Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Nice!!

Mark Thompson Moore Lecturer writing here:

'I'm also rather tired of evangelicals attacking the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Like most who have thought about these things, I certainly recognise the difficulties with the term 'inerrancy'. I also understand and deplore the abuse of it in certain circles, particularly in the service of ecclesiastical politics. I'm prepared to admit that I am less than satisfied with some of the standard expositions of this concept and would like to see it presented with more rigour and careful nuance. But I remain committed to biblical inerrancy. The Bible is not only effective as an instrument in God's hand to accomplish his purposes, it speaks of things as they really are. For all the literary variety and the rich textures which stem from different authors in different situations and with different goals, it is still possible to speak of the Bible's own investment in the question of truth and truth understood in terms of a correspondence with reality. 'Utterly truthful' and 'absolutely reliable' might be better expressions because they are at least positive rather than negative and put the accent on biblical priorities. Yet the term 'inerrancy' is an ancient one, long predating the advent of modernism and even the Reformation. Too much is lost when it is denied or excluded.

It is been said that evangelical theology has always been under attack at two points above all others — the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of the atonement. This has proven to be the case throughout the twentieth century and continues to be so in the twenty-first. It is tragic that these attacks have increasingly been mounted from within the evangelical constituency.'

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Ain't that the truth

The Stench of Christianity

So the Jesus All about Life campaign is about to kick off and part of me wonders how ready really, Christians are for it?

I mean I think people are ready for people to come out of the woodwork to talk about Jesus and the meaning of Christianity, but are they really ready for the other response that is just as sure to come?

Paul said Christians offer the fragrance of life to those who are being saved, but the stench of death to those who are perishing.... And let's face it, people respond strongly to bad smells!!!

SO today's paper we see it start,

What utter arrogance and discrimination. What gives these people the right to hoist their beliefs above everyone else's by making absolute statements about how the universe is constructed. Ignoring the fact they have no evidence whatsoever for their fairy tale beliefs, they are by default saying that everyone else's are wrong.
I have no objection to them holding these beliefs, but they should keep them to themselves and away from impressionable youth and the emtionally and mentally vulnerable.
Oh wait, that's exactly who they want to target.
ozathiest | Sydney - September 10, 2009, 8:20AM


That's a cheery conversation starter, oui???

Either way I think we will see some positive responses, some strong negative responses, and more than likely the majority will be apathetic responses from a people who are more concerned with function of the day to day, rather than its meaning or purpose!!

Blind Faith or Numbers???

Yesterday there was an article in the paper, on how in essence, we as a society are "free" from the shackles of old fashioned conformism to make choices about our life and relationships.

"If you had said years ago that we would see many more people living together before marriage and double the number of kids being born out of wedlock, moralists would have seen it as proof of the decline of civilisation and the collapse of our moral fibre. But the reality is that the taboos we once thought immovable are completely flexible."

Salt believes such shifts show our maturity. "People are less preoccupied with sexuality and more concerned about discrimination, with sexism and racism and even with sustainability. Who cares if you're gay? Who cares if you live together without getting married?"

Likewise, the significance of marriage has diminished.

"People care less about the actual marriage, so they don't mind having kids outside of it."


I was thinking - it's a little bit of a simplistic presentation - all choices have consequences, where is the truth about those? Choices about sexual lifestyle affects your health - the numbers bear that out. Broken marriages affect people, especially children. But where is the acknowledgement of that???

It is really undergirded by a secular utopian blind faith, that is out of touch with our reality....

And that is what another article today points towards..... We make choices - good and bad and they have consequences.... but then the Bible has been saying the same thing for years - and now the stats show it might have actually known what it was talking about!!!

The three annual surveillance reports, to be presented at the Australasian HIV/AIDS Conference in Brisbane today, show that indigenous people, intravenous drug users and men who have sex with men are increasingly affected by HIV/AIDS, infectious syphilis and viral hepatitis.


Unprotected sex is also linked to an increased risk of cervical, oral and anal cancer and the risk rises with increasing numbers of sexual partners.

A 2007 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that people who have had more than five oral-sex partners in their lifetime are 250 per cent more likely to have throat cancer than those who do not have oral sex.


It is a challenging area no doubt, especially for certain groups within our society, but unless we are willing to genuinely engage with reality, the stats of lifestyle choices and not a relativists "all choices are good" - how do we expect the situation to improve??

