tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76387332417244084442024-03-05T05:23:10.313+00:00Scribblings From My Deskthoughts from the often messy desk of Peter Dray, UCCF Team Leader in Yorkshire & the North East of Englandpeterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.comBlogger330125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-29575835129439907612011-08-17T11:01:00.003+01:002011-08-17T11:01:55.679+01:00I've movedTo anyone who might still look at this blog, a note to say I've re-started blogging after a hiatus at <a href="http://peterdray.wordpress.com/">http://peterdray.wordpress.com</a>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-63302218408164440672010-01-11T17:03:00.001+00:002010-01-11T17:08:50.314+00:00Speaking the truth in love<b>I’ve been made to think in recent times about what it means for a Christian to be committed to ‘speaking the truth in love’ to other Christians, whether individuals or groups. </b><br />
<br />
Often it seems to me that, in the name of ‘godliness’, we chicken out truth telling. No doubt there a grain of sensitivity behind all this: after all, we don’t want to cause others unnecessary pain through our blabbering. On other occasions, we are aware that a particular audience <i>just doesn’t need </i>to hear our gripes and pains. But, looking at my heart, I know that often I fail to tell the truth to others because of my ‘fear of man’.<br />
<br />
This fear can even be institutionalised in some Christian circles. We believe that there are certain things that we just can’t say. There is an unwritten code which dictates that talking about finding situations (or people) difficult should be not done, or only alluded to, even when we believe that we have been objectively wronged. I guess I’m not the only person to have seen this lead to an ‘elephant in the room’ syndrome where, for example, certain individuals or churches or organisations aren’t mentioned by name – although everyone on the inside knows exactly who or what is being talked about.<br />
<br />
I wonder whether, in situations like this, any good comes at all from this approach. The veneer of words merely used to obscure painful realities rarely does anything positive. On the other hand, it can lead to cynicism, caricature and further suspicion. Motives are analysed and re-analysed – and the issue at hand remains unresolved. All in all, hardly a great model for loving others.<br />
<br />
What is the answer? Surely it is to speak with <i>humble honesty</i>. I need to consider who I need to speak to about the problem, and likewise those I don’t need to speak to (for instance, it may be a matter for church elders, but not the broader church membership as a whole). I need to be certain of my acceptance by God (whether I am right or wrong), which frees me from being driven to be approved by others. I need to admit that, because of my sin and fallibility, I may be wrong and uncertain in my judgements. I need to admit that I might be part of the problem. I may need to admit to myself my confusion and confess that I don’t know the way forward. And then I speak, with graciousness and humility, to those who need to know, and don’t speak to those who don’t need to know, giving the situation time and prayer to change.<br />
<br />
The cynicism which goes with 'the elephant in the room' is ugly and leads to a lack of truth and love between believers. But, with God’s help, we can surely speak honestly and specifically, leading to real change.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-76310819765971065942009-12-08T16:28:00.000+00:002009-12-08T16:28:02.363+00:00The 'one anothers'<b>I've spent some time doing a word study on 'one another' of the New Testament. Most of these 'one anothers' appear to be those things we do in community with other Christians, regardless of whether they are in our own church family (although they will often find expression primarily in our local church family). It's quite a list... and a great reminder that whilst following Jesus is a personal allegiance, it's never merely private.<br />
</b><br />
<ul><li>Love one another (John 13:34, John 13:35, Romans 13:8, 1 Peter 4:8, 1 John 3:11, 1 John 3:23, 1 John 4:7, 1 John 4:11, 1 John 4:12)<br />
</li>
<li>Be devoted to one another in brotherly love (Romans 12:10, Hebrews 13:1)</li>
<li>Honour one another above yourselves (Romans 12:10)</li>
<li>Living in harmony with one another (Romans 12:16, 1 Peter 3:8)</li>
<li>Stop passing judgement on one another (Romans 14:3)</li>
<li>Accept one another (Romans 15:7)</li>
<li>Instruct one another (Romans 15:14)</li>
<li>Greet one another with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16)</li>
<li>Agree with one another (1 Corinthians 1:10, Philippians 4:2)</li>
<li>When you come together to eat, wait for one other (1 Corinthians 11:33)<br />
</li>
<li>Serve one another (Galatians 5:13, also by implication in John 13:14)</li>
<li>Don't become conceited, provoking and envying one other (Galatians 5:26)<br />
</li>
<li>Carry one other's burdens (Galatians 6:2)<br />
</li>
<li>Bear with one another in love (Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:13)</li>
<li>Be kind to one another (Ephesians 4:32, 1 Thessalonians 5:15) </li>
<li>Forgive one another (Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13)</li>
<li>Sing to one another (Ephesians 5:19)</li>
<li>Submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21, Colossians 3:16)</li>
<li>Do not lie to one another (Colossians 3:9)<br />
</li>
<li>Encourage one another (1 Thessalonians 4:18, 1 Thessalonians 5:11, Hebrews 3:13, Hebrews 10:25)</li>
<li>Build one another up (1 Thessalonians 5:11)</li>
<li>Live at peace with one another (1 Thessalonians 5:13)<br />
</li>
<li>Consider how to spur one another on to love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24)</li>
<li>Do not slander one another (James 4:11)</li>
<li>Do not grumble towards one another (James 5:9)<br />
</li>
<li>Confess your sins to one another (James 5:16)</li>
<li>Pray for one another (James 5:16)<br />
</li>
<li>Offer hospitality to one another (1 Peter 4:9)</li>
<li>Clothe yourself with humility toward one another (1 Peter 5:5, see also Philippians 2:4)<br />
</li>
</ul>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-20701279486874867912009-11-29T17:09:00.001+00:002009-12-08T16:25:17.321+00:00Ed Clowney on meeting Jesus<b>I read this gem of a quote from Ed Clowney yesterday:<br />
</b><br />
<blockquote>The word of the Lord constantly presents the Lord of the word. Coming to the word is coming to the Lord. This central truth cuts both ways. We cannot detach the word from the Lord and, like the scribes and the Pharisees, profess to cling to the Scriptures while refusing the Lord. On the other hand, neither can we profess obedience to the Lord while rejecting his word. To separate a living Lord from a 'dead' book or a divine Lord from a merely human book is to reject the apostolic gospel....<br />
<br />
Those who read the word of God, and surely those who teach it, must never forget why the word is given and whom it reveals. The word shows us that <i>the Lord is good</i>; his words are sweeter than honey to our taste because in them the Lord gives himself to us.<br />
<div style="text-align: right;"><br />
-- <i>The Message of 1 Peter: The way of the cross</i>, pages 79-81<br />
</div><br />
</blockquote>It is a sad situation in UK evangelicalism that people often divide themselves into either 'Bible people' or 'experience people'. What Clowney says is helpful. Being a Christian is all about experience, because it is all about relating to the living Lord Jesus. But the Bible - when properly handled, and with the Spirit's help - brings us to the Lord Jesus himself, so that readers experience him, and taste and see that the Lord Jesus himself is good.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-62908555161669702102009-11-26T09:23:00.000+00:002009-11-26T09:23:29.524+00:00Jack Miller: Preaching Christ by Faith<b>Here's an extended quote that I read yesterday from one of my heroes, Jack Miller, on preaching. I considered that it was worth sharing. It has brought me to repentance in my attitude to preaching:</b><br />
<blockquote>Preaching ought to have the best wit, wisdom, clarity and logical order that a preacher can give it. But these qualities by themselves will not add up to preaching Christ by faith. Something more is called for. That something more is aiming the message at people with the purpose of bringing them to Christ. The goal is to change them by the power of the gospel.<br />
<br />
