Sabbath rest

I just read a great book on parenting, Confident Parenting by Jim Burns. In one chapter he talks about how to "do" sabbath with your family. I found his 4 different categories of sabbath rest helpful. (Note: I've changed their titles so I can remember them more easily).
Physical restoration: Taking care of your body. Sleeping in, taking Nana naps, lounging around with the family... and for those who need to get more exercise to restore their body: taking walks, jogs, going for a swim.
Emotional restoration: Doing what gives you emotional energy. For me this means hanging out with good friends. For others it might be doing something by yourself - like taking a candlelit bath.
Spiritual restoration: Doing things which restore your soul and give you spiritual strength. Reading the bible, taking a prayer walk or prayer hour, listening to and singing worship songs, listening to a talk, doing devotions with the family. These can be done individually and as a family.
Relational restoration: Spending time together playing as a family. Doing fun things together which create memories, encourage bonding, reduces tension, and affirms each member of the family. Playing board games, going on fun outings, sharing a special meal, doing whatever makes you laugh together and have fun.

I found these categories very helpful because I often tend to concentrate on one or two of these types of sabbath, when we all need them all in some measure. He also isn't legalistic about setting aside one whole day for sabbath, but he does encourage scheduling regular times in the week or month or year to do these activites so they are prioritised by the whole family.

Why shepherds?

Why did angels appear to shepherds in Luke 2?

Shepherds!???!

Isn't that a bit random?

Or is it some imagery to do with Jesus being the shepherd of Israel, so symbolically, shepherds coming to worship him first is appropriate?

Or was it that God's angels were just overflowing with joy and had to sing about it, and the shepherds happened to be there when they did?

Just wondering.

A solar powered India?

Here's an ambitious plan for solar power generation which the Indian government is contemplating. I hope they go for it. Power cuts happen every day over here.

Some natural wonders

The last post has prompted me to recall things which I have seen which have made me (metaphorically) breathless at the natural world we live in. Here's my top 10.

1. Accidentally seeing a total solar eclipse (see previous post).
2. Riding around country Denmark on the first warm spring day. I saw more green than I could remember, and the additions that humans have made to the environment there are delightful. I'm surprised that this innocuous day has made it onto this list, but it's my version of Wordsworth's daffodils.
3. Driving through a wintry Arizona, seeing only green firs heaped with white snow and then happening upon the orange tones of the Grand Canyon. Amazing.
4. Lying on my back at night just outside Canberra and watching shooting stars and satellites go by.
5. Seeing Kachenjunga (3rd tallest mountain in the world) from a few hundred kilometres away in Darjeeling.
6. Seeing the peak of Everest from a plane (it was the same height as our cruising altitude).
7. Seeing the rings of Saturn through a telescope.

And 8-10? I'm still waiting for those. I wonder what they'll be... any suggestions?

A Lucky Solar Eclipse

I got up early yesterday morning. I happened to be checking the news on smh.com.au and I saw that there was to be a total solar eclipse, and it happened to be in the part of the world I was in.

I read a bit further, yes, exactly where I would be...

I looked at what time it was supposed to be happening... I checked the time here... mmm that's about right.

I turned my head 90 degrees, and I could see, through the clouds, that the sun had almost disappeared. It was just a small sliver of sunlight that I could see on the underside. I wasn't sure if it was the sun or the moon, but then with a moment's reflection I realised that with a solar eclipse it's, of course, both! I'd always wanted to see a solar eclipse, so I was thankful that I had been woken early.

Then the sky went darker than I've seen even thunderous storm clouds darken the sky. It was eerie - we could see that there was bright sunlight still lighting the clouds on the horizon. Some people screamed as the sun disappeared. Some made their Hindu religious wailing noises. Then I could see the ring around the sun before it disappeared behind the clouds.

The darkness remained for about 3 minutes. It was a long time to be in that dark-but-daytime state. (Imagine the three hours of Matthew 27:45!)

Then, in the course of about 30 seconds we returned to what felt like full daytime (but of course the sun was still mostly hidden). It made us realise again how dark it had really been.

I asked my friend later what people thought about it, she said that people aren't scared, but they do think it's something unclean, and that after a solar eclipse they clean all of their plates and pots and pans to purify them.

Are our church planters forgetting something?

There's buzz going around these days about church planting. Al Stewart has been appointed as the Director of Evangelism ministries (in the Anglican church). He's going to focus on church planting.

 

Here's a quote from Al:

 

"I am absolutely committed to inspiring, recruiting, equipping and placing young men with a passion for church planting and reaching the lost."

