Christian music, Christian mugs...

No, not a gratuitous insult. I have lots of mugs in my house, and one at work (my Garfield Christmas mug). I'm very attached to some of them. I still have my Scotland World Cup Finals 1982 mug - used it all the way through my PhD. Are these Christian mugs? Don't think so. I sort of feel the same way about what is sometimes called Christian music. It's only connection with Christianity is that is written/sung/liked by Christians. But the content? Some twee, some distinctly suspect in theological terms. A bit like the average hymn book I suppose. And it's not a modern phenomenon. There's been some really good stuff written in recent years, along with the dross. Just as much as there some real pre 20th century musical tat, as well as the gems. Even Charles Wesley penned the occasional worrying line ("emptied Himself of all but love"? I don't think so).

Horses for courses. There's music as the evangelistic tool. I was never that convinced about this. Perhaps it’s the scientist in me. But as the very best it seems to me it can only communicate a mood, and attitude. And it's rarely at its best. There's music as a communal mode of expression. Here we are perhaps better served now than we were. The upsurge in interest in worship that seemed to spring out of the Charismatic movement probably did us all a favour. There's music as an individual help. There have been times when particular songs and hymns have been a really important means of communication. Bit like the Psalmist's experience perhaps?

I'm off to jam on my guitar.

What were they doing there?

We covered Esther Ch2 this morning. Something I'd never noticed before was that Mordicai, and therefore Esther, were related to Saul, the first king of Israel. That connection was probably quite distant. But a closer relative was Shimei, who cursed David when he had to leave Jerusalem. The question is what were Mordicai and Esther still doing in the capital of Persia when many Jews had already made their way back to Israel?

One suggestion is that they were doing quite well in Persia. They were in the capital, they were probably quite well off relatively speaking. Had they sold out to the Persian lifestyle? Had they forgotten their heritage, at least as the story begins? Here's another possibility. Maybe it was known that Mordicai had influential, even Royal, connections. So he had no been allowed to return with other exiles, lest he be involved in fermenting rebellion in the empire. In any case, here we have two of the more resourceful of God's people, just where they needed to be. The miracle that is the tapestry of providence.

Getting Going....

Big week coming up. We have an Open Evening in Halewood this coming week for all the folk who have expressed an interest in the new local church that is being planted. Will be interesting. Heard a lot about different people expressing an interest. So far, I gues these are mainly Christians both from Bridge and other churches, who actually have some connection with the new area.

The other problem that's cropped up is we don't have a definate venue for the fist planned Sunday morning service in March. And March isn't that far away! But this is only because the Lord has closed one particular door. We wait to see which one opens instead.

Encountering Esther

We began a series at Bridge today on the book of Esther. It's an interesting book for all sorts of reason. For one thing, God isn't mentioned once. But that doesn't mean that He is not active in Esther's story - far from it. In a funny way it makes it a very appropriate book to study in Europe in the 21st century. From the highest to the lowest levels in most of Europe, polite society expects no mention to be made of God except perhaps in the most abstract of terms. You know the sort of thing - at the best dinner parties only two topics must not be raised, God and politics. It seems to me these are the only two topics worth having a conversation about - with the possible exception of Scotland's brilliant victory over France at Murrayfield today! But we can talk at great length about the weather (an English specialty), about football (a Liverpool specialty) about schools ( a parent specialty).

Yet underlying the decisions of governments, the lives of individuals, the sweep of history, is the activity of the Living God. But it is largely unseen, and never commented on. The big events in society are given naturalistic explanations, usually plausible ones. But I've always felt that if an Amos or an Ezekiel had been around when the Dublane shootings occurred, or those planes crashed into the twin towers, they might well have put a different complexion on things. In their day, there were undoubtedly those who provided only naturalistic explanations for the big events. Invasions, defeats, victories, famines etc. and yet they were able to point out spiritual significance in the same events.

And so we come back to Esther. No explicit mention of God, yet here is His providence in action. Here He is weaving an intricate tapestry, placing individuals here, removing others there and so on. It's providence that is really impressive, not so much the big one-off supernatural interventions (although they can be impressive too!). And of course it is still all around us. Witness the events in Parliament last week. Does politics explain it all? No, not really.