If we as preachers have another goal, we will have short-circuited the whole process and confirmed ourselves and the congregation in our spiritual introversion. I think that we preachers must admit that we often <i>are</i> captured by other goals. Sometimes we make an eloquent message our primary goal. We become intent on producing a work of art or a scholarly composition. The sermon can become the end instead of a means toward an end. Phillips Brooks wrote in his <i>Lectures on Preaching</i> that this the cause of the failure of so 'many of the ineffective sermons that are made.' The prevailing intention of the heart of the preacher is to 'produce something which shall be a work of art' rather than a message 'aimed at the men,' with a view to their transformation into Christlikeness.<br />
<br />
The preacher can hardly expect the Spirit of Christ to breathe through an art object that exists for its own sake.... The preacher should instead see preaching much more as a declaration of war, a conflict in which well-disciplined words march as to war to bring the hearers to surrender to Jesus Christ. We need to use the pulpit as a battle station.<br />
</blockquote><div style="text-align: right;">- C. John Miller, <i>Outgrowing the Ingrown Church</i>, pages 123-124<br />
</div>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-6317502466998933232009-10-30T08:34:00.001+00:002009-10-30T08:50:07.424+00:00Engaging with Foucault: can we believe in truth any more?<span style="font-weight: bold;">I spoke earlier in the week at Sheffield CU's lunchbar, engaging with issues of truth. As a social scientist, it's great to be engaging with writers like Michel Foucault.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>(I've <a href="http://peterdray.blogspot.com/2007/06/taking-foucault-to-church.html">written before</a> on whether Foucault is correct in thinking power must always be used in a way that invariably restricts freedoms). I owe part of my thinking here to Tim Keller. Here's a summary of what I said:
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">
<br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">20th Century philosophies of truth</span>:</span> your perspective informs what you understand the truth to be. When we look at the world around us, each of us sees it from within the horizons of our own world, whether those horizons are linguistic, emotional, social, artistic or whatever. Actually our perception of things is, at best, a <i>limited </i>or <i>partial </i>view of the truth.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Foucault's bit</span>:</span> he added to the above by claiming that truth claims are invariably power plays (as they limit the freedoms of others to chose to live as they like).
<br />
<br />This leads us to a kind of paralysis. The big questions are unanswerable. And when we do decide to land on one answer as opposed to another, we can get accused of trying to get power over someone else. We long for truth - but instead all we have is lots of information, a whole load of 'partial truths' at best.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Jesus on Foucault</span>:</span> Jesus agreed that truth can be used as a power play (e.g. in the way that he confronts the teachers of the Law in Luke 11).
<br />
<br />We’ve all experienced times when people have spoken genuine truth to us but they have not spoken it to us in love. Instead they’ve told it to us to hurt us, to wound us, to injure us. Yes, we can step back and say, 'What you’ve said is true, but the way you said it; well, you are intending to hurt me, not to help me.' And Jesus would say: "Listen, it’s not the claim to truth that does this – that hurts people. <i style="">It’s what’s in the truth claim and its intent that matters</i>."
<br />
<br />Let's look at Jesus by these criteria...
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Jesus claimed to speak as someone not limited by his humanity</span>. Jesus was a Jewish man in the 1st Century. But he claimed to speak as God in human form: that he had a God’s-eye view of the Universe. And so he claimed not just to be having a good guess about how things are, but to reveal and embody the truth.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Jesus' mission (in his own words) was to bring freedom</span>. While most religions and belief systems present God as static and making demands upon us, Christianity trusts in the God who has served us, in coming to us and dying for us. And so for Christians, true freedom is found in relationship with God. When we realize all that Jesus has done to serve us and give himself for us, this speaks to our fears of giving up our independence, finding true freedom in him.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. The intent behind Jesus' truth claims</span>. Jesus claimed that he isn’t out to control people like us, rather he’s out to free us and to bring us into the relationship with God we’re made for. In fact Jesus was so committed to us that it ultimately led to his voluntary death in our place. So as you consider Jesus’ truth claims, test the person of Jesus: does he seem out to coerce or control?
<br />
<br />A person is transformed when they encounter undeserved sacrifice. Once you’ve encountered someone who sacrifices on your behalf and you know you don’t deserve it, you’re aware you can never be the same. It <i style="">requires</i> transformation. That is what drives Christians. Out of love for Christ and love for others, they long to see others entering into that relationship of life with Jesus. And so Christians are committed to loving their friends (and their enemies) and pointing them to Jesus, building strong relationships based on truth. That is the natural outcome of Jesus’ teaching and intent.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">So, as a Christian, can you believe in truth any more?</span>
<br />
<br />This was a question I used to wrestle through as I did my Masters which embraced lots of continental philosophy. <meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cpcd%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Can I believe in truth any more as a Christian? Yes, because truth has made itself known in the person of Jesus; because truth diagnoses me as I really am, then offers an antidote; and because truth shows itself when lived out fully in beautiful others-centred relationships that do not hurt others but build them up. peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-53827560241287400352009-10-09T16:07:00.005+01:002009-10-09T16:23:26.257+01:00Seven steps towards building outreach into CU small groups<p><strong>I've been thinking a bit recently about how to make CU small groups in all sorts of different university contexts more effective in outreach.</strong><br /><br />Here are seven steps I've come up with that can build a more of a missional edge in CU small groups:<br /><br /><strong>1. Work hard to show your small group members how all components of small group time are inter-related</strong>. CU small group outreach tends to fail if outreach is seen as an unnatural intrusion to small group life. Outreach becomes more effective and natural when, for instance, Bible study is presented as something which energises the group's mission; as group members grow in trust and relationship with each other, they gain a sense of community in witness, and so on. Prayer topics in CU small groups should be wide-ranging (and it’s important to make space for the real needs that small group members have), but there should be an ongoing eye on outreach. </p><p>I made some <a href="http://peterdray.blogspot.com/2008/10/making-cu-small-groups-work.html">practical suggestions</a> on how to do this in a post a while back.</p><p><strong>2. Ask questions that encourage discussion in the small group about how the gospel really is news that is good for people today</strong>. For instance, in a Bible study on 1 Peter 2:9, you could ask: </p><ul><li>What are Christ’s deeds? </li><li>Why are they wonderful?</li><li>What kind of darkness previously surrounded you? </li><li>What is your present experience of God’s light? </li></ul><p>(This is based on an approach I read in the book <em>Good Things Come in Small Groups</em>, which I believe is now out of print). Questions like these help small group members grapple with the specifics of God’s love, encourage them to appreciate the grace of the gospel, and help them begin to personalise and talk about it. </p><p><strong>3. Set the perspective from the beginning that outreach is both necessary and natural. </strong>If your small group is less confident in evangelism, start initially in forms of non-threatening outreach, in which group members confident. As gospel confidence increases in your group, you can step up into more stretching forms of outreach. </p><p><strong>4. Ask for help</strong>. If you need help in your outreach, don't let this stop you! Speak to your CU's small group coordinator or your CU Staff Worker for help.