 

Here's Michael Kellahan's take on Al's message from the recent Moore College Church Planting Conference:

 

"We have got to revitalise existing churches and plant more. The big middle chunk of our churches are not growing. The biggest factor is leadership. We need to support guys and get the right guys in the right places and the wrong guys out (Al Stewart soon to be ex bishop of Wollongong)"

 

My question is:

 

Where are the women in these discussions and conferences? Seems to me that half of our church is women, and that women also have gifts in leadership (even the most conservative amongst us hold that women are at least to lead and train other women.) Even for those who hold that a man should lead a church, couldn't his wife (if gifted and interested) also be actively included in the planning process?

 

I get a little worried that the inital planning is taking place from a very male perspective - and may lead to unbalanced, and therefore unsustainable churches.

 

What do you think? Does anyone else get this vibe?

Did mark think Jesus was God?

Here's something which I've learned recently about Jesus as shown to us in Mark.

 

I noticed a while ago that Jesus never calls himself God in Mark. Our doctrine of the trinity clearly tells us that Jesus IS God, but where is the evidence for that in Mark? You would think that if he was God, he would have told us in each gospel somehow….

 

I was going through Mark chapter 6, and I came to this verse which comes just after the disciples were struggling in the boat, when there is a storm, and Jesus walks on water towards them. When he gets into the boat with them the storm immediately stops, and Mark notes that "their hearts were hard, because they didn't understand the significance of the loaves". What? Is that a mistake, surely Mark meant that they didn't understand about Jesus having power over the storm… Assuming, as we must, that what is written is what Mark intended us to read, then I started thinking. "Well, what is the significance of the loaves?"

 

So I read over that whole section, and I saw some parallels to Old Testament passages which gave clues to the meaning, and what the significance of the loaves (and the whole section) may be.

 

Here's my paraphrase of chapter 6 verses 31-52, with Old Testament allusions in bold.

 

***

 Jesus said to his disciples, come to a desert place and rest a while, because there were so many people coming and going that they hadn't had anything to eat. And they went by themselves, to a desert place. Many people followed them there, and Jesus had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd, and he taught them many things.

 

After a while it became late and they were all hungry. His disciples tell Jesus to send them away, but instead, after commanding them to sit in orderly groups, Jesus miraculously provides bread for the people in the desert. And everyone had enough to eat.

 

Jesus then told his disciples to go ahead of him into the boat as he went up a mountain to pray. Then a storm came, and Jesus saw that the disciples were struggling in the boat. He goes out to them, and does he go straight to them? Not quite. He intends to pass by them. But when he sees that they are afraid of him, he says to them "Have courage. I am. Don't be afraid." And he goes to them, into the  boat and immediately the storm ceases.

 

They were amazed because they didn't understand the significance of the bread miracles, because their hearts were hard.

 

***

 

Who is the one who feeds hungry people in the desert? Who meets with a human on a mountain, and passes by him? Who is called "I am"…

 

The significance of the loaves is the identity of Jesus. Jesus is the one who fed Israel in the wilderness when they are hungry. Jesus is the one who is called the "I am".  Jesus is showing by his actions (in this section, and repeatedly through Mark) that he is God.

 

 

 

40 days

I've been living in India, and have returned to Australia for about 40 days before I head back to India. I realised something which I've never thought about before. The time that Jesus was on earth between his resurrection and ascencion was quite a long time!

He really did have quite a long time to be with his followers and to tell them whatever he needed to before he left them and sent them his Holy Spirit. I wonder what that time must have been like for them. Life changing, I bet.

I wonder if he got towards the end of his time (like I have my time in Australia) and realised that there are lots of things to be done and only a few days to do them in). Did he makes lists of all the things to do...?

Telling stories - Part 2

So I've been asked how the event in this post went.

 

Firstly can I say, that I'm a little surprised at the fact that every time we've this type of storying - in churches big and small, it has received a very positive response, people say that they love it. But I haven't seen it take off as a method of "word" focus in church services. I wonder whether our traditions are getting in the way of trying out new things which might be helpful for people who are not reached so well with the traditional sermon format. 

 

Anway, here's what happened. I was speaking to a group of about 35 high school age kids. I the story from chapters 2-6 of 1 Samuel. I memorised it beforehand (which was made alot easier by the fact that I've told this story a couple of times before). Incidentally, I think it's a great way to meditate on the text - by indwelling the text until you're able to retell all the details of the text in your own words.

 

The kids were good kids, but they did tend to talk among themselves occasionally. What was interesting was that, while the story was being told, none of them made a sound - they were very attentive... maybe they were just being polite, but I got the feeling that they were actually paying attention the whole way through (and the story took about 12 minutes, so it wasn't quick). I find that often while doing this method of "bible study" or "sermon" people really get into the story and absorb long portions of OT narrative which they often wouldn't if such long portions were simply read from the front.