The ready availability of pornography and representations of teen and adult sexuality in advertising and popular culture could negatively influence the way children and teenagers view sex, she said.

''Young people who are not informed or ready for sex education are being inundated with messages encouraging sexual behaviour that they are not ready to process and do not understand the consequences of.''

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Some thoughts on books I read in 08

'The God who is there' - Francis Schaeffer.. I really enjoyed this book. It challenged me a lot about the importance of understanding the claims of the Christian faith about the historical Jesus - which was a little suprising from a philosopher. A great help and encouragement to consider the validity and importance of an integrated Christian view of life. Although written prior to post-modernism it in real ways sees some of it's problem's before time. The 'cultural refernces' now seem quite quaint, the Christian view of life he commends is anything but quaint. It was my first read of any schaeffer, I will read more, in face at some point I will need to read this again!!


'Leadership on the Front Foot' - Zac Veron (no relation to juan sebastian veron as far as I know!) - A useful read for someone doing ministry, expecially within the Sydney context. To the point - well literally it is 23 points - of practical wisdom. At times it feels a little gung ho about it all, but speaks with a clarity that you like to hear when you are trying to untie the gordian knot that is parish ministry, especially in a multi parish setting. I liked it and it was easy to get the points in practical ways.

'Living with the Underworld' - Peter Bolt. [The blurb reads, 'In Living with the Underworld, Peter Bolt brings his quirky and humorous style to his topic, and makes his book hard to put down because it is so fascinating and engaging.' Well hate to disappoint them, but I found it easy to put down, and in fact gave up on finishing it. I found it a real dissapointment, it was supposed to be a homage to the Sopranos, it was a little more pulp theology. I needed some serious help, this book was not it!)

'Knowledge of God and Service of God' - Karl Barth. (Given as a set of lectures about natural theology (which is funny in itself!) it actually is a good book to get something of the essence of Barth, distilled down into a more manageble read. He is an enigma, so much genius, so many simple things confused!!)

'Suprised by hope' - Tom Wright (not a bad read, he has a good main point about the life after the life after death, but in typical style, his style is more impressive than substantive, which means there are some odd moments of madness for mind!)

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Mind Maps and Preaching







Recently I have changed over from a full script when preaching like this one for example , to using mind maps to preach from.

The main reason started when we were doing a series on the Apostle's Creed and I have always found Systematic Theology to be much more engaging and useful as teaching, when it was a conversation rather than a lecture (ie. PFJ 3rd year for those who know those sought of things!).

It turns out I am not alone in this, and a series on the Apostle's Creed which was questioned by people before hand as to why we would bother, turned out to be a series that really engaged people and in the end helped them to see its value and to grow together in our understanding.

We are in a context where the congregation size is usually closer to 50 than 150, and so a more conversational style of preaching is easy to use, and in a lot of ways I believe a more effective way of teaching and engaging with people around God's word.

Mind maps are a much quicker and more effective way (than a full text) of ensuring you cover the essential points in a conversation, without the danger of repeating yourself. It helps you to pick a path for the conversation before hand (ie. is this a good point or an unhelpful sidetrack to be cut off at the pass!), while making it easy to cut/change/modify on the run as you need. It really acts as a safety net so you don't miss talking about the gems you have found during your study.

Dialogue is all very trendy and post-modern, but the reality is within certain size limitations it is a much more effective means of God's people meeting. Not a vacuous wander through the garden dialogue, but a well prepared trip through a topic (like a good tour guide maybe), that helps a teacher/preacher engage with the REAL questions of the congregation.

Anyway I have posted some of the Mind Maps I used for the topic of the Catholic Church below - I use a program called Mindnode pro (Mac), and the outline I gave to the congregations.

Since we have gone back to an expository series I have modified my style of preaching. I have kept the mind maps and made sure the preaching/Teaching consciously uses interactive/conversational elements within it - you can here some attempts at it here.

Anyway that is where I am up to at the moment!!!

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Busy?

9 times out of 10 when I ask anyone how they have been, they say, 'busy'. Like somehow not being busy is the cardinal sin today. CJ Mahaney offers the opposite that maybe being busy is the problem. The solution isn't so much doing less - but in being more discerning in what it is we do (that is very funny to write on a blog - the height of futility!!).