<br /><br /><strong>5. Press for group ownership in outreach</strong>. Work towards small group members seeing your small group as a think tank. Work together to reach consensus on what specific task God has for you. Group ownership enables everyone in the small group to work as a team: this is much more fun, more effective and you'll find small group members are more committed.<br /><br /><strong>6. Plan time for planning</strong>. To reduce undesirable last-minute panic, start the planning process far enough in advance. Factor in small group time to make these plans. Make sure too that you've thought about how you'll follow up those people who show interest in the gospel.<br /><br /><strong>7. Surround all outreach in prayer</strong>. As we ask God to intervene in lives and events, we learn to rely on his strength rather than ours. While God commands us to be stewards of our gifts, energy and resources, it is not our job to change hearts. The Holy Spirit alone can do that. Our role is to serve as signposts pointing to Jesus. </p><p>It’s great when small group members keep a list of 3-5 friends, praying that they get opportunities to share the gospel and that their friends hearts would be open to the gospel. Set aside time regularly for prayer for these friends who are without the knowledge and experience of Christ's love. </p><p>When you have an event, ask for prayer wherever you can - at your church, in CU central meetings - and, of course, spend good time praying together in your small group too.</p>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-82048053840418713652009-10-06T22:52:00.004+01:002009-10-06T23:05:23.984+01:00Lord of the dance<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7ihrctn9XuXmfR-end3ubN5AmefoaJbbfsgDzYjiupt-7hzOmSixlH2D2tWiLGoN2Ctv5mkjly749RgmhPYQVej_sx8ba_rpF32tUbCyFmI87Wo4jGeaB_SQkebp94KFa2tMiUroZUP6i/s1600-h/pixielott.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 184px; height: 184px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7ihrctn9XuXmfR-end3ubN5AmefoaJbbfsgDzYjiupt-7hzOmSixlH2D2tWiLGoN2Ctv5mkjly749RgmhPYQVej_sx8ba_rpF32tUbCyFmI87Wo4jGeaB_SQkebp94KFa2tMiUroZUP6i/s200/pixielott.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5389610289206163586" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">I was listening recently to Pixie Lott's <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsQ-d0wXcOQ">Boys and Girls</a> </span>on the radio.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">It got me thinking: why are there so many pop songs about dancing?</span><br /><br />I guess at one level there's an easy answer to this question: because a lot of the songs that are popular are played in pubs and clubs where people go to dance. But why is dancing championed in so many songs?<br /><br />Of course, dancing is fun ('it sure feels good, feels good, yeah, we're gonna lose control'). But there's more too it. Again, as Pixie puts it, 'when the beat kicks in you feel it in your bones.' It's interesting to think that many people feel at their most 'free' and their most 'natural' when they're abandoned from their cares and concerns in dance (at least at the points when they're not worried about what people think of their dancing).<br /><br />Perhaps we love dancing so much because we yearn to be away from our troubles and be in perfect sync with our surroundings.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-24387591501615194262009-10-01T15:55:00.007+01:002009-10-01T16:11:04.992+01:00Reaching university subcultures<span style="font-weight: bold;">One of the things I am passionate about is encouraging CU students to be strategic and to reach students in those subcultures who appear to be the very 'hardest' reach with the gospel in their local settings.</span><br /><br />When I say this, I'm not saying that CU students should just ignore the pre-existing opportunities that they have in evangelism already; rather, that they should think carefully about how they can best serve the church through engaging with those only realistically reached through CU outreach.<br /><br />Sometimes some churches in student towns can put on a 'guest service' that will attract a certain type of student - most often those who have come from a Christian or religious background; whether that is lapsed Christians, nominal Christians, those who have attended chapel at school - and so on. Of course, the Holy Spirit blows where he wants as his word is proclaimed, but - without partnership with the CU - church-based student evangelism is often relatively ineffective at reaching others.<br /><br />I have taken to asking CU leaders to identify those groups or subcultures on campus that they consider that only the CU can realistically reach, with their privileges of contact, access and student-run evangelism. I've been asking Christian students to isolate those groups who wouldn't even consider or have the opportunity to enter the doors of a local church without prior CU contact. It's been quite eye-opening: at many universities it's Muslims, hard-core clubbers and those in private halls of residence. Chatting to a fourth year Durham student yesterday, he identified members of the Conservative club and non-Christian theology students.<br /><br />I love it when CUs think strategically about reaching their campuses. I love it when local churches encourage their students to think this way, and set them free to be 'missionaries' within the university.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-84648963361421296672009-09-26T11:10:00.004+01:002009-09-26T18:31:28.717+01:00An update<span style="font-weight: bold;">I'm beginning to get into the swing of things now as Team Leader with UCCF in the North East.</span><br /><br />This past week was a week of building gospel partnerships. There have been a number of meetings with other Christians: I met with representatives of eleven different mission agencies earlier in the week. These mission agencies come together to think, along with UCCF, how world mission can be better profiled and promoted amongst CU students. I came away with a lot of thinking to do - lots of exciting prospects ahead.<br /><br />I've also met with a number of church leaders this week. Perhaps the highlight of the week was meeting the Yorkshire gathering of Newfrontiers ministers. I love the heart for Jesus and his gospel these folks have, and how that transfers itself in strong relationships and a commitment to church planting. It was exciting to hear about two plants that will happen in the next few months. I was also really encouraged by how many there wanted to develop stronger partnerships with CUs.<br /><br />These were two very different gatherings, but I've spent the week reflecting on the second half of Galatians 2 having studied it with Hamish in Durham. How wonderful it is when Christians recognise that - above all, and through all of the differences - we have our justification in Christ in common.<br /><br />Next week I'm heading back down again to Quinta in Shropshire; this time to speak at Durham CU's 'Freshers' Getaway'. There will be about 70 students coming away, 40 of them new Freshers. I'm really amazed at how this whole venture has come together and really excited by the thought of encouraging these Freshers to thrive as Christians during their time at university before they even start. To that end, I'll be teaching from the book of Daniel. Do pray that as I speak the Spirit will speak and reveal more of Jesus.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-71993787844281572642009-09-21T17:33:00.004+01:002009-09-21T17:41:09.670+01:00Now but not yet<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ivpbooks.com/covers/9781844743551.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 125px; height: 196px;" src="http://www.ivpbooks.com/covers/9781844743551.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">I've been enjoying Alec Motyer's brilliant little book <a href="http://www.ivpbooks.com/9781844743551"><span style="font-style: italic;">Journey</span></a> which is a devotional guide to the psalms of ascent (Psalms 120-134). These were the songs that pilgrims sang as they wound their way to Jerusalem for the three feasts each year.</span><br /><br />One of the things that Motyer notes is that, throughout the psalms, the psalmists note that - even at the height of the Davidic covenant, at the height of Jerusalem's security and fame, and when the Temple is fully inaugurated - there must be more to come. Psalm 122, for instance, celebrates the throngs gathered for worship in Zion (verses 1-5), yet the need to pray for the future peace and prosperity of Jerusalem remains (verses 6-9). There is more to come. New Testament readers know that this is the new Jerusalem of Hebrews 12 and Revelation 21-22.