 

I told the kids beforehand that they would be the ones giving the sermon, and I told them the five questions that they were going to be asked at the end. Asking the questions was quite sucessful too - people love being able to say what they think. I was told beforehand that this group might not be very talkative (I've been told that before, but I never pay attention because it never turns out to be true.) It wasn't true, they came up with lots of good responses, and a few dodgy ones as well, but I'd rather that people felt free to talk and think and say what they really think, than just sit there in the pews thinking these things but not saying them.

 

Since I was asking the questions generally, I was able to answer them also, and say some things which I'd noticed from the passage too. From the prayers afterwards it seems that at least some kids absorbed the application.

 

In the service following the one where I told the story, I ran into someone who had heard me tell a story at a service a year and a half ago and he still remembered it and said how helpful he thought it was especially for more working class people, for whom the "sermon" doesn't really reach into their hearts as much.

 

Here's my challenge for readers of my blog: do a bit of reading about Bible Storying (here's a great place to start - and click on "further reading"), and try it out at your church (in addition to, or as a substitute for, the sermon) or at a Bible study.

 

If you do, let me know how it goes.

 

A new blog on Gender roles in church

I've been thinking about women preaching to men (and related issues). Some people, I think rather unfairly, call that issue my "hobby horse". How rude! I prefer to call it my passion. I think it's important for us to interpret the bible well on this issue. 

 

However I will not cloud this blog with all my thoughts, so I've started another blog where I'll occasionally post my thoughts as I think about this, and investigate the key passages in Scripture. Some of my thoughts are well formed, others are more murky. If you're also interested I'd appreciate your comments (I always find that I learn best in a discussion with others).

 

Join me here, if you're interested.

 

 

Which is the best translation for a pew Bible?

I've heard that there is a bit of buzz going around regarding the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I've read a bit of it, and for a literal translation it seems pretty good to me. Certainly better than the ESV.

 

I'm not sure it's the best translation to have in church pews though.

 

It seems to me that the New Living Translation, my favorite translation (though for many years I used to make fun of the name - "What, are all the other translations dead??") is one of the best to read when you're reading long portions of the text. The strength of the NLT is that it makes at least the main meaning of each passage clearer than the literal translations do. The down side of that is that it does cloud a few of the ambiguities or nuances which are present in the original, but when you're a new Christian, or a seeker, you want to know what is the main point. What is the big story. And the NLT shows that most clearly I think. (See here for my thinking about the pros and cons of different Bible versions)

 

When thinking about pew bibles, don't we want to be thinking evangelistically? Let's face it, the keen Christians can bring their own bibles to church if they like another version better (as I do). But the person who is unfamiliar with church, and unfamiliar with the grand narrative in the bible, who is very unlikely to bring their own bible, needs to have a bible which is in as natural English as possible, in which they can grasp the big picture meaning easier.

 

When it comes to bible translation, for personal devotions, I think the more natural language, the better. I love using the NLT because it speaks to my heart, and is encouraing, in a way that more literal translations are not.

 

Does anyone out there use the NLT in their church? I think we should use it more.

 

Telling stories

I'm telling a story at church this evening.

 

It's a great way to do a bible study, or sermon (in this case). I'm retelling 5 chapters from the old testament from memory at a Youth Church, and then I'll get the congregation to give me the sermon.

 

The questions I'm going to ask are

 

What did you like about this story?

What didn't you like about the story?

What did you learn, from this story, about God?

What did you learn, from this story, about humans?

How can we apply what we've talked abou to our lives?

 

Lets see how it goes.

 

Better go practise my story.

The heavenly wedding - a song

Here's the lyrics of a song written by my gorgeous and talented husband. It has a great tune too, if you're interested in the music let me know.

 

A day has been appointed

A table has been laid

A heavenly celebration

The bride in glorious array

 

A day has been appointed

A feast has been prepared

When God himself will keep his word

To bring us to him there

 

It is a day of "Hallelujah!"

A new day dawns

The whole world steps into the light

Heaven sings out "Hallelujah!"

Our hope will be rewarded

Our faith will turn into sight

 

Her groom is waiting for her

He prepared her for this day

He made her robes of beauty

He washed her sins away

 

And now the night is ended

And evil is no more

Yes God himself has kept his word

And so forever more

 

It is a day of "Hallelujah!"

A new day dawns

The whole world steps into the light

Heaven sings out "Hallelujah!"

