Seeing a juxtaposition in recent articles in The Christian Courier

Leave a comment

This is in response to three items recently published in The Christian Courier

I need to start with a friendly shout out to Ken: Hi Ken Benjamins! It’s been a while!

Now, a parable:

A little Italian Restaurant has been operating at the corner of x and y streets. Started by an immigrant couple, it served authentic Italian dishes to the community for 4 decades. The neighbourhood has changed, and is now gentrifying. None of the children of the owners–though they grew up helping out in the restaurant–had interest in taking over operations. When the parents reached their mid sixties, and felt the fatigue of serving even the few customers that still came, they were faced with the question of what to do… They have a family meeting… Dad says if we just repaint and redo the menu the people will come back and we can make it work. Mom says if we redo the kitchen and put some modern equipment in and have live music… The kids try to explain that the customers have no appetite for what is being offered, so deal with it.

As Peter Schuurman mentions in his response, “How Do we Reform the Church” reads like a lamment–a legitimate one. The changes and losses are real. The church as we know it is not faring well in the culture. Part of that could well be “mediocre faith at home that’s equally reflected in the life of the church.” Except, to me, it is more that the forms of faith expression of the past do not speak in today’s culture. So to call us back to them rings hollow and unmotivating. And I mean “forms” as particular practices, such as devotions at meals and attendance at church services. The “principles” of having personal spiritual disciplines and coming together in worship of God are sound and solid. But living out the principles has become too tied to particular ways of doing them. To call people back to those particular ways sounds like a call to come live in a living museum. 

As principles, I support a call to Commitment, Literacy, Family time and Finding our true Identity. Yet each of those are really, when well motivated, indicators of something deeper in a person: A relationship with God. That is of core importance, not the particular practices. In the language of leadership culture today, they are technical expressions that are presumed to indicate one’s heart has changed. But they will not necesarily grow a person spiritually if no one has taught them about having the relationship first. Calling people to double down on those practices without deep heart-changing relationship with God through Jesus can create an active looking Christianity that is really at its core a mediocre faith in action. In the same way, in the parable I give, revamping aspects of a restaurant that offers items no one has an appetite for is futile. The restaurant must adapt to a new reality, and let go of the past, even as it lamments that those days are gone. The church needs to find out how to meet the spiritual appetites that everyone has with the gospel message in a manner and place that connects. We reform by finding different forms of living out the principles we hold dear.

In my experience people quite like to hear the kind of lament pastor Benjamins voices. They like it especially when accompanied by calls to return to faithful institutional practices of yore. The crying out about the lost past seems to comfort them in an odd way. Could it be so because it leaves them less responsible for the problem or it’s solution? I wonder, do they like the helplessness of lamment more than the difficult task of  trying to comprehend new ways of connecting with ‘outsiders’ and pre-believers (not ‘onze’=”our own culture and kind of people”). Such opportunities are right under our nose and on our doorstep.

And that is where the Jordan Peterson phenomenon rises to the foreground for me, and where the interview with Paul VanderKlay is such a refreshing juxtaposition. Here we have a professor who is not necessarily our kind of Bible believer who has tapped a nerve in our culture which has a lot of people saying ‘ouch.’ The ouch from many of the young men that are attracted to what he says is a painful one to behold. There is a known new intrigue and interest by that wounded, incomplete identity group, motivated by the pain of trying to figure life today out as guys, and there is a new openness to the Bible and the gospel of forgiveness and grace and of taking responsibility while relying on Christ, that we do well to jump into instead of waiting for people to come back to the pews. But it will be messy. We have an opportunity to create new forms. Lets roll!

Five streams denominational video

Leave a comment

This just came across my screen.

Do not be anxious

Leave a comment

In the last month I have used this passage a number of times as a benediction for a service and for opening devotions and teaching in meetings:

Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!

Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation,

by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving,present your requests to God.

And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

— Philippians 4:4-7 NIV

The passage has the caution: “Do not be anxious about anything”

The teaching I did had to do with teaching leaders in the church how to “see” or notice anxiety at work in people and how to defuse, calm and de-escalate the excessive part of it.

Part of the discussion which came from this is about what the writer of the letter to the Philippians meant by “anxious.”

So I went back to the Greek to find out.

The word used is “μέριμνα” which in our lettering is mĕrimna, and pronounced as mer´-im-nah. The dictionary1 says it is related to it’s root word μερίζω mĕrizō, (mer-id´-zo) through the idea of distraction and solicitude2;-care.