<br /><br />Reading Psalm 27 today with my boss Tim, we noticed something that is perhaps similar. David longs to dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of his life - yet, this is something that as a member of the tribe of Judah (and therefore not a Levite or a priest) was not accessible to him. Yet David longs to seek the face of the LORD. Is this perhaps another occasion where the psalmists point beyond themselves, prophetically knowing that there is more to come?peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-18809398762267550872009-09-20T16:25:00.005+01:002009-09-20T16:52:51.336+01:00Is God merely a psychological crutch for the weak?<span style="font-weight: bold;">I've been giving some thinking over recent months to the above question. My post on Robbie Williams' latest song, <a href="http://peterdray.blogspot.com/2009/09/robbie-williams-bodies.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Bodies</span></a>, shows that the question regarding whether or not God is a psychological crutch is alive and well. Here are a few of my thoughts:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The presupposition behind the question</span>: that there is widespread internal desire for the spiritual. This is true. A 2005 worldwide survey placed belief in the spiritual realm at 90%. Popular culture also attests to this fact. Sam Sparro's 2008 grammy nominated song <span style="font-style: italic;">Black and Gold</span>, for instance, is about the seemingly innate longing for God.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The charge</span>: God is merely a psychological crutch. People like Sam Sparro – and perhaps you – so desire ‘something bigger than them’ that they project these desires onto a big screen and call it ‘God’. Theorists from Marx to Freud have argued that, in some way, God is merely a figment of the imagination, a kind of wish-fulfilment.<br /><br /><span>The psychological crutch </span>is a well-documented phenomenon, in academia and in popular culture. The Tom Hanks film <span style="font-style: italic;">Castaway </span>depicts psychological crutches that help Hanks' character Noland to survive under extreme pressure: the most famous being Wilson, the volleyball that Noland turns into his confidante and friend. Richard Dawkins, when examining the Pacific cargo cults - a religious system very obviously rooting from psychological need - claims that all religious belief evolves in this manner. We desire certain things, and so we conjure up spiritual entities – God or gods – in whom we place hope in to bring us what we need.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">Taking on the argument</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. The charge that belief in God is a product of wish-fulfilment for believers can be countered by the charge that unbelief might be a product of wish-fulfilment for unbelievers</span>.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>Arguments that don’t rest upon objective evidence can cut both ways. If one group attributes the other’s view to emotion or sociology or psychological need, then the other only needs to reply in kind. Non-belief in God could, itself, be a form of wish-fulfilment.<br /><br />For example, the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud hypothesised that belief in the existence of God as "merely a projection of a childish wish for the protection of the father.” But this statement can be turned around. As the psychologist Philip Witz has recently written, Freud had a very bad relationship with his own father. Whereas religious belief might be rendered merely a childish need for a father figure, the non-belief of others such Freud could be characterised as a form of adolescent rebellion against the father-figure of God.<br /><br />Moreover, CS Lewis showed that there is a psychological dynamic of ‘fear fulfillment’: in other words, that people have reasons to wish God non-existence as well as his existence. According to Freud’s own theory of universal subconsciousness, a person would seem to have at least as plausible a psychological basis for wanting to do away with a Father in heaven as wanting to believe in him.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Not all forms of belief in God or gods can be lumped together</span>. Richard Dawkins writes: ‘<span style="font-style: italic;">I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan. Instead, I shall define the God Hypothesis as this: there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual human evolution’.</span> It sounds fair enough – that Dawkins wants to somehow remain politically correct and attack everyone’s gods!<br /><br />But there's a flaw in this argument: just because some belief in God can be shown to be psychological doesn’t mean that all belief in God is psychological. No doubt some forms of religious belief are merely psychological, but it is logically fallacious to say that therefore <span style="font-style: italic;">all </span>belief in God is merely psychology. Dawkins’ view assumes (without any argument) that all religions have the same basic core components, which can all be explained as projections of psychological crutches. All gods, and hence all religions, are simply projections of human desires. But there are differences between religions – crucially including how God is made known and is knowable.<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Christian belief in God is not primarily founded in human experience, but in God's own revelation of himself</span>. The Christian writer Gresham Machen wrote, 'The only God about whom I feel concerned is one who has objective existence, an existence independent of man. But if there be such a really and independently existent Being, it seems extremely unlikely that there can be any knowledge of Him unless He chooses to reveal Himself.' This is where Christianity differs to every other religion and philosophy. Whereas, for whatever reason – psychological factors or an inbuilt desire to want to know God – other religions are about humanity trying to find God, Christianity is about God coming to find humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. This means that the way of knowing what God is like is not internal, but based upon revelation in human space and time.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">An alternative perspective on spiritual desire</span><br /><br />The Bible endorses the idea that each of us has a desire for God, and with it a primal longer for fulfilment and significance. We feel that without God we’re incomplete. But, according to the Bible, this feeling of incompleteness is no crutch or hope for an imaginary friend. Rather, it teaches is that humans are not accidents, but that we were created in the image and the likeness of God. As relational creatures made in the likeness of a relational Creator, it’s not at all surprising that we want to relate to God. We long for God because we have been created to relate to him. As one Bible verse puts it, ‘God has set eternity in the hearts of men.’<br /><br />CS Lewis put it like this: “A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, then; is such a thing as water. People feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” Lewis is saying that our universal instinct for purpose and meaning is a strong evidence that God exists<i>. </i>It’s as if there is an inbuilt honing device in each of us that draws us beyond the physical.<br /><br />God has designed us to want to know him, and we can only understand our creatureliness when we understand the Creator. In fact, we are truly human – we live as we were created to live – when we live in relationship with the God that made us. It’s something that Jesus won for us through his death on the cross, that we might be reconciled to God, start a relationship with him and therefore experience true humanity.<br /><br />Please don’t dismiss this out of hand – dismissing it like that could be a psychological crutch – a fear fulfilment. Will you look into the evidence objectively for yourself?peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-61768402518858489972009-09-16T20:50:00.005+01:002009-09-16T21:15:06.040+01:00New universities and the need for community<span style="font-weight: bold;">One of the passions that has grown within me over recent years is the desire to see the 'new universities' of Britain reached with the gospel. The main stimulant of this desire was working with the Christian Union at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston.</span><br /><br />I was often humbled by the Christian students in Preston, who continued to plug away with gospel proclamation and witness on campus, even though the odds were very much against them. CU numbers never really went over 70 in Preston, what is a university with a massive undergraduate presence.<br /><br />No doubt there were other Christians on campus. One of the characteristics of new universities is that a large percentage of students commute in from nearby towns, and so never live permanently in their place of study. This makes it difficult to even grow a viable 'mission team' of any size.