Our hope will be rewarded

Our faith will turn into sight

 

 

 

The purpose of suffering

I used to think that in heaven, all our suffering on earth would be forgotten like the labor pains of childbirth are forgotten. But I stumbled upon this CS Lewis quote the other day which has changed my mind.

 

"They say of some temporal suffering, 'No future bliss can make up for it', not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory."

 

The Great Divorce

Sometimes we see a reason for our suffering on earth, which occasionally makes that suffering seem more worthwhile. We don't always see the reason, because God's kingdom is not fully here.

 

In the New Earth I imagine we'll always be able to see the reason for our suffering, whatever it is. God won't simply wipe the memory of our suffering from our minds, but he'll actually turn all the things we've endured into something that makes us more beautiful and whole people, and something which will bring more glory to him.

 

What a wonderful God we have, hey?

Thoughts about Judges

I've long been intrigued by the book of Judges, with its hopeful start and disastrous end.

 

At SMBC preaching conference yesterday I heard a very encouraging talk by Bryan Chappell on the story of Gideon. His talk was both personally encouraging, and also started me thinking about the structure of Judges again.

 

I recently read Judges and I've been convinced again about a theory which I heard a couple of years ago in first year, that the entire book is structured as a chiasm, and the story of Gideon is the centre.

 

Apart from the chapters 1 and 2 which seem to summarise the chiasm (roughly speaking chapter 1 summarises the first half, and chapter 2 the second half). There seems to be three themes of the chiasm:

 

Worship

In chapters 3 to 7 the focus is on the judges worshipping God, not idols.

In chapters 8 to 21 the focus is on worshipping idols.

 

Obedience

In chapteres 3 to 7 the Israelites obey God and fight the foreigners whom God has instructed them to fight.

In chapters 8 to 21 the Israelites war among themselves.

 

Women

In chapters 3 to 7 the women are respected and treated well.

In chapters 8 to 21 the woman are disrespected and treated badly (culminating with the story of the concubine who is raped and murdered and her body sent to the 12 tribes of Israel).

 

That is not to say that the Judges in the first half of the chiasm are perfect. They all seem to be unusual in some way: a younger brother, left handed, a woman, or very afraid...

 

I wonder if this points to any intent of the author? Is he saying that when God is obeyed and worshipped, that women are treated well?

 

Does that agree with your observation of the world?

 

Taboo on heaven

I often wonder about what heaven will be like. Or should I more correctly (to my own theology) say what will the new earth be like, when Jesus reigns in all his glory.

 

I like to imagine the specifics of what we might do, what abilities might we have, how will we relate to one another and to God... but I've noticed in some circles a resistance to discussing things like this. I've heard it said that it "cheapens" the idea of God's kingdom.

 

I know I could never imagine what it will be like, but isn't it encouraging to let your imagination run wild and think of the best possible scenario that you can imagine, and know that the reality will be even better?

 

I like to imagine about best possible scenarios of what heaven could be like, and then take comfort in 1 Corinthians 2:9:

 

"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"

 

Are those people who don't want to imagine the specifics of heaven scared of the real thing not living up to what we've imagined?

 

What do Christians do?

When my house elf* married her Christian husband (many years ago) she became a Christian. As she was being counselled by the pastor's wife about Christianity her questions were not "Is Christianity true?" or "How do I know that God is real?" it was "What do Christians do?"

 

She explained "We Hindus get up in the morning and do puja before anything else, we burn incense and we don't eat beef - what do Christians do?"

 

Much of evangelism in Australia tends to be the more intellectual questions - Is Christianity true? What does the Bible say?

 

Maybe my house elf's questions are also reflected in the hearts of Australians too? Lots of people know what Christians DON'T do, but do they know what they DO do? Maybe our evangelism in Australia should also be directed towards answering the more practical question. How is my life, in a very practical sense, different (and better) as a Christian?

* My house elf is paid a decent wage, is not bound to the house, and is also not an elf.

Gender distinctions in the tabernacle?

I've been reading through Mark and I'm up to the clearing of the Temple (Chapter 11).

 

In the design of Herod's temple there were certain restrictions placed on different types of people. Certain people were allowed closer access to the Most Holy Place, and thus the presence of God.

 

Furthest away were the Gentiles. There were actually signs placed on the walls leading to the temple that said that Gentiles would be responsible for their own deaths if they proceded further. Jewish women were allowed a little further in. Jewish males were allowed even further (and they were able to view the priests performing their sacrifices and rituals). The priests and the high priests were allowed into the temple itself, and the high priest, once a year, into the Most Holy Place.

