she took great pains to stay under my radar for as long as possible. I am embarrassed to have to admit that she succeeded. Good shepherds should be on the lookout for wolves-in-sheep's-clothing. But I was hard pressed on every side and suffering from mental exhaustion and from depression and let my guard slip. The Anglo-catholic priest of the parish where she lived later told me that she tried to get a hold in his church but both he and the older ladies of the congregation spotted that she was not all she pretended to be and because of this and the strong authority structure in more “Catholic” churches she could not get a toehold and left.

What did she do? She stayed quietly in the background. She was very friendly to various members of the congregation – especially new converts – but also groomed Ross and Robyn who were the de-facto ministry couple, giving them “helpful” spiritual advice and taking an interest in them.

She took to regularly visiting people she had befriended at church, once again giving them spiritual counsel. She started giving them “spiritual” books (when I got hold of some of these books I was horrified – they started at the heresies I described two posts back and went completely over the edge into cleverly anti-Christian, yet Christian sounding teaching). One book even used the very verse of scripture that the Devil used to tempt Jesus – and in exactly the same way!

In short she worked assiduously to win over the congregation to personal loyalty to her and to a religion that was actually a denial of Christianity.

Two things eventually tipped me off that she was seriously bad.

First she came to St. Georges’ Koo-wee-rup for some occasion and the older mature Christian women in the congregation picked her as a fraud straight off! I had enough sense to trust their judgement.

Then I noticed that when I preached on the cross of Christ, which in a congregation of new Christians one does quite a bit because everything hinges on it and ties back to it and this needs pointing out – when I preached on the cross of Christ I got a glimpse of her face: it was almost as though she was in pain – she could not bear to hear of God’s victory and of the defeat of Satan. I was now on my guard, but too late.

As I rose to give what turned out to be my final sermon at Bayles I had a mental image of being a shepherd whose sheep were stampeding (maybe only cattle stampede, but it was an image OK) I knew that in my little way I had to be like Jesus: I had to stand up to the wolf: I had to do my best to protect these sheep for whom Christ died!

In my image of stampeding sheep I was the shepherd standing in their path trying to stop them. They were likely unstoppable but I had to do my duty and go down trying to stop them.

I preached Christ: Christ the Son of God. Christ our Saviour by his death and resurrection. Christ the rightful Lord of our lives. It was a sermon that any true Christian should have responded to in the sentiment of the old hymn “Tell me the Old Old Story …. Tell me the story often for I forget so soon”. I was astute enough to know the mood of the congregation was just the opposite, and the “little old lady” was not even bothering to hide her pain and rage at the story of Christ.

The next Sunday I went as usual. I was alone. Not another soul turned up. I later heard she had taken the entire congregation and set up her own “church” which split and disintegrated soon after.

She actually came to see me later. The wraps were off this time. I found myself facing a lady of immense demonic spiritual and psychic powers. I had met what St. Paul called a wolf.


Tuesday 2 December 2014

William Wilberforce 1779: Chapter II Sect III


Section III Corruption of Human Nature - Objection


But we still have this huge problem:

The pride of man is loath to be humbled. Forced to abandon the plea of innocence, and pressed so closely that it can no longer escape from the conclusion to which we would drive him, some more bold objector faces about and stands at bay, endeavouring to justify what he can no longer deny, “Whatever I am” he contends “I am what my creator made me. I inherited a nature, you yourself confess, depraved and prone to evil: how then can I withstand the temptations to sin by which I am environed?” ...”

A just God cannot blame me!” Says the objector.

Philosophical questions of the origin of evil or why God allows its existence and punishes evil doers are too deep for this discussion, but since the above abjection is heard even from professed Christians we must at least answer that.

If the objection were made by an avowed sceptic, we could argue the case but we wouldn't. I mean we could prove his ideas wrong, but might still fail to convince him that we were right. It would be like talking to someone who had never even been to school and launching straight into a proof that Copernicus was right, instead of starting with simple things and working up to complicated ones. In that case the person would get confused, annoyed and reject all we had to say. The sceptic would likely react in the same way if we launched into proving the justice of God. So for the avowed sceptic I would start with the simple truths of Christianity!

However if the objector professes to be a Christian, then they must accept the authority of scripture. I can show from the Bible that a) God is just and good, b) mankind has a depraved nature and c) that this depraved nature is never allowed as an excuse for sin. Jesus said: “...those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” and “The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace” yes, Jesus the messenger of peace and goodwill towards mankind made warnings like this over and over again.

The Bible also warns us not to try to blame God for our sins. “When tempted no one should say “God is tempting me” for God cannot be tempted nor does he tempt anyone.” and “Do I take any pleasure at the death of the wicked? Declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?”. Almost every page of the Bible has some warning or invitation for sinners: so don't try to blame God.