<br /><br />There were other things that can make ministry hard and, for many, frustrating in new universities. Firstly, the subjects studied there are often more practical or vocational, making 'traditional' methods of apologetics and evangelistic proclamation less effective. In addition, my experience suggests that generally students at new universities are 'further back' in their appreciation for the gospel - particularly, there is the widespread assumption that becoming a Christian means you stop having fun (not the sort of objection that might be tackled effectively in an apologetic talk).<br /><br />On top of all this, there are often no large halls of residence, a lack of emphasis across the university for involvement in extra-curricular activities and, perhaps above all, a lack of public meeting space. Certainly in Preston, students spent much of their time in their rooms, or out together in pubs and clubs. There was little sense of community.<br /><br />A colleague yesterday was talking about another CU at a different new university. His observation of this group was that it was 'just a community' - that CU students had a tendency to sometimes huddle in a group. The evangelism that this group has tended to do has favoured first contact evangelism - this isn't surprising: as a relatively small group in a university of tens of thousands, it's tempting to think that first contact evangelism is the only way that it might be possible to make an evangelistic 'dent' in the university. The fact is, however, that such a large percentage of students on these campuses see Christianity as so functionally irrelevant, first contact is fairly ineffective. The students on these campuses need to see Christianity lived - to taste and see that the gospel is good - more even than students at traditional universities, who might be persuaded more easily to investigate Christianity through being convinced of its ring of truth. In fact, all of the people I know that have become Christians in Preston (and most of those who have shown any serious interest in Christianity) first became interested because they saw the gospel lived out in a friend or friends.<br /><br />All this has got me thinking. I wonder if the need for friendship and community, that was so obvious in Preston, and which caused the CU my colleague was talking about yesterday to huddle, should be part of the outreach and evangelistic strategies at new university campuses. Obviously Christian huddling is a long way from the pattern of Biblical gospel ministry - but could CUs at these universities seek to meet the need for community to many around them with an outward emphasis? Sacrifical, outward-looking community, where everyone is accepted as they are, is - after all - a massive implication of authentic gospel living.<br /><br />Imagine - building on solid gospel convictions, it's the CU at new universities including the lonely international students in dinner plans; it's the CU that runs a football team; it's CU members that offer their front rooms for other university meetings to take place. Imagine the way in which this would place gospel transformation on view, and the way in which this would require CU members to give a reason for the different hope they obviously have. Because CUs are currently very small at these universities, we're not going to talk about massive numbers coming into contact with CU members. But I wonder if the quality of contact might make CU evangelism in these tough mission fields more effective?peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-63234453218503483382009-09-15T18:29:00.003+01:002009-09-15T18:31:07.960+01:00Bearing with others on disputible issues<span style="font-weight: bold;">An <a href="http://marcushoneysett.squarespace.com/blog/fellowship-with-christians-who-arent-like-me-acts-2117-26.html">excellent post</a> on gospel unity from <a href="http://marcushoneysett.squarespace.com/">Marcus</a> which ties in with some of the ideas I've mentioned on this blog in recent weeks. Here's a taste:</span><br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Here is the principle: forebear with others in matters of indifference. Participate with them. Be friends with them. Encourage them. <p>But one more thing needs to be said: we need to be careful to distinguish what are matters of indifference and what aren't. I think ther are twin dangers: elevating to primary importance things that aren't - like style of meetings - and thereby refusing to have fellowship with people we should; or, demoting things that are of first importance - like core doctrines - to secondaries for the sake of wanting to be friends with everybody.</p></blockquote>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-29493920497511191162009-09-11T08:58:00.003+01:002009-09-14T21:00:35.028+01:00Cursed<strong>There is real benefit in reading through a book of the Bible all in one sitting. When reading Galatians recently, I noticed the repetition of the world 'cursed' in chapter 1 and chapter 3</strong> (all quotes from TNIV)<strong>:</strong><br /><br /><blockquote>Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be under God's <strong>curse</strong>! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let that person be under God's <strong>curse</strong>! (Galatians 1:8-9)<br /><br />All who rely on observing the law are under a <strong>curse</strong>, for it is written: "<strong>Cursed</strong> is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because "the righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, "Whoever does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the <strong>curse</strong> of the law by becoming a <span style="font-weight: bold;">curse</span> for us, for it is written: "<strong>Cursed</strong> is everyone who is hung on a pole." (Galatians 3:10-13)</blockquote>I think that maybe this explains why Paul explodes with such emotional intensity in the way that he does at the beginning of the letter. Paul explains that Christ 'gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age.' To walk away from Christ is to place oneself under curse, because only he can deliver anyone from that curse. To wilfully teach others, then, in a way that draws away from trust in Christ is not only to place oneself under curse - but others under curse too. Christ alone is able to deliver anyone from their curse; we can turn to no other.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-58524092430360687492009-09-10T08:54:00.003+01:002009-09-10T08:54:00.192+01:00District 9<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9WDXVOZreENKu_J1KXEOXMIENr3OFeYvA6jc0xPEIGMkT9oZGQmLr3GgbksGU6ArR62QWK3vjYYPz_ebQgnsR9wfrarOvwUqTBOJ93t6aANOvUl-e1SQc9rcYw5DLRLqmrHEn_CrjX_VJ/s1600-h/district+9.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 134px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5379563487141129474" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9WDXVOZreENKu_J1KXEOXMIENr3OFeYvA6jc0xPEIGMkT9oZGQmLr3GgbksGU6ArR62QWK3vjYYPz_ebQgnsR9wfrarOvwUqTBOJ93t6aANOvUl-e1SQc9rcYw5DLRLqmrHEn_CrjX_VJ/s200/district+9.jpg" /></a><strong><em>District 9 </em>is the much-hyped movie on current release; the current Number 1 in the UK box office, and reckoned to be pushing Star Trek as the premier science fiction movie of 2009.</strong><br /><div></div><br /><div>One of the strengths of the film is the way in which it immediately engages the watcher. Like other recent films, the use of hand-held cameras and footage apparently CCTV cameras breathlessly grabs the audience's attention. About 30 minutes into the film I found myself surprised at the way in which I was so bothered about the welfare of a group of prawn-shaped aliens! <p></p><p>I had a love-hate relationship with the technical sides of the film. Sharlto Copley, in what I believe is his first, role as Wikus van de Merwe (an official charged with overseeing the forced evacuation from District 9 to the purpose-made District 10) is excellent. The scenes amongst the slums of <em>District 9</em> have been excellently shot, and the special effects and costumes meant that I sometimes had to remind myself I was watching a science-fiction film. On the downside, the swearing in the film felt gratuitous (adding nothing to either plot or characterisation), Wikus' relationship with his wife wasn't developed enough and there was more gore than was probably necessary. Of the group that I saw the film with, some liked it, others didn't.</p><p>I once heard one of my heroes, the film critic Mark Kermode, saying that the best science fiction points beyond itself, where aliens are allegories or metaphors of people. And that's clearly in the mind of the film and script writers. The questions that the film poses are obvious: To whom should 'human rights' apply? Is it ever right to ignore a person's human rights? And what are the dangers when a population are treated as second-class citizens? There are also questions posed regarding the philanthropic intentions of multinational companies.