I like things that help me to work smarter and not just harder, and even better when they are written from a solid Christian perspective, picking up on the foundational nature of the Christian life, and building out from that, in seeing that life is about relationships and not just tasks.

Biblical and practical without being simplistic - so obviously it appeals to me. Download it here for free and have a read, then have a go!!!

Monday, August 10, 2009

Good Questions when reading theology!

Total Church Questions:

1. In your own words how would you briefly summarize the main point of this chapter? (ie. in one line what are they on about?)

2. Was this a new idea in the book up to this point? (ie. How does this chapter relate to the rest of the book so far?)

3. Was this a new idea for your Christian thinking at this point in time?

4. How does the author back up their main point in this chapter? (ie. how do they develop their argument, what are the minor points they make to support their main point?)

5. What is the authority that their main point is based upon? (Is their main point supported directly from the Bible or is it inferred from the Bible, or is it based upon observations of life, culture, group dynamics, logic or philosophy etc?)

6. Has the author made some assumptions in their argument? And do you think they are good ones?

7. What did you like about what the author had to say? (and Why?)

8. What didn’t you like about what the author had to say? (and why?)

9. Are there things that you think are going well for you/us based on what the author is proposing?

10. Are there things you think you/we should change because of what the author is proposing?

Sunday, June 14, 2009

A Brief Review - 'Total Church' - T. Chester & S. Timmis (IVP)


The Very brief review: This book is theologically good and very practical - a great book for our age especially if you attend a smaller church - In Short, if you want your church life to improve - READ THIS BOOK!!!

Slightly Longer Review:

Everyone talks about Post-Modernism and its impact upon our society, and in particular the Church, and when they do it is more likely to be in slightly derogatory and lamenting tones about how things have taken a turn for the worse!

This book does not take that easy option of throwing stones at society from the sideline, but confidently strides into this challenging area without selling out to popular pressure (like much of the emergent church) but instead argues strongly for two main ideas;

Firstly, for unashamedly holding on to the central importance of the biblical truth of Christ and his gospel, in the life of the Christian church. 

But Secondly, challenging the church (each local Christian Community) to move past our stereotypically stagnant and formal, Sunday only Christian relationships, to wade into the deeper water of genuine Christian community, warts and all, inconveniences and triumphs as they come.

At its heart it is a call for Christian people to identify and engage themselves (in their thinking, action and relationships) as members of Christ's church for the sake of Christ's mission. 

In our age, the emergence of Post-modernism helps us to critique ourselves, and how we have accepted and assimilated uncritically, the western individualism of our age, and it challenges us to see anew our need for authentic Christian community. Not only that we need it, but also our our world needs Christian people living out the truth of the gospel in authentic christian relationships, in order that Christ's mission would continue to win people to their saviour, not just by the weight of the truth of the gospel, but by the power of the gospel that is the truth about Christ wrapped in the witness of genuine Christian community - the gospel in practice.

Post-modernism threatens to sink the claims of truth into an abyss of relativism, but the power of the testimony of the truth of the Gospel seen in authentic Christian community is the authentic witness that will enable the claims of Christ to sound clearly into an age of information overload, skepticism and uncertainty.

Genuine Christians living genuine Christian lives together into a lost world.

As a result, the author's also challenge Christians to have the courage of their theological convictions and stop looking at 'big churches' like they have something that you don't! 
Small churches should be who they are, a more committed Gospel and relationally focussed them, which is a timely reminder to us all, that we should stop wasting time looking over the fence and instead concentrate on being who Christ has made us to be, and doing what Christ has given us to do - in our Community, the Church as Christ's people into the world.

There are points where I think they over state their case for their form of church (in particular one explanation of the gospel is a little too New Perspective and [unintentionally!] in the process takes away from the confidence of MY salvation), but the vast majority of this book is excellent and very practical and usable for any congregation who wants to take Christ's call upon their individual and communal life seriously.

Read it, you'll be better for it!

Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Un-Gracious Assumption

JC Ryle put forward that when it came to the fellowship of believers, the church, and the administration of the sacraments (baptism and Lord’s supper), it was up to the minister to explain the reality of the act, then allow the person who was willing, to partake of the act, despite any personal reservations the minister may have – he called it the gracious assumption.

Now there is a lot more to it than just that, but it seems to me that there is great wisdom in that idea, (given that none of us are the judge of all men, nor do we see anyone’s hearts, ultimately it is an issue between God and the person) when it comes to a person’s standing before God.

