Since I don’t know when, I’ve been told that Galatians 6:6 is one of several passages that teach us to support the people who work full time in gospel ministry. The (old) NIV translates it as
6 Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.
Certainly sounds like a call to share materially with someone who instructs us spiritually, doesn’t it? But I’m now far from convinced.
This term I had the privilege of thinking on the topics of “The Kingdom of God” and “The Ethics of Jesus”. At the same time I was reading through Colossians with a few guys from church plus we were introducing “Connect, Grow, Serve” to our church, and I was thinking a lot about how Paul sees growth occurring in Colossians.
It struck me that much modern theology speaks of Christians, and particularly churches, as if they are presently participating in the new creation. It is almost suggested that by the way we live our lives together we begin to realise now the Kingdom of God on earth. Our pursuit of justice for the poor is in some way a participation in the world that is to come. The kingdom of God is said to “break out” here and now amongst Christians. There is a strong sense that good done now will “carry over” into the new creation.
Looking at Jesus’ teaching, I am increasingly convinced that such moments are not a participation in that future but an anticipation of it. It is not that we live radical lives now because we are already part of God’s kingdom, but that we look forward to it.
The Sermon on the Mount is the strongest case in point. There Jesus sets out a way of living together that pursues radical goodness (proactive peacemaking, radical action to deal with sin, love for enemies). But not because the kingdom has arrived. Rather, because it points forward to it. The beattitudes speak of God’s kingdom as something yet to come. Those who are peacemakers now will inherit the kingdom in the future. Our lives are shaped by the kingdom because we long for it, not because it has already arrived. When Christ rises from the dead and ascends into heaven, the Kingdom begins. But it is Christ who enters that kingdom on behalf of his people. The king passes from suffering to glory, but the church continues to suffer as it awaits the final realisation of that kingdom.
The language is particularly strong in Paul. In Colossians 3 the motivation for living a radical life of love is that we have “now died”. Yet I haven’t. My heart hasn’t stopped beating since the day I was born. I am yet to be declared brain dead. (At least, in the medical sense.) But it is a true statement because my life “is now hidden with Christ in God”. Jesus has died. And because the Spirit has now united me to him by faith, what he has done is effective for me. His death was on my behalf. He is done with sin and so I am to. In him, the new creation has begun and so I am able to put off “the old man” now as I wait for his return. This new creation is not presently visible in me. Rather, “when Christ, who is [my] life appears, then [I] will also appear with him in glory”. Christ’s death and resurrection make that even certain for me. The Spirit guarantees my participation in that new creation. And by the Spirit’s power I can put on the life that will truly be mine only at the final resurrection.
Does this remove the impulse to pursue justice for the poor (for example)? By no means. I now live for the life that Christ has purchased me. My old self is doomed because Christ has already died to sin. All that the world to come will be is how I will live here in the present because I look forward to it in anticipation. I don’t need the good I do now to have any significance for the world to come. It is good because it is everything that I long for in the world that will be.
Am running an elective at Ynet this weekend. Ynet’s a great network for youth workers throughout Queensland but is being extended to support childrens and young adults workers as well.
My seminar is on using, not abusing, post-high schoolers. I’m trying to speak to a tendency I’ve observed that many churches will work hard to support their kids and high schoolers but then see their “ministry” to young adults as primarily
However, I’m not suggesting every church should have a “young adults” group. Rather, I think it’s just seeing these activities differently:
Not that happy with the seminar so far, but here’s the outline:
Hoping that we’re settling on the Gold Coast for a good few years, and not wanting to risk constant moves, we’re thinking of buying a house. But where?
My thoughts so far:
Accessibility is probably more important than proximity to the church building. Honestly, not many of the members of our church live near the building. So it seems to me that being near is not as important as being easily accessible. There’s a major motorway running down the Gold Coast. At the moment it’s easy for people to get from that to our place, and so we feel accessible.
Living spaces matter. In our budget, the nearer we get to the church building, the less we get for the money. But this applies to accessibility too. There’s a place my wife and I love and that has ideal living spaces for entertaining and for running a family amidst ministry life. But is it too inaccessible? Which leads to…
Perceived distance matters. The place we love is probably not that inaccessible. There are other places that are further from the church but people view them as reasonably accessible. In comparison, when we show others in ministry the location of our “ideally laid out house for doing ministry” they usually view it as too far. Because it’s up in a corner where people don’t usually go.
Am I right? Are there other issues to consider?
Have been given an opportunity to speak on IVF to a conference of IVF scientists in May. Seemed a great opportunity even if the best outcome is simply a few more scientists sympathetic to Christians thinking through infertility treatment.
Had a trial run presenting at Griffith Christian Students yesterday, and again on Thursday. The hard thing is trying to explain Christianity, so that the Christian perspective made sense. Do you focus on our different framework, and get accused of not being specific enough? Or do you speak of the specifics and risk being heard as a nay-sayer?
My first attempt? I spoke about what it means to be human, how Christians view suffering and what we hope the future will bring. The result? Too much content.
Thursday I think I’ll briefly mention those three key beliefs and then move quickly to how that makes us different:
We’ll see how attempt 2 goes.
(By the way, I’m indebted to the very helpful thinking of John Wyatt in his New College Lectures.)
Russ