</p><p>Above all, the fact that <em>District 9 </em>is set in Johannesburg and that it opens with the re-location of aliens from one township to another means that the movie watcher cannot help but associate the aliens with the black population of South Africa under apartheid. (Interestingly, the film opens in the early 1980s, when the aliens arrive over South Africa when, of course, apartheid was still in full force). Yet the politics of the film is far from a direct allegory of apartheid: there are other scenes that seem to echo the Nazi experiments on Jews during the Second World War, as well as the treatment of African-American slaves whilst away from home.</p><p><em>District 9</em> is an interesting piece. I, for one, hope that a sequel isn't made. An interesting discussion point with friends might be how they would imagine the loose ends of the film might be tied up, and to then discuss what is said about human nature.</p></div>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-60108334388437870922009-09-09T20:17:00.008+01:002009-09-20T16:52:26.698+01:00Robbie Williams: Bodies<a href="http://www.radiosaw.de/onair/musiknews/robbie_williams_15.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; width: 175px; float: left; height: 194px;" alt="" src="http://www.radiosaw.de/onair/musiknews/robbie_williams_15.jpg" border="0" /></a><strong>Robbie Williams makes his long-awaited comeback later this year with an album released in November and his latest song, <em>Bodies</em>, regularly on the radio.</strong><br /><br />I'm not a massive fan of Robbie's music but there's no doubting that he's something of a cultural icon. His forthcoming album <em>Reality Killed the Video Star </em>is dominating the charts on future release charts. And to his credit, <em>Bodies</em>, his comeback single isn't safe: not a ballad, but a sound that will appeal to a slightly more adult audience.<br /><br />There's no doubt that spirituality plays an important part in the track. It opens with Gregorian chant and ends with a gospel choir. And whilst <a href="http://www.yoursonglyrics.com/bodies-robbie-williams/">the lyrics</a> sometimes feel somewhat forced, there's some interesting mileage in considering their message.<br /><p></p><p>One of the lyrics at the end of the track is <em>'Jesus didn't die for you / What do you want?'</em> I happened to hear an interview with Robbie on the radio over the weekend and there's no doubt that in part this is an effort to attract headlines through shock. But I wonder if there's more going on in the song.</p><p>There are masses of spiritual references: not only to Jesus, but also to the Bodhi tree (where the Buddha apparently received his revelations). In the interview I heard, Robbie confessed that although he'd been raised a Roman Catholic, he no longer knew who to pray to. He joked that the previous night he'd prayed to the Archangel Michael because he liked the look of his muscles, and also intimated that he enjoyed reading atheist writings by Richard Dawkins.</p><p>And I wonder if that brings the hearer to the crux of the song. Robbie sings about 'bodies' (<em>'Bodies in the Bodhi tree / bodies making chemistry / bodies on my family...</em>). Yet the song seems to point to a conviction that humans are more than just bodies finding themselves in space and time at a particular point (<em>'Praying for the rapture / Cause it's strange, getting stranger'</em>). Perhaps above all, though, the song represents a fear that the need for Jesus is merely a psychological need that we all have: possibly the need to be accepted as we are (<em>'All we've ever wanted is to look good naked / That someone can take it / God save me rejection from my rejection / I want perfection'</em>).</p><p>And so the song closes, with Robbie singing that 'Jesus didn't really die for you', whilst a gospel choir sings 'Jesus really died for you'. I wonder: is this an argument that is going on in Robbie's head? Is Jesus merely a projection of our needs?</p><p>For more on Jesus being a psychological crutch or wish-fulfilment, click <a href="http://www.ivpress.com/questioningfaith/resources/psychological-crutch.php">here</a>, or see my post <a href="http://peterdray.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-god-merely-psychological-crutch-for.html">Is God merely a psychological crutch for the weak?</a><br /></p>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-38184474938025528272009-09-06T16:38:00.003+01:002009-09-06T16:47:15.059+01:00Pastures new<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://allthe7thfloors.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/we-have-moved.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 230px; height: 170px;" src="http://allthe7thfloors.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/we-have-moved.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">It's been a while since I last wrote anything on this blog - a combination of a holiday and moving house has meant that my Internet access has been minimal.</span><br /><br />In the mean time, I've started a new job: I'm still working with UCCF but I'm now Team Leader in the North East region. That means I'll be responsible for leading the team of Staff and Relay Workers across the area as they seek to resource and inspire students to live and speak for Jesus during their time at university. I'm somewhat daunted but also excited about the months and years ahead. Linda is also seeing her career change: she's retraining and doing a PGCE at Sheffield Hallam University nearby.<br /><br />We've settled into <a href="http://graceinthecommunity.org/">South Doncaster Community Church</a>, and have been blown away by the reception we have received. It's so nice enjoying time with a church family, having the conviction that even when we don't know each other well yet, we have so much in common. Our new church family have welcomed us well, supporting us and seeking to meet our practical needs. Our new pastor, <a href="http://graceinthecommunity.blogspot.com/">Alistair Gooderham</a>, has a blog worth scanning sometime.<br /><br />I've had some more thoughts on unity and a range of other issues and will seek to record them here in the coming days.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-88724873122714831032009-08-05T07:00:00.002+01:002009-08-05T07:00:00.303+01:00Cultivation of God-centred worship enhances horizontal unity<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLT5_1y7pAOrHqONIF8GEPDIPfFsetOof-iHD8ZjVU7YzaYmIbh27vm0rXIAqyMXoN8tMydPGZ8gtC6HdIkx8JGYDp2II-Vu-aOv1epmBiXaFIPpHPfvbo-9TtJEUL_g_bJHdlW7nXEIs3/s1600-h/tozer.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 10pt; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 103px; height: 124px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLT5_1y7pAOrHqONIF8GEPDIPfFsetOof-iHD8ZjVU7YzaYmIbh27vm0rXIAqyMXoN8tMydPGZ8gtC6HdIkx8JGYDp2II-Vu-aOv1epmBiXaFIPpHPfvbo-9TtJEUL_g_bJHdlW7nXEIs3/s200/tozer.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5366215567116647026" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">A.W. Tozer memorably stated how a deliberate focus away from self and onto Christ is fuel for Christian unity:</span><br /><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">one hundred worshippers met together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be were they to become ‘unity’ conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.</span><br /><div style="text-align: right;">[The Pursuit of God, <span style="font-style: italic;">page 97</span>]</div></blockquote><p></p>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-58461887443717056672009-08-04T07:00:00.000+01:002009-08-04T07:00:02.268+01:00Stott: disunity often caused by proud prejudices<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMOSkjMQBzomrnYCnjWL2Pyh_TzS4BxbrIbnIseHOhPsGe3szQRB3UayC0JQsInBhC4uJd95XekuOJlBUoWyS5oBYIiJ3e6gLnpz7UfyG84kFzsmA0zskQgbr1blFJLbBmqftkOr6jjzm4/s1600-h/stott.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 10pt; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 179px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMOSkjMQBzomrnYCnjWL2Pyh_TzS4BxbrIbnIseHOhPsGe3szQRB3UayC0JQsInBhC4uJd95XekuOJlBUoWyS5oBYIiJ3e6gLnpz7UfyG84kFzsmA0zskQgbr1blFJLbBmqftkOr6jjzm4/s200/stott.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5365706266064895138" border="0" /></a><span><span style="font-weight: bold;">As we've seen already, a crucial part of maintaining Christian unity is doggedly holding to the key parts of the gospel.