But on the other hand when it comes to leadership in the church (any leadership or up front role) I think we really need to make an Un-gracious assumption, that people need to show real evidence of conversion before we let them run anything – finances, music the lot – much less teach!!

Anyway, I’ll probably tweak this view a few times, but I think what I mean is Leaders need to be, in order;

1. Converted -Evidence of genuine conversion
2. Committed - Actively participate in the life of the church ie. At church at least once a week and involved in mid week Bible study (not on the fringe)
3. Serving - Actively pursuing ministry – Bible study leading, youth group, evangelism (not a consumer Christian!)
4. Leading - Then you can talk about them being involved in the leadership of the church.

The 20 min shibboleth!

In our part of the world, people are carved in stone behind the idea that preaching should only go for 20m. How you expect to grow a congregation in maturity at that length of time is beyond me.

Now I realize that it is important to get to the point and be crisp with the message, but 20 min works if you are an itinerant preacher who does a gospel presentation each week, I don’t think it is so effective if you really do need to preach ‘the whole counsel of God’.

How can you plumb the depths of a decent passage of scripture, linking the message of this particular passage into the themes of the book and then into the wider Bible, picking up the Systematic theology themes, the ethical implications for the Christian life, and then the apologetic necessities for the Christian’s world view in the face of a secular and atheistic society, while making it engaging to listen to in 20m?

It would have to be at least 25m ;)

And for some reason this 20m marker is hard to shake, but when you know you need to chop the sermon, you always chop the illustrations and other ‘fluff’, which I think tends to make the whole thing a poorer experience for the listener and more like a lecture. The ‘faithful’ but uninspiring sermon.

As I mentioned before Einstein proved time was relative, 10secs on a hotplate was a lifetime!! I suspect the length of preaching is not the issue, but the quality of the preaching is.

Sure you don’t have to, nor really can you do, ALL the things listed above every week, but our preaching would be of a better quality if we did, even if it meant 40m and the notices, and one song had to get chopped, for the sake of being faithful with time for our people over the whole service.

The integrated and ethical Christian life of worship is going to need more than 20m a week to explain and encourage in engaging ways. I suspect the predictable 20m 3 point effort, while it may be faithful, reflects ultimately a lack of confidence in the act of communication that is preaching, and panders to a dumbing down of Christianity in both the hearers and the preachers as well.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Why did the sermon fail?

Apparently D. Broughton Knox used to start his review of any student sermon at Moore College with that question, ‘why did the sermon fail?’. It could be apocryphal, but if it is true, it is a good question, pastorally shattering I suspect in that classic Sydney Anglican way, but a good question.

At a basic level it seems to me there are two types of biblical preachers, firstly, those who stand behind the text and try to back light the Word of God, as to draw attention to the riches it has to say, and ensure that the text is the authority for the preacher and the people. Secondly, those who stand just in front of the text, most of what they say is good and biblical and useful, even if not always directly related to the text they are apparently preaching on, but at the end you walk away feeling they come across as the authority, not the Bible.

The Bible is far more complex and subtle than any one person can truly convey. If we stand in front of the text ultimately it will be our theological system (with a mixture of our Gospel wisdom and hobby horses thrown in) that will set the tone for our preaching and teaching.

IF someone seems to preaching the same sermon every week (even you may feel like you do?) then it’s probably because they aren’t really working hard at sitting under the authority of that particular text of scripture, instead it becomes a launching pad for saying much of the same stuff week in week out.

Unfortunately, the guys in front of the text tend to have BIG personalities that are appealing to listen to, and the guys behind the text tend to stand too far back and think that they don’t need to be appealing at all, instead it is ALL about the word.

As wiser men than me have said, ‘Biblical Truth through personality’.
Which side of the horse do you naturally fall off, and what do you need to do about it?

And another thing…
Stott points out (rightly I think) that the culture of the Bible is on one side of a canyon, and our culture is on the other side of the canyon. The preacher is responsible for ensuring they are able to move the sermon from a sound foundation upon the Bible and span the gap, so it lands concretely and meaningfully into our world today.

I think in our circles we are way too comfortable in the world of the Bible and as long as we have explained it “faithfully” we feel (and are often encouraged by others) we have done enough.