 

So the Jewish men were allowed closer to God than the women.

 

I naturally applied this to my thinking about gender relationships and roles today.

 

Maybe men are somehow closer to God? Maybe there is a hierarchy of the genders in God's eyes?

 

Then I wondered, is this how God intended it to be in the first place?

 

Reading through Exodus and Leviticus, I can't see that there is any distinction between how close men and women are to God. The tabernacle had the central tent (which contained the Most Holy Place) and then a fence around it. Of course the priests had more access than the Jewish laity, but other than that I can't see any distinction between ceremonially clean males and females. It seems they were all allowed equally to the entrance of the tabernacle. I wonder, if even Gentiles, or God fearers, were they also granted the same access?

 

Does this mean that from the time of the tabernacle, to the time of Herod's temple, that sexism had become so ingrained in the Jewish leadership that it was actually built into the architecture of the temple?

 

Or were there good reasons for this male -->  female --> gentile distinction?

SMBC Blog list

Following the lead of Michael Jensen at Moore I thought I'd put a list of all the blogs from students or alumni of SMBC. See the blog roll on the right.

 

Let's keep all those great conversations we had at college going.

 

Does anyone know of any other SMBC blogs?

And he will separate the sheep from the goats

Or will the goats separate the sheep....?

 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

Matthew 25:31-36

Cucumber anyone?

 

Womens ministry - lines in the sand

What do you think is OK for women to do in a church context?

 

Is it allowable for women to:

• to be the sole head pastor of a church?
• be the head pastor of a church along with their husband?
• be ordained ministers?
• preach regularly in church?
• preach occasionally in church?
• lead the Sunday service?
• lead a mixed Bible study?
• lead youth group?
• share a testimony from the front of the Sunday service?
• do the bible reading in the Sunday service?
• teach Sunday school?
• share somethings they've learned from the Bible with a male friend?

Everyone places themselves somewhere on this continuum - at either end or somewhere in the middle. Somewhere along the line we draw a line.

 

There are other related issues too.

 

Is it allowable:

• for a guy to listen to women preach?
• for a girl to listen to a woman preach to a mixed audience when she doesn't agree with it?
• for a pastor at a church to allow women to do any of the things in the list above?
• to go to a church where women have more freedom than your conscience would allow?
• to support women missionaries who preach to mixed audiences in their overseas locations?

Women especially feel pressure to have "where they stand" all figured out before going into ministry positions.

Men also want to have it figured out before they head into pastoral positions and have to make decisions as to what roles women will have in their church.

 

When I think about it these questions seem vaguely familiar.

• What constitutes work on the Sabbath?
  • Can a person pick the grain off the ground, but not if it's still on the stalk?
  • Can a person's hand be healed on the Sabbath?
  • How far can a person travel on the Sabbath? ...

I wonder if, in our good and godly desire to follow God's will in our lives we have ignored the weightier matters.

• Is the gospel being preached faithfully? (I fear some people may prefer to hear a male preach a bad sermon than a women preach a good one!)
• Are people being saved?
• Are people being built up by the ministry of women (whatever it is and to whomever it is)?
• Is the contribution of women in your church shaping your church for the better?
• In their ministry, are the women themselves becoming more like Jesus?
• Are the women, and those they are ministering to, increasingly displaying the fruit of the spirit? Are they increasing in faith, in hope and in love?

 

Placing limits on women's minstry is sometimes perceived as being the godly choice. I certainly don't think it is, I don't think it's that important.

Where we draw the line shouldn't be the issue.

 

 

Pithy evangelism

How did a newly converted villager in PNG preach to his friends?

"Follow Jesus and you can have a better house".

On first hearing this every bone in my body screamed "prosperity gospel!" Noooooo!!! Then I wondered how he undid the mess he'd made!

 

But...

 

when it was explained to me that the villagers in that particular place only built wooden houses (not brick) because of fear of the spirits. They believed that the spirits wanted easy access into and out of the house, and if they built a concrete house the spirits would be angry. It started making sense to me. This person was preaching freedom in Christ for those who are really following. It would take some guts for them to build a concrete house. Maybe they weren't sure if Jesus really would protect them from the evil spirits. But, in building the house, they are making a concrete (pardon the pun) step of faith. "I trust you Jesus to protect me. I know I am free to build this type of house. I trust you more than my fear of the spirits."

 

Sure, the rest of the gospel message would have to be nutted out to them along the way, but once they build those houses, and the spirits don't bother them, they're well on their way to trusting Jesus with everything.

 

This makes me wonder what parts of the gospel are necessary to preach to those who don't know about Jesus? Maybe just "follow Jesus" or an equivalent - like "submit to God" or "trust Jesus"...