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">However, as this quote from John Stott shows, Biblical unity also requires a humility and realisation of ones own presuppositions and prejudices when it comes to 'secondary' doctrines:</span><br /></span><span></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">We must come to the biblical text with a recognition of our cultural prejudices and with a willingness to have them challenged and changed. <span style="font-weight: bold;">If we come to Scripture with the proud presupposition that all our inherited beliefs and practices are correct, then of course we shall find in the Bible only what we want to find, namely the comfortable confirmation of the status quo. As a result, we shall also find ourselves in sharp disagreement with people who come to Scripture from different backgrounds and with different convictions, and find these confirmed. There is probably no commoner source of discord than this.</span> It is only when we are brave and humble enough to allow the Spirit of God through the Word of God radically to call in question our most cherished opinions, that we are likely to find fresh unity through fresh understanding.</span><br /><div style="text-align: right;">[You Can Trust the Bible, <span style="font-style: italic;">page 50</span>].</div></blockquote>I experienced a case in point of this a number of years ago when I was a Relay Worker. I was meeting to study the Bible with another Christian from a very different background to my own. For nearly six months, this felt like a chore as both of us wanted to impose 'our' Christianity upon the other. Then I believe the Lord showed both of us - suddenly, and at the same time - the futility of what we were doing. This made us both much better listeners, and we actually found out that we both had a whole lot more in common with each other than both of us had previously thought. We still don't see eye to eye over every issue. But I would count him one of my good friends and a tenacious partner in the gospel.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-61640327535306338862009-08-03T10:00:00.004+01:002009-08-03T10:28:01.385+01:00Two models of CU unity<span style="font-weight: bold;">I'll carry on drawing together some thoughts from others on unity in future posts, but here's something that's been buzzing around my head for a wee while on unity. What does it look like in practice to maintain unity in an interdenominational setting like a CU?</span><br /><br />It occurs to me that there are two models.<br /><br />The first model is a kind of 'lowest common denominator' approach. Speakers in this model are instructed to only present Biblical teaching that all members present can agree with (i.e. from within the Doctrinal Basis). If a speaker presents an issue outside of this band of core teaching (and if particularly they teach on a 'secondary' issue that falls outside of the Doctrinal Basis) they might be reprimanded or encouraged next time to focus on core issues (depending on the amount of graciousness shown by CU members). In the model, 'tolerance' is defined by limiting what might cause offence or discomfort. In practice I think this model often leads to the domination of whatever the most popular church background in the CU is.<br /><br />It seems to me that a better approach would be a second model. In this model, speakers are encouraged to pitch their material bearing in mind that the CU is a short-term interdenominational mission team. However, when they believe that the passage or issue that they have been asked to speak upon requires teaching on a 'secondary issue', they feel free to teach it (albeit humbly bearing in mind that other evangelicals can also have Scripturally-driven positions that are different to their own). CU members bear in mind that within the CU setting, they agree to agree upon the core doctrines of the gospel (as summarised in the Doctrinal Basis) but agree to disagree upon secondary issues. Therefore, so long as the speaker is led by Scripture in their teaching of a secondary issue, they are willing to receive such teaching (even if it is very different from the position they themselves hold). In this model, 'tolerance' is defined by loving somebody as a brother or sister for whom Christ died, even when they hold a position of theology that is very different from your own. It is looking somebody in the eye and saying that you are glad they are part of a gospel-focused mission team with you (and saying this even if you might never join their church).<br /><br />It seems to me that the second model is stronger than the first model, and closer to the Biblical model of unity than the first. It is harder to achieve, because it is requires a strong understanding of what CUs are about, and a thorough focus upon grace. But I think it is worth striving for.<br /><br />I once remember a colleague speaking of how, ideally, each CU member should come away from a CU central gathering feeling slightly frustrated, because not everything was done in a way that matched their own preferences and positions of secondary doctrine. However, he said, in this sense of general dissatisfaction, there is great satisfaction - modelling together great unity in the gospel, and being more effective on campus as a group than a whole host of smaller groups ever could be by themselves.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-18999106932835206112009-08-01T10:30:00.006+01:002009-08-01T22:38:51.467+01:00Lloyd-Jones: what is schism?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuI2anqrmx4CZ7puHyl03PIJ7P5muqOLBshevT5woiodvdqTglkAFgHJP9u5eXrAeFrJMKDNsJzg0bNZ1EBpKt7PjO4dm79VhEhUbZVNMTvyeSy4AcBIcAHI39xCZOw23iSAI2IO5hbla1/s1600-h/lloyd-jones.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 130px; height: 163px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuI2anqrmx4CZ7puHyl03PIJ7P5muqOLBshevT5woiodvdqTglkAFgHJP9u5eXrAeFrJMKDNsJzg0bNZ1EBpKt7PjO4dm79VhEhUbZVNMTvyeSy4AcBIcAHI39xCZOw23iSAI2IO5hbla1/s200/lloyd-jones.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5365031946238760002" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">Martin Lloyd-Jones answers the question: what is a schism?</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">The best definition you will ever find of schism is in Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, especially in chapter 12 perhaps but it is also there in other places. Schism as it is defined by the great apostle is this: it is men and women who are agreed about the centralities of the faith disagreeing about things which are not essential; it is a tearing of the body. The only man who can be guilty of schism, therefore, is a man who believes the truth, the essential truth, but denies other things that are not essential.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: right;">[What is an Evangelical?]<br /></div></blockquote>The observation that came to me here is that Biblical unity does not just consist of attending a meeting together. Presumably the church in Corinth was still meeting together, and yet it is the only church which is explicitly criticised for being schismatic.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-37214568424339863072009-07-31T23:34:00.008+01:002009-08-01T00:14:25.397+01:00Packer: Biblical unity is not unity at any price<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizgNa52T_76TXiz0GWKQSMMgatPacZfeIkawb-SVw6PLDgwN3-Cd0NNfOyG9fVyZuxLBC8UE12PWT9z82chyphenhyphenjQhbTc9W-VtH218sO35u8fXGCiGs6Bo5bdHMLla8Nx3a-j-sF9aw7wxYxx/s1600-h/jpacker.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 10pt; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 127px; height: 153px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizgNa52T_76TXiz0GWKQSMMgatPacZfeIkawb-SVw6PLDgwN3-Cd0NNfOyG9fVyZuxLBC8UE12PWT9z82chyphenhyphenjQhbTc9W-VtH218sO35u8fXGCiGs6Bo5bdHMLla8Nx3a-j-sF9aw7wxYxx/s200/jpacker.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5364760452004635426" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">Continuing with my thoughts on Christian unity, here's a quote by the great JI Packer on when visible unity is not the thing to prize above all. He looks back to the Reformation as a time where it was right to break fellowship:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Where the gospel is, faith is, and where faith is, there the Church us, whatever institutions may be lacking; but no group or organisation can be acknowledged as the Church while it lacks the gospel. The Church becomes visible and identifiable, not by flaunting some historical pedigree of ministerial succession, but by professing and proclaiming the apostolic gospel by word and by sacrament.