“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. (John 15:1, 2 NIV)

Trimming a hedge is a fairly quick process. You get your hedge trimmers or shears and start cutting everything that is growing past a certain point. There is not a lot of thinking involved, if a branch is blocking the path or growing wild, it goes.

Vines will grow and produce fruit regardless of whether they are cut back or not. Except, I am told, they are their own worst enemy, because they will grow in a tangle and start growing fruit where the sun is not available to help them thrive. To produce quality fruit, the vines must be pruned. Every branch that is growing in the wrong direction must be cut back, to allow the better growth to reach its potential. To do this, the vine dresser is constantly having to be among his vines, thinking whilst he prunes. It is not, like the hedge trimmer, an arbitrary process. But once this is done, the vine will be in a far better position to develop quality grapes.

John uses this analogy about the people of God, individual and corporate. Parts will need to be pruned away, or helped in a different direction in order for the whole to thrive.

And although it always hurts, we must be ready for the Father’s pruning knife. God is glorified, and do will we be, by bearing good quality fruit, and lots of it. For that to happen there will be extra growth that needs cutting away. That, too, is an intimate process. the vine dresser is never closer to the vine, taking more thought over its long term health and productivity, than when he has his knife in his hands. (Tom Wright)

Are our times of struggle sometimes times of pruning, when actually God is very close taking the painful decisions about what to prune?

“Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them” (John 14:23)

“Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.”

A release of the audio interview that it was based on helped put some context around the quote. (The Driscoll bit starts about 34 minutes in). There was a bit of an uproar in the twittersphere, blogosphere and facebookosphere – many blogged about what he said, whether it was true, and the state of the church in the UK.

Pastor Mark then issued a blog post of his own which added more context, switched the focus to Jesus, blamed the interviewer but avoided any apology. (The interviewer, Justin Brierly has written a response here - I think the best thing to do is listen to the interview and make up your own mind)

Here is the best of what has been written about it.

Krish Kandiah’s immediate reaction with a later update.

Jon Marlow writes about why there may be no Bible teacher ‘known across Britain’.

TallSkinnyKiwi writes about the crucial differences between US and UK culture.

David Cooke asks if there is something we can take from his ministry and comments.

My initial reaction was to laugh it off – Here is Mark Driscoll going too far again.

My subsequent reaction was to mentally list all the excellent young British preachers that there are that I know of. They may not be famous across Britain, but they are faithfully working in their own contexts to demonstrate and preach the love of Jesus, week by week. Mark has surely misunderstood the culture. Read TallSkinnyKwi’s post for more about this.

Following that, was annoyance that he had sought to justify himself instead of apologising. I was feeling vaguely insulted by a man I had never properly met as he wrote off my ministry which he knows nothing about.

My next reaction was to ask if Mark Driscoll has some sort of point? Clearly he has gone too far in dismissing all British preachers as cowards, but is there a kernel of truth underneath this comment? After all, Mark planted a church in his living room which has grown to many thousands of people spread across many campuses in Seattle and beyond. He has personally baptised 1400 people and been key in bringing many to faith. This time he has gone too far, but is there a point of truth in what he said? Can we get past the bravado media front to hear what he was trying to say? Am I a coward?

There is clearly some truth in some of his comments which claimed that having guys in dresses (clergy robes) preaching to grannies is not going to encourage young men to come to church. Quite true. However, many churches dropped the ‘guys in dresses’ approach some time ago. Since moving to my new post, I think I’ve worn my robes twice, both times whilst visiting other churches.

Am I a coward? I genuinely engaged with this question wondering whether I am taking too much time before ‘preaching’! What I want to do is introduce people to the gospel – not changing any points of doctrine, bit doing it in such as way that the timing and approach means that they are most able hear the message for what it is, and so it is not encumbered with unhelpful cultural baggage. People in the UK are very distrustful of people they do not know who try to tell them what to do. Relationships need to be built first.

Early on, I did try to jump the gun and I asked a couple of people (who had previously mentioned some interest in Christianity) if they wanted to do an Alpha. It was too early, and they refused. They didn’t know me and didn’t know whether to trust me. The first thing is trust, the next is for their interest to be peaked by how I am living and what I am doing in the community. Only then will they be open to hearing the gospel.

I could just open my doors now and preach, but in this context, people wouldn’t come. A church which grows organically from the community is surely going to be more effective. There will be a time for a direct challenge and clear explanation of the gospel. That time is not yet. But it will come.

For more specific thoughts on my  day-to-day ministry, check out my Diary of a Pioneer Minister blog.

More

1. “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” (v13-14). This is a promise that if we can ask for something in Jesus’ name, then he will do it. Of course, we can’t just ask for anything in Jesus’ name – only those things that are representative of him and in keeping with his character and mission. But once we’ve understood that, the ‘anything’ is still rather powerful!

2. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth.” (v16-17) Jesus has not left us alone but has left us with the Holy Spirit. The word advocate (NIV) is often translates as helper or comforter. All three are correct. The Spirit assists, guides and is alongside us, encourages and stands up on out behalf for the gospel – He gives us the words to say.

3. “Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” (v19-20). Jesus is referring to his death and resurrection – the world sill not see him anymore…. But because of the resurrection and the giving of the Spirit those who come to him can still see him at work, active in the world and alongside us. In this way, Christian’s participate in the relationships of God found in the Trinity. We can know God’s presence. The future heavenly resurrection life has begun.

So, my questions to apply to this week are, what, in Jesus’ name, can we ask him for? This will likely be something to further God’s mission. How can we actively seek out the Holy Spirit and know his as comforter, advocate, helper? Do we know we are participating in the Trinity?

Last week, Relevant magazine posted an extract from Tim Keller’s upcoming book on marriage, entitled ‘You never marry the right person’. Each marriage, he claims is a matter of making choices, and compromising.