 

What a fantastic model for an evangelistic sermon! I wonder what similar ones would be in our culture? Follow Jesus and never have to worry about your looks again? Follow Jesus and you'll never have to lie again? Trust God to keep your investment secure?

 

Why do bibles have section headings?

Today I'm wondering "Why on earth do we have section headings in our bibles?" In the gospels, at least, all they do is summarise the passage to help us find a passage that we're looking for.

 

I think they could be doing much more.

 

Here are the NIV headings from Mark 12:

 

The Parable of the Tenants

Paying Taxes to Caesar

Marriage at the Resurrection

The Greatest Commandment

Whose Son Is the Christ

The Widow's Offering

 

These headings only name one key thing from the section. For example, "the parable of the tenants". Yes, it's a parable (but that's pretty obvious) and it has some tenants in it (again obvious). What have I learned from reading the heading that I wouldn't from a quick perusal of the story itself? Nothing. This could be said for most of the headings.

 

These headings don't give us any sense of how the drama in Mark is unfolding. How does this section progress the story Mark is telling? Why did Mark include it?

 

As new Christians, or those who are unfamiliar with Christianity read the Gospels we have a great opportunity to explain things to them in the sections headings. They could be like mini-commentaries, helping us interpret what we read. It's an opportunity that the major translations are missing at the moment.

 

Here are my proposed headings for Mark 12 – lets see how they strike you.

 

Jesus foretells judgement on religious leaders	(Parable of the tenants)
Jesus is challenged on his allegiance	(Paying taxes to Caesar)
Jesus is challenged on the resurrection	(Marriage at the resurrection)
A genuine question	(The greatest commandment)
Jesus challenges the scribes on the identity of the Messiah	(Whose son is the Christ)
God's values (I would merge vv38-44 as one section with two contrasting pericopes)	(The widow's offering)

 

In this chapter, Jesus is under intense opposition in Jerusalem from both the Jewish and Roman leaders. Section headings should indicate this, because these sorts of things are not obvious to a person who is unfamiliar with the cultural and political environment at the time.

 

Here are some functions that headings could serve if we thought about them a little more: 

1. To help readers understand the meaning (significance) of the passage. (Ideational meaning)
2. To help readers understand the place of the narrative within the book. (Textual meaning)
3. To help readers understand the emotive force of the passage. (Affectual meaning)
4. Lastly, (and least importantly) to summarise what's in the passage so readers can find their place. (Simple summary)

(See here for my explanation of ideational, textual and affectual meaning.)

 

Here's an idea for a Bible study activity: how about re-writing the section headings for the passage you've just studied. 

An Australian in India - Culture Shock resolution

How could I be angry with the person who wakes me up at six,

When all they're doing is pumping water to bathe in.

 

How could I be angry about the smoke pouring into my living room,

When the person is just cooking their lunch by the only means they can.

 

How could I be angry with all of the noise of loudspeakers all over the town,

When I know that most people aren't able to read advertisements.

 

How could I be angry with the salesmen knocking on my door,

When I know that many women are not able to leave their house.

 

How could I be angry with the slow and eratic traffic,

When people are just getting around on the only thing available to them

 

How could I be angry with children who cross the road in front of my car,

When I know they were never taught how to cross safely.

 

How could I be angry with people living,

When they're just surviving the only way they can.

Some SMBC love

I went to SMBC for two years, here are some of the reasons why I loved my time there (in no particular order).

 

Diversity within the student body at SMBC

Both in terms of social demographics (lawyers, doctors, carpenters, nurses, economists), as well as chuch background (still generally pretty conservative, but with charistmatic/pentecostal students who speak up in discussions if they feel the lecturer has charicatured pentecostals for example). I appreciate that there are a high percentage of people at SMBC who have spent at least a couple of years working and ministering overseas, it brings a breadth to discussions which wouldn't be there otherwise. There are also diverse educational backgrounds - university trained people do not have a monopoly on interpreting what God says.

 

Diversity in the faculty

There are teachers from different denominations, which helps us stay on track, as a college, focussing on the core issues of the gospel, and we're not very easily carried away by trying to define ourselves against another philosophy. (I was speaking to an American friend who works for a denominationally based mission and he said that he couldn't believe that a bible college could be both interdenominational, and evangelical/gospel focussed. Maybe not in his part of the states, but it definately works at SMBC, and I'd say it keeps us gospel focussed because we can see and embrace denominational differences, and also see the gospel truths that all hold.)