To revisit the first quote, I suspect that the sermon fails if this is all we do. It may be true, but does it really equip our people to know how to live truly in all of their lives?

If after 4 years of college I am still trying to work hard as to how to integrate my Christian faith, with all of my life as I live in a complex world that confronts me with a myriad of issues and opinions that are so opposed to God. How can we expect someone to do that in 10min on the train in the morning before work, if we are unwilling to help them think about it through our preaching on the Sunday?

I suspect we need to change.

Firstly, verbal exegesis is not preaching. It is “faithful”, and it is descriptive but it is rarely instructive, and almost never inspiring – it is almost invariably a little dull and more like a lecture. (and I am pretty certain most people in the congregation DO NOT CARE what the 3 uses of the genitive are, and what a bunch of borderline pagan’s who happen to have PHD’s thought about it!).

Do we need to know those things – yes! We should know them well enough to be confident as to their relevance to our hearers and able to leave them as ‘working’ in behind the sermon. IF we have to we need to convey their meaning to the congregation in a way that makes sense, and in a way that helps them to see why it is important to them and their Christian lives living in this world.

For example, how many Christian people do you know that work in the medical field? – personally a truck load. When is the last time you heard anyone preach from the nature of humanity to the theological implications for our view of human life? It isn’t about giving them rules for living, but about helping them to build a theological framework (including a healthy dash of Gospel wisdom) so they are able to make good decisions in the concrete realities of the life they are called to live. If we don’t equip them have we really served them as their teachers? And are we just setting them up to live a divided life (or even worse seriously doubt their faith because the Bible is consistently treated as irrelevant and simplistic in a complex world), where their Christian faith doesn’t actually have anything concrete to say on their lives, like whether they should assist in an abortion because they are on a surgical rotation or be part of stem cell research because they are trained in genetics (and these are the easy decisions!).


Preaching it seems to me is theological speech that is soundly grounded in scripture. Theology is the framework through which we are able to view the world and ourselves, to enable us to live the ethical Christian life – the life of worship.

Our preaching needs to be consciously and soundly theological, that we would not just describe the Bible, but illuminate it, instruct and inspire from it (all humanly speaking of course).

Our ethical framework and our Christian world view are our direct point of contact with life, and these are founded upon our theological framework. If we want people to live a life of worship, we need to consciously help them develop their theological understanding so they can begin to engage with this world in a God pleasing way.

Preaching is much more than verbal exegesis – and there is more to say about it!

I can Feel a XXXX coming on!

When will Australian’s stop and (to use a Roy and HG-ism), go into the house of Mirrors and take a good hard look at themselves?

Alcohol is not our friend, never has been, I suspect it never will be. Alcho-Pop tax attempts prove the reality we know it is bad (at least for our youth) but we are unwilling to say out loud that something societal and profound needs to change. The tax on the lollie-water really sends a message of, ‘do as I say, and not as I do…’

I Like a beer, especially recently, after hours of painting a house on a 40 degree day, but the latest NRL “off field incident”, is really a reflection of our wider societies approach to what alcohol is for ----- excess.

Rob Clarkson (no relation to Jeremy!), was a mostly un-noticed indie muso when I was at uni (the first time!) and he hit on something when he re-worked Blaise Pascal’s observation of Man’s God-shaped hole, Clarkson sang,
‘There is a hole in my heart where you used to be,
I’m going to fill it with another type of hole
- - called alco-hol’.

Alcohol is our societies self-medication against life!

But what do you expect, we were founded by a boat load of British convicts with nothing to do and only rum to drink in the same 40 degree heat!! 200 years later – to quote Page and Plant it seems, ‘the song remains the same’.

Will we ever find a respected leader in this country to help us face some of the harsh realities of our use of Alcohol?
They say the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem!

The NRL Vs The NBA

When it is all said and done, Australian's don't do (or like) big and flashy!

We like things to be done well, informally and simply, and done with self-deprecating humour wherever possible.

The NBA is full of big flashy individuals, the 'team' are the other guys who make up the five to fill out the numbers (google Luc Longley if you are not sure what I mean!).The NBA is massive, in a massive country and supported by enormous and impressive management structures and big $$$. It is a game built around the impressive individual.

The NRL is a small but well loved competition, which absolutely needs it's brilliant individuals, but is all about the team. Each member of the team needs to be able to hold their place in the line, and everyone else has to be able to trust them to do it. The competition is loved despite the monkeys who run it (google Dennis Fitzgerald if you are not sure what I mean!).