We are lured into thinking that we will find a soul mate, another half, or someone to complete us. The movie Jerry Maguire brought is the phrase ‘You complete me’ which is a nice sentiment but it is untrue. This idea that a partner should bring us the ultimate in self-fulfillment comes from self-first consumer culture that we live in. We are used to self-help books, we are brought up to be fiercely independent, and we are used to doing things and buying things that fulfil us.

Yet when we apply this thinking to marriage, dating and partners we are on dangerous ground. The thinking is that love should not be hard, it should come naturally if you are truly soul-mates.

Tim Keller’s response is

“Why believe that? Would someone who wants to play professional baseball say, ‘It shouldn’t be so hard to hit a fastball’? Would someone who wants to write the greatest American novel of her generation say, ‘It shouldn’t be hard to create believable characters and compelling narrative’?

When one flawed human being relies on another flawed human being to complete him or her, it is never going to be completely straight forward. We are all less than perfect in different ways and we are never going to find a perfect partner to fill in the gaps of our own deficiencies.

The Bible talks about marriage as being, one flesh. The married couple are a single unit, but this is a unity that has to be worked at in relationship with God.

Nowhere in the Bible is love seen as a self-completing thing. It is always spoken about in relation to others – God, marriage partner, family, church and society. Love is not self-serving but others-centric. Love is a verb. The grand list of loving characteristics of 1 Cor 13 (written to a church, not a couple) are all acts of the will which involve putting the other before yourself – love is patient, kind, not self seeking etc. They point towards the character of God, who supremely demonstrated this love in Jesus. As we choose to love, and are given the power to do so by God, we identify with God’s character.

So, what do you do if you are attracted to someone? 

You will then need to decide what to do with that attraction. Attraction doesn’t need to lead to love.

Attraction, I believe, can’t be helped. We are attracted to all kinds of different people. Some may simply be people who happen to be nice to look at. For others it is an aspect of their character that appeals to us. Often we are attracted by characteristics that we don’t have, or that we’d like to get better at.

Before acting on this attraction, it is always worth asking whether this person would be a good match for me. Are they a nice person, fun to be around, interesting? Do they have some of the same values that you have, such as attitudes to money, family, faith? These are all things that would help any potential relationship go more smoothly. In these cases, the attraction can be helpful and we may decide to pursue it.

Sometimes, pursuing  the attraction is not a good idea.  What if the person is unavailable to you such as they are married already? For example, if a married man is attracted to another woman (this itself is not a crime) but he must choose what to do with that attraction. He may want to put in boundaries to remove or reduce the temptation, for the benefit of his marriage. He may avoid that woman and make sure he is never alone with her. Or if he has to meet her and part of his job or something, he could always meet in a public place. He could also confide and be accountable to someone else. There are many ways to reduce the temptation that would inevitably destroy his marriage, and avoid the attraction turning into something else. Each little step is a choice. It is worth asking the opinion of those who are close to you, and who know you the best.

There may be other reasons why the person is not available to you – for example, parental pressure or culture or distance. These situations can be emotionally painful. I remember falling for a person of another faith. In hindsight, it was absolutely right for s not to get together, but it was hard at the time. Is the barrier a good or necessary one? Your family may disagree for good reasons, or not. You will need to discern this. You may need to walk away and consciously choose not to pursue the attraction any further.

But it is always crucial to remember that the other person in a relationship is not there to complete or fulfil the other. Each is there to learn to love one-another in ways that they could not have imagined at the outset of the relationship.

Keller again:

The hard times of marriage drive us to experience more of this transforming love of God. But a good marriage will also be a place where we experience more of this kind of transforming love at a human level.

We never marry the right person. Love is a verb. Love is a choice

Polkinghorn, was an eminent Cambridge scientist before he was ordained and was involved in the discovery of quark particles, basically says that he doesn’t think that the creation accounts in Genesis was supposed to be literal scientific accounts of how the world was formed. The fact that there are two of them (Gen 1 and 2) which contain different details is an indicator of this.

Instead, they contain

true myth – with a truth so deep that only story can convey it.

This position resonates with my thinking. I have never been a fan of young earth creationism and see science as sitting alongside faith, complementing not opposing it. The creation stories are then more about explaining truths about God’s relationship with mankind and his creation, and mankind’s relationship with God, the world around, and one other. With this approach you can maintain scientific integrity without having to ignore vast chunks of the bible.

This still leaves questions open to which I don’t yet have adequate answers, such as who were Adam and Eve, and were they real or also metaphorical in order to convey truth. And if they were myth, at what point in the genesis narrative does is start to become historical? (for example, I believe that the flood in Gen 6 happened, so presumably if Adam and Eve were metaphorical, somewhere between Gen 3 and 6 the narrative shifts to being about real people rather than simply illustrative of God’s truth ).

So there are still lots of unanswered questions, but Polkinghorn’s approach is useful to those with a scientific mindset.

A man is not the one who can spit the farthest, punch the hardest, fart the stinkiest, or yell the loudest. A man takes responsibility.

Some of you are not big or strong or physically tough. In a cage fight, it’s not going to go well for you. In a squirt gunfight, it’s not going to go well for you. But you can still be a man if you’re responsible.

Taken from The Identity of a Biblical Man.

I covered chapters 1-3 and 4-8 in previous posts. The rest of the book has more indirect teaching on attitudes which can apply to men and to women. From these, I would say that Biblical manhood is less about becoming a ‘real man’ whatever that might mean, and more about becoming a real disciple.

Here are a couple of passages from Luke 9 onwards that struck me as being relevant, but they are far from being an exhaustive list.

From chapter 12, I was struck by the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21). The man stored away his wealth in barns and had so much wealth that