The most straightforward definition I found is this: μεριμνάω (merimnaō): be anxious about, worry, have anxiety, be concerned3

If I get to exploring the deeper roots and history of the word, I come up with “having your attention divided/distracted by” and then a sense of “caring too much.” Our word Anxious fits that background meaning. Caring too much about some things generates unnecessary anxiety. I believe this is what the passage is warning against. Especially when you see that the warning follows encouragement to rejoice, to be obviously gentle (few are gentle when they are anxious) and be aware of the Lord’s nearness. The passage also encourages prayerful petitioning of God about those things, and encourages what I’ve called an “Attitude of Gratitude.” The passage clearly says a new kind of peace (literally “rest”) that is hard to explain will come over you.

We do not let anxiety or the anxious ones run the church. That is not healthy and it is not biblical. We seek restfulness, not anxiety. We present the things we do get anxious about to God in prayer, all the while grateful and deeply thankful for the good he gives.

1 Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 1, p. 47). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

2 Full Definition of SOLICITUDE

a : the state of being concerned and anxious

b : attentive care and protectiveness;

3 Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Pastor Pete’s Report on the Bests of the Past Interviews

Leave a comment

I wrote my own report on how the Interview process went and what I think the results indicate. Last night council encouraged me to share it with the congregation. It will make most sense if you’ve at least looked at the Transition Team’s report and numbered summary of things that were mentioned in the responses. Also, having a list of the questions asked: Simplequestionsheet-Noblefordedition will be helpful.

Here is my report: FinaldraftofPastorPetesreportontheInterviews

Printed copies will be put in your mailboxes if you have one.

Wrap- up reports from the Transition team.

1 Comment

At the end of 2014 your Transition Team finished reviewing and compiling the outcome of the interview nights.

Final TT Report on the interview outcome for Congregation

An evil spirit from God? Really?

Leave a comment

I recently used the first part of 1 Samuel 16:14 in a message about the ebb and flow of the Spirit in people in the Old Testament. It shows that God even sometimes removed the Spirit. Someone later asked about the ending of that verse:

“Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him.”

Does God really send evil spirits to torment and trouble people? It’s a good question.

I did some reading up on that this week, and find most explanations go toward God “giving permission” for an evil spirit to replace his Holy Spirit. So this would be somewhat like the arrangement between God and Satan in the account of Job. Some commentators simply say that if you do not allow the Holy Spirit, it is normal for some other spirit to replace it.

You can read some for yourself on this page, although these are rather old Commentaries that have a bent toward Judgement language rather than consequence language: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_samuel/16-14.htm

My own view would be that if you are given a gift of the Holy Spirit, an anointing/calling for a particular special purpose in God’s Kingdom, you risk serious consequences if you do not respect and honour that Spiritual gift. Samson lost it for a time, and Saul lost it. Both for reasons of not respecting it enough. In Saul’s case God (or God’s creation order) allowed for something spiritually darker to come into it’s place. Note that it was ‘for a time’ and did not stay that way.

‘Here’s another place the question is addressed that is helpful, though not exactly in line with my view: http://www.gotquestions.org/evil-spirit-Saul.html

Inreach and Outreach revisted

Leave a comment

As you can see, my pace of producing blog posts has slowed. They will no longer come weekly but weakly, as in when I have an idea to share, rather than because the calendar says.

My thoughts last week moved to the question of inreach (connecting within the existing church) and outreach (connecting outside the church) again. I’ve learned that churches in Southern Alberta seem to not separate those two mandates. So the outreach or evangelism (bringing the gospel to people who don’t know it yet) team is responsible for organizing coffee serving and other fellowship functions in the church. I consider those inreach, not outreach. Other churches organize events which the community is invited to join. Some do a film night, for instance, or some kind of food event. That is closer to outreach, in that it attempts to make a connection with neighbours. But it is not really evangelism, though it may hope to get to that. All three: inreach, outreach and Evangelism, have a purpose in the church. I just don’t like confusing them.

Some churches have found it most effective to put relationship with neighbours as the top priority over against the thought so many of us have of putting more bodies in the pews by our outreach and evangelism efforts. Bodies in the pew are good, but that is not a Kingdom mission, bringing people who do not know God properly into relationship with the one true God of the Bible is. People will sense when you are more interested in turning them into a contributing member of your church than you are introducing them to the God you love and serve. And your sales pitch will not have good effectiveness.

So in Alberta a cutting edge movement is being tried. You can learn about it from a webinar on the CRC Network. It is a major change in approach, a change that came from adaptive thinking, created by people who saw that the way we have been trying to do evangelism was not very effective. We have been waiting in our churches for people to find us. This method goes out to them and meets them where they are:


Between this webinar and two Sundays ago a buddy from Nanaimo and I having a chat which reminded me of the Men’s Bible Study I was part of there, a study group unlike any church group I’ve ever been part of, I also remembered this story, which is on my other blog. It shows how it is about connection, not church. The church can serve the connection, but is not the connector:


Older Entries