 

Some lecturers have lived overseas for a significant portion of their lives, this clearly influences their teaching of any subect and brings a cultural breadth to their teaching - it helps us see scripture in a more global perspective.

 

There are faculty members of different genders, I found this helpful, because no matter how approachable the male members of faculty are, I find it's different, and lovely, to be talking to a female lecturer -whether its about an assignment, or a discussion in the lecturer, or about a personal issue, it's wonderful to be able to choose to go to a female lecturer, to get her opinion.

 

Great teachers

Some of the lecturers are very skilled in the art of teaching (and not only in their subject matter). They teach to our minds, emotions, habits etc. I'm thinking specifically of Kirk Patson's OT lectures, and Stuart Coulton's "intro to degree theology" lectures (which are not as the title suggests, they're a whole year talking about how to be a well rounded student/pastor/christian and of Stuart pointing out aspects of human nature and how they will affect our ministry. Brilliant stuff.) and also of Bruce Dipples "Spiritual Formations for Cross Cultural ministry. Some of the assignments that they give are wonderfully practical too - equipping us for a future of discipleship and ministry.

 

Faculty spends every morning tea and lunch with the students

This is a great way to get to know the faculty, to see how their faith works out in their lives - and it's harder to critisise people that you know and like. Each lunch a member of faculty sits in the middle of each of the tables, so anyone sitting at that table who wants to talk to that faculty member is able to (without shouting across others).

 

The preaching subject

Teaches us in a very practical way how to preach - not just how to exegete a text, but also how to understand your audience, understand human nature in relation your subject, and to exhort people to change. People who are naturals at this don't need this type of training, but most of us do, and it helps to transform an exegetical observation, into a sermon that moves people to change.

 

Women preaching is left as a conscience issue.

Policy when we were there was that women could preach to the whole college if they chose, or they could elect to preach at the women only chapel. Now I believe things have changed slightly, so that when there is a woman preaching there is also another man preaching at the same time (so that the guys listening don't have to go against their conscience if they don't agree). I loved this policy, and it was one of the main reasons that I chose to go to SMBC. It shows that the faculty, overall, thinks that women preaching to mixed audiences is not a "gospel" issue (by which I mean that neither side is necessarily sinning in holding that opinion), but that they value that it is an issue which is important to both sides, and they have creatively come up with a solution that means that no woman need go against her conscience when she is fulfilling the terms of the preaching course assignment, but that also the college is not valuing one side of the debate over another. I apprecaite that flexibility of this policy and the dignity it gives to both sides of the debate.

 

Part time study is available and flexible

Some of our normal subjects are timetabled (in alternating years) to be in the evenings, so that part-time students are more able to get to the classes. We're encouraged to do at least some of our degree full time, so we can benefit from being part of the college community, but there is also a great amount of respect for ministry outside college, and flexibility in working around your outside-college activities.

 

Location

Croydon is a beautiful place to live. Close enough to churches that we're involved in (and cafes and video rental places, and maccas....). It's a quiet suburb that you can go for a walk or jog in without needing to sheld your ears from traffic noise and without breathing in too much pollution. The campus is lovely to look at too, and it's mostly centrally based around the courtyard so you know where people are likely to be if you run into someone. I've only seen photos of the new accomodation, but it also looks really good to my eyes.

 

Exegetical soundness

Of course. Need I say more?

 

Okay, I will say more on this point: I found that the SMBC is exegetically rigorous, evangelical and calvinist in it's viewpoint. Though the coursework is tough for many, we are not overwhelmed with information. The emphasis at SMBC is to apply the knowledge that we are gaining to our lives. The attitude seems to be, if we're learning something it shoud be changing us in some way. And time in given in the curriculum to applying the knowledge to ourselves and our current/future ministry.I remember a lecture on Romans (if memory serves) which ended in us (almost) spontaneously singing a few verses of Amazing Grace because what we were learning about was too amazing to not be sung about.

 

Mission focus

What SMBC is known for (I think that's partly because it's in the name!). We have visiting overseas-christian-workers come every week and speak to the college, and they're often available through the week to talk to as well. In addition, in the years I was there, we had a missio on leave present at the college for the whole year. Cross cultural issues are spontaneously raised in some of the classes as well, as we integrate what we've learned from the bible into our lives, not just our lives here in Australia, but we hear others integrate these truths into cultures very different from our own.  

 

One last thing

One less concrete thing that I really appreciate about SMBC is that encouragement is valued more highly than criticism. Whenever we are critical (when giving feedback for a sermon etc) we are encouraged both to spot flaws, but also to give concrete ideas as to how those flaws could be improved. We're also encouraged to be specific and thoughtful about what we liked as well. I think that the skill of positive criticism is a great thing to develop at college, so that we are more positive and encouraging people when leave and go into ministry positions.