On growing Churches....

I've read one or two recent posts elsewhere on this topic. So I thought I'd have a blog on it too. But first some ground clearing.

There are entities which are popularly called "churches". Sometimes it is a building that is being referred to (eg the "church" next to the chippie). There is some cultural value in such buildings. In various parts of the world (including the UK) they may well have cultural or historical significance. They might well even induce vaguely "spiritual" impressions, feelings and sensations. Am I really bothered about churches in this sense? No. Essentially they belong to a world that is passing away and has no lasting (in the sense of eternal) significance. They are built rather than grow. They can actually inhibit the business I'm really interested in ("no you can't have a youth club - the windows might get broken").

Some institutions go by the name of church. The "church" of England/Scotland etc. Dare I say that the "church of latter day saints" uses the word in the same way? These are human institutions. They have human rules and regulations. No particular harm in that. Every orderly institution has them. They are necessary for the proper operation of the institution. But they are largely human rules and regulations for a human institution. Not much different in principle from the rules that might govern a political party, or a Bridge club. Some of these institutions may well have great significance; cultural, historical, even political and practical. The largest social work agency in Scotland is the Church of Scotland's Board of Social Responsibility. There are a number of political issues in which some of these institutions have done us all a service (eg the recent campaign on debt relief). But it seems to me, as effective as they might be (and their effectiveness is increasingly questioned in the West), these are human institutions. Am I particularly concerned about them as institutions? No. Because in a funny way they are like the first category. About the here and now. They will wax and wane. Their waning might well have bad practical consequences from my point of view. But their significance is limited.

There is a third sort of "entity" that is called church. It's not the church of anywhere, but it can be found everywhere (almost). It might be referred to the church in ..... Liverpool, Glasgow, Iran, China. It's not a building. It is people who have been transformed by an encounter with Jesus Christ, and as part of that transformation have been joined to Him and to others so transformed. It is more that a human institution although it shares some of the characteristics of an institution. It is based on and aimed at something transcendent and supernatural. It has its social, even political aspects. But it has an otherworldly quality. It may begin in this world, but it extends to another one. It is in one sense beyond time. And it will last longer than this world. That's the big picture. It may well meet in a particular building, but the building is not the church. If the building ever becomes more important than the people, things are seriously out of whack. Any group of humans may well have their own rules (in addition to those that might have Divine weight behind them), but those rules are only useful if they're useful! And that body of rules, or the group which they might define, is not the church.

The little picture is the way this is all expressed locally. I suppose that it is growth at this local level that I am most interested in. Perhaps that's because I can perceive growth at this level. Walking by faith and not by sight is a struggle! Surprisingly, there are good signs on this front. It's not about buildings which will crumble. And growth is not about building new buildings. It's not about institutions which struggle to amend rules and structures to cope with changing circumstances, and might add to their numbers or decline and fail. It is about individuals here and there encountering Jesus and coming to know Him personally. In ones and twos in some places, in their hundreds in other places. This has being going on for about two thousand years (some argue a lot longer). It is still going on today. In some parts of the world dramatically. In most of Europe slowly. But the church in this sense is growing, it can't do anything else.

Here in my little patch, we're about to start meeting in a different area of the city. A small group are going to leave a large church (about 400-ish in the congregation), and meet together and seek to reach a different area of the city. This in and of itself is not growth. Growth will be when individuals who at the moment don't give Jesus a second thought, come to know Him personally. Growth will not be attracting people who already know Him from other "churches". This will probably happen. It's not necessarily a bad thing. But it is simply reorganisation of what exists already, it is not growth, and it's not our priority. Growing churches are about Gospel growth.

But they are not just up growth out, they must also be about growth up. Encountering Jesus, and coming to know Him, is the beginning but it's not the end. So there is another kind of growth that needs to be true of healthy local churches. The "growning in grace" kind of growth. Getting to know Him better. Both types of growth must be evident, or questions need asking.

So I'm not interested in boasting about the new floorspace we might lay down. I'm not interested in names on a roll that we might use for constitutional purposes. I'm not interested in being able to boast about the number of names on our roll compared to the number on yours. All of that would be about human pride and not worth a bean.