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">On this basis the Reformers held, first, that their separation from Rome was no sin since Rome had effectively unchurched herself by corrupting the gospel; second, their separation was no breach of the Church's unity, since neither papal government and order, nor any other particular form, was essential to that unity; third, by recovering their own church-character through their renewed confession of the gospel the Reformed churches had actually recovered unity, and were now waiting for Rome itself to join their new-found fellowship.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />[...] To separate for truth's sake, at the summons of a biblically enlightened conscience, is not sin. When, without failure of love or respect, men dissociate themselves from their previous church connections in order to be free to obey God, this is not, and never was, schism. It may be their duty - as the Reformers thought it their duty to break with Rome over the gospel, and as the Baptist and Independent dissenters of 1662 thought it their duty to stand apart from the re-established Church of England and gather churches according to what they held to be the biblical model.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">For such separations the word 'schism' is a pejorative misnomer... It can only engender a false sense of guilt about divisions which are rooted in the cleavage of principle, and encourage an ungodly attitude of 'union at any price'. Union between separated churches in the same area is certainly to be sought ... but it may not be bought at the cost of truth, or the compromise of conviction.'</span></span><br /><div style="text-align: right;">[The Doctrine and Expression of Christian Unity]<br /></div></blockquote>I guess it will come as no great surprise to many readers here that I believe along with Prof. Packer that there are times to break fellowship where the gospel is at stake. But what about in other situations? Are there other times in which it is right to break a form of fellowship? And how does this work in an inter-church partnership (or 'parachurch') situation like the ministry I am involved in? These are the questions I plan to turn to over coming days, with the help of other believers that have gone before us.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In his comment on </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://peterdray.blogspot.com/2009/07/schaeffer-showing-love-to-christians.html">my previous post</a><span style="font-style: italic;">, Chris highlights a more up-to-date expression of Prof. Packer's theology </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.oakhill.ac.uk/downloads/video/packer/media/jim_packer_oak_hill.pdf">here</a><span style="font-style: italic;">, which considers questions of the contemporary 'Anglican realignment.'</span>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-25303902859129998222009-07-30T22:22:00.011+01:002009-07-30T22:49:55.325+01:00Schaeffer: showing love to Christians with whom we disagree<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizQwKcbqbxNQhzVV2rYUNTi8iGfNu_s_X80ikIsyRok4-2ti1wiG2cX72e674b-qelvu6_WzPzn7kOwMDCzkAxe3en3bygHR-udZx4qbBYDW4jD1mlpChgrqWNeJpUKxTIZI7CkJG8W4o1/s1600-h/schaeffer.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 116px; height: 137px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizQwKcbqbxNQhzVV2rYUNTi8iGfNu_s_X80ikIsyRok4-2ti1wiG2cX72e674b-qelvu6_WzPzn7kOwMDCzkAxe3en3bygHR-udZx4qbBYDW4jD1mlpChgrqWNeJpUKxTIZI7CkJG8W4o1/s200/schaeffer.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5364370123479787858" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">Over the next few days I want to gather together some quotes and thoughts on Christian unity. It's been a subject that I've been thinking about in recent weeks, both in theology and in practice.</span><br /><br />Here's a quote to start the series from Francis Schaeffer, whose starting point for this discussion is John 13:33-35:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Not all differences amongst Christians are equal. There are some that are very minor. Others are overwhelmingly important.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The more serious the wrongness, the more important it is to exhibit the holiness of God, to speak out concerning what is wrong. At the same time, the more serious the differences become, the more important it is that we look to the Holy Spirit to enable us to show love to the true Christians with whom we must differ. If it is only a minor difference, showing love does not take much conscious consideration. But where the difference becomes really important, it becomes proportionately more important to speak for God's holiness. And it becomes increasingly important to show the world that we love each other.</span><br /><br /><a style="font-style: italic;" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8nTjFxr_uLYa4TGKUZfZITL-flcs_PoFHAmMomX3flWhZ3VouTNwIUHZjq5LwuD7CHqFe2_m6FTWnaK8IzCOMU-QdqJqlDTcZ6nEmhdlfKKB9dCJ5iabj5xIm2wYPKd_Os6-a8LJO09SQ/s1600-h/mark+of+the+christian.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 122px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8nTjFxr_uLYa4TGKUZfZITL-flcs_PoFHAmMomX3flWhZ3VouTNwIUHZjq5LwuD7CHqFe2_m6FTWnaK8IzCOMU-QdqJqlDTcZ6nEmhdlfKKB9dCJ5iabj5xIm2wYPKd_Os6-a8LJO09SQ/s200/mark+of+the+christian.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5364369885289552146" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">Humanly we function in exactly the opposite direction: in the less important differences we show more love toward true Christians, but as the difference gets into more important areas, we tend to show less love. The reverse must be the case. As the differences amongst true Christians get greater, we must </span><span>consciously</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">love and show a love which has some manifestation the world may see.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">So let us consider this: is my difference with my brother in Christ really crucially important? If so, it is doubly important that I spend time upon my knees asking the Holy Spirit, asking Christ, to do his work through me and my group, that I and we might show love even in this larger difference that we have come to with a brother in Christ or with another group of true Christians.</span><br /><div style="text-align: right;">[<span>The Mark of the Christian</span><span style="font-style: italic;">,</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">pages 46-47</span>]<br /></div></blockquote>I'm challenged as I read this passage, especially the final paragraph. As I enter into a new job with UCCF, I am only too aware of the need for visible Christian unity and love with other true believers with whom I (and maybe UCCF) disagree - in theology, in methodology and so on. What will it look like to love these brothers and sisters? Schaeffer is right: the work of prayer is vital.<br /><p></p>peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7638733241724408444.post-48957171089274933582009-07-28T18:40:00.008+01:002009-07-28T18:49:57.694+01:00Inside Out: Forum film discussion<span style="font-weight: bold;">I'm hosting a short film discussion at UCCF's Forum conference in September on the track designed to showcase to students how they can use the arts in CU events.</span><br /><br />The film I've chosen to show is <span style="font-style: italic;">Inside Out</span>, directed by Tom and Charles Guard.<br /><br /><object width="360" height="221"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P7_GlYPKSbI&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P7_GlYPKSbI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="360" height="221"></embed></object><br /><br />Here are a first draft of some questions I've come up with for the discussion afterwards. They've been written so that they can be fairly easily transferred to a discussion after pretty much any film:<br /><br />1. What was your initial reaction to the film? What was it that prompted this reaction?<br />2. What impressed you most about the film? (e.g. plot, script or screenplay, an acting performance, film making technique, cinematography, soundtrack etc.)<br />3. Did any part of the film stand out to you as particularly meaningful or powerful in any way? Why?<br />4. What is the message of the film, or view of life and the world that is presented in the story as it unfolds? (Try to state this in a sentence). How did the film-maker’s technique seek to make this message plausible or compelling?<br />5. To what extent do you agree with the message of the film?<br /><br />I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on my questions... or on the film for that matter!<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Inside Out </span>is availableto buy on the excellent <a href="http://www.cinema16.co.uk/dvd.php?dvd=1">Cinema16 collection of short British films</a>.peterdrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02314313313164750316noreply@blogger.com3