Australian's are team players and that is when we are at our best (and what we often do better than other nationalities), even our individuals like the swimmers see themselves as part of a team that is bigger than the individual. We love to work in teams - and we don't do BIG management well - we just never have had to with our small population, and really aren't all that interested in the formal and analytical nature of running something BIG. We are at heart informal people.

Do we chop down the succesful individual? - yep
Is this good? mostly not (and definitely not all the time)

But what I am getting at is, we like teams, we work best in teams and not as individuals, so why are we persisting with putting our best out on their own, and not actively and intentionally directing them into teams and building that way??

Another reason to put the 1 parish 1 rector system out to pasture I suspect..

Off to School we go!

I am trying to read a bit where I can about the form (rather than theology explicitly - although the two are always related) of 'doing church' from the current movers and shakers. However, There are some profound and even foundational cultural differences (which I want to note down in a latter post) between the US and here.

When it is all said and done, my "current" suspicion is that they are much better, and more intentional in understanding where their people are at. I can't imagine even approaching the idea of 'redemption groups' at most churches I have been at. Maybe we don't think we can share the gospel with "really" sinful people, ie. those who are not essentially middle-class with the same morality? Maybe we don't think we have "really" sinful people still at church!

Having said that I think these are my impressions of top tips for the moment (humanly and pragmatically speaking):

1. great gospel preaching that is explicitly Bible based and aimed at the real places of life
2. good mature christian leadership
3. comfortable and inviting environment
4. do music as well as you can for the place you are at
5. welcoming culture that invites it's friends and hooks people into itself and particularly small Bible based groups
6. create a community that actually seeks to live out the lifestyle and encourage each other on.. (including allowing real people struggling with sin to find real help)
7. Use technology creatively and well
8. be prepared to wipe everything Churchy that is naff

The whole thing is really about Church without the embarrassment???

When it is all said and done, I keep thinking practically they do attractional church plain and simple (even if they call it missional because they focus strongly on who they are talking to), but are unprepared to compromise the gospel, but most other things they do whatever they can to make the gospel appealing.

Church is what we do, why don't we do it for all who need it, instead of endless effort with intermediate evangelistic events that can often be well attended, but are incredibly difficult to transfer people across from to something totally different which is the church we do week to week?????

Hey now you're an allstar!!

People here are going a little nuts about the whole church planting thing....http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/insight/letter_from_seattle

But there is no doubting some of these churches in the US are going pretty amazingly, but then you meet the main guys and you realize they are certainly not average, in lots of ways http://theresurgence.com/interview-with-matt-chandler-video

So - what gives? Same Gospel very different results around here??

They obviously do heaps of things well, but Ultimately it is a little hard to get away from the fact that they all seem to be built around BIG Personalities. Their preaching is Theologically orthodox, (if at times surrounded by what seems to me to be a lot of humour laden padding), but there is definitely a positive response to it!

There is no way I could sit in church and look at a screen preach - but then maybe the outsider or new christian would be fine with that?? (and maybe midweek meetings would be a good way of using that kind of secondary teaching approach?)

I can't imagine hiring a guy to "pastor" a congregation and tell him his 3 years of college means he gets to set up the data projector!! (and get me a coffee while you're at it damn it!!)

Driscoll starts his from scratch which means you get to set the culture, Chandler (as he explains in the interview linked above) took over 160 and grew it to 6000... I cannot even truthfully comprehend that... much less how you even begin to go about it...

But then I still have a hard time comprehending from some of our older members the reality of the Billy Graham appeals 50 years ago (143,000 at the SCG), http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2484481.htm, he makes these guys (respectfully) look like rank amateurs!!

So same Gospel today, "that Christ died for our sins in our place and because of that all who believe that He is the saving Lord, will inherit eternal life - so be reconciled to God!" produces one of two things - sight or blindness...

Can any church do things better, to help demonstrate and not hinder the proclamation of the Gospel - absolutely (some need to do more than others)... but maybe Al Stewart is right, the ground here looks pretty hard at the moment (which is what sewing seed is like generally in Australia!), which Piper might agree with in his comment about the hearts of men growing cold.....

Maybe we saw the season of harvest in Sydney in '59, and now we are into a season of hard plowing and sewing and all the unglamourous stuff!!