The objection is not always as blatant as “God can't blame me: he made me this way”. The same idea lurks in more subtle ways. Like a noxious cloud it lowers our standard of Right and gives us false comfort for our failings. Look, the Bible is clear about our natural weakness; but it never suggests, as these objectors suppose, that this in any way lowers the demands of God's justice. Such an idea is at war with the whole notion of redemption in Christ! Yes our natural condition is depraved and weak; Yes God is infinitely holy; Yet God offers sinners pardon, grace and strength. This is so amazing that of course we can't fully comprehend it. So what! There are plenty of ordinary things around us that we can't comprehend, yet happily use. We must obey the things we can understand that are given us in scripture, and not throw them away just because there are a few things we can't understand. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”



What are these objectors thinking! We have this short, uncertain time in which to make our peace with God. Then comes the Judgement. Then an eternity either in heaven or in hell. Yet here they are engrossed in vain arrogant speculations while their lives hang in the balance! It is like a traitor dragged before a fair minded king who might be ready to pardon them, where the traitor instead of asking for mercy just hurls abuse at the king. No, the objectors are worse than that: The traitor might not get pardoned, but God does promise that we will be if we ask for his forgiveness. So these people really have only themselves to blame when they end up in hell.

Friday 28 November 2014

My Adventures with God : 28. Rebellion

Ch 28: Rebellion!

It started in Koo-wee-rup. It started with two women.

First Yvonne attacked Sue. “She started this Bible study group, and now she leaves us to run it on our own!” Proclaimed Yvonne far and wide. Sue as you recall had pulled out of most of her ministry roles due to severe and crippling post-natal depression.

Then Robyn stirred up disaffection and malice against me. Robyn was the classic case of “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” (No, no, not scorned by me: scorned by her husband!). He was a churchwarden and wealthy land owner from an old family, and as a couple they had been the glamorous leaders of the 'younger' set in the Koo-wee-rup church. Suddenly George left Robyn and their three grown up children and ran off with his farm-hand’s wife.

I was advocating team and “all member” ministry, so once I had seen that Robyn was receiving good pastoral care from Ross's sister-in-law who was her own age and social status, and from Ross and others at Bayles where she now worshiped, I kept out of it. In regards to George, although he met with some of the men from Koo-wee-rup, I had no way of contacting him.

However I was in touch with the local Catholic priest regarding the situation and so was the one to bring the news to Robyn that this priest had prevailed upon the other woman to give up George and be reconciled to her husband and that they were about to leave the district. So George returned to Robyn, but not by choice. Robyn's fury needed some outlet. If she wanted to keep George it could not be him; so like the old fashioned idea of the “whipping boy” who took the flogging for the favored son who could not be punished; I became the object of Robyn's wrath.

Influential men who were members of the local Masonic Lodge were however the ones who fired the bullets these women made.

Doug, a churchwarden at Koo-wee-rup, and at that time I think the third highest ranking Mason in the entire state told me: “I've got rid of more ministers that you've had hot dinners and you are next!” The shire president at that time was also a Freemason and a parishioner and joined the fray.

Comment: I have generally taken care neither to encourage nor to antagonize the Freemasons, but some time after these events I did learn something interesting which I will pass on. I was studying sociology to try to answer the question of why I could so easily bring people to Jesus, but could not bring them to church. One book I read was a detailed sociological study of a small farming town just out of Washington DC. The sociologists just observed, and recorded what they saw. One thing they observed was that in every church in the town there was at least one high placed member from the Masonic Lodge whose apparent purpose was to control the minister.

So these men went to the bishop and demanded my head on a platter. The bishop announced he was coming to the parish to chair a special meeting of Parish Council to hear the complaints. As you can imagine this was all rather traumatic particularly with everything else that was happening. So you will understand when I say that my recollection of it all is a bit fuzzy.

But I do recall that I was depending on God. Totally! I also recall that we deliberately did not allow our supporters to come out openly on our side: Shepherds should protect their sheep, not the other way round!

The meeting was I think pretty inconclusive, nevertheless a day or two later the bishop phoned and said: “If people had said about me the things that Doug said about you I would have done the honorable thing and resigned on the spot!” As it happened once the bishop had left Doug had let forth on what a miserable specimen he thought the bishop was. So I replied “Well that man did say those sort of things about you too”.

After praying about it I felt God was saying to be bold and call their bluff.

I rang the bishop and told him to get himself down here for another meeting. I chaired this meeting. I told them all they had been behaving badly and gave them two choices: They could quit whining and agree work with me; or I would call a public meeting and denounce their behavior – they all knew that Sue and I had a great deal of public support outside the church. They crumbled. Yvonne broke ranks and said she would work with me (and was as good as her word). The leading men could not afford to lose face in public and followed suit. Being honorable men of standing they also were as good as their word. The bishop made some pious platitudes and went home.

Victory? As Wellington said after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo: “Nothing save a battle lost, is so terrible as a battle won.” It had exhausted what little energy we had left and I next had to face a spiritual wolf coming among the flock at Bayles.