One last thought (and this is slightly humorous...) 

Before I started SMBC I went to the open day to see what it was like, and one word that I got SICK of hearing was "community". Everyone talked about how they loved the college community. "What's the best thing about college?" "The community". "What are you going to miss when you leave college?" "The community" ... blah, blah, blah.

 

Well, fortunately (for my college experience) it was all true. The community was wonderful, and I do miss it.

 

What do you like about your college?

Do women preach differently to men?

It has been said: "Why would you even want to hear a woman preach - aren't they just the same as men but with less  experience?"

 

When I was at a women's conference a couple of years ago, I asked the group of girls that I was eating lunch with, why do you like  to hear a woman preach. What's different about them?

 

We came up with over ten reasons that women's sermons are different to the male version. Here are the ones that I can remember:

 

1. Choice of examples.
Men are more likely to talk about sport, or cars, or something from politics or public life. Women are more likely to use an example

from their family, or about something like scissors! (The scissors are an illustration of "holiness" that I remember from a Katoomba  Women's Convention many moons ago). 

 

2. Rapport

Women tend to have a different way to gain rapport with the audience/congregation. For example, women seem to expose more of their weaknesses than men, this can be very encouraging especially if you're feeling weak at that point, and if the preacher shows that they are weak, but equally shows that they are relying on God's strength and God shows himself to be present in that situation. Women tend to be able to do this more. It seems more acceptable in our society for a woman, rather than a man, to be weak.

 

3. References

Women give more references. If they've learned something women are more likely to say where they learned it. Men are more likely to just state something as fact. (This is something that I learned in my Psych degree, and some in the the group that I was talking to had recognised that they had noticed this difference in women and mens speach and preaching).

 

4. Theological Eyes

Women often have a slightly different "take" on a passage than men. They may see different nuances in the main point that they're making, or see different theological connections to that main point.

 

5. Application

Specific application of a passage, of course, are very different in women's preaching than in that of men. For example, both a woman and a man could come to the conclusion that "we must not lust" is the main point of the passage. But that main point will be applied in very different ways by women and men. Men always talk about pornography, and being careful of what you see on the internet, and of looking at co-workers in a certain way. This is all valid and true application, but none of it really speaks to me because they are not the temptations that I face in this area. Women are more likely to be attracted to someone's personality - this opens up a whole new type of application on sermons on lust ... women tend to preach about lust very differently to men. Other applications can be different as well - what does it mean to "trust God" or to "have faith in a crisis" - I suspect women and men would discuss these things very differently.

 

6. Feelings

Women tend to place a stronger emphasis on feelings and how they fit in with the Christian life. Guys are more likely to preach about facts. Women will more likely preach about things like "self worth" or "feeling validated" or the "emotion" in the passage. These are the type of things that I've heard many guys make fun of. It seems to me that those who make fun of it do so because 1. they don't understand the concept or the language it is couched in and 2. because it speaks to women but not to men. Our sermons (of course) must be applied to relevant areas of the lives of our congregation, and feelings are a huge area for especially women. This point is closely tied with the next point, because often women and men can be talking about the same thing (especially in the rather vague area of the emotions), but use different language. 

 

7. Language

Language that women and men use is subtly different. To hear things well, they are best phrased in our "heart" language. People react to the same fact vastly differently if it is stated in a slightly different way. If I had to listen to two different sermons on the same passage, I'd elect to hear one from a woman and one from a man because I would most likely get a broader understanding of the passage simply because slightly different language would trigger my thinking to go in different directions.

 

8. Structure of the sermon

The structure of a woman's sermon is more likely to be inductive. In contrast, most sermons that I've heard given by men are deductive. That is, in a deductive sermon, the preacher will state the point and then explain why it is so. In an inductive sermon, certain facts (or stories etc) will be presented in a way that leads to (or encourages the listener to discover) the main point for themselves. I've heard a sermon that I heard a woman preach described as "rambling nonsese" by a not-so subtle male listener, not because her points were unsound (they weren't) merely because the structure of hte sermon was unorthodox. I greatly apprecaited the fresh take she had on the issue.

 

9. Life experience

Women have a different experience of life. Simply being a woman shapes our view on life, as does being a wife (not husband) a mother (not father) a daughter (not a son), a life-giver, a multi-tasker, a nurturer... Woman's integration of scripture into their life will shape their life in ways that wouldn't happen to a man, this inevidably shapes their preaching as well.

 

I wonder what you (people out there in cyber world) think of my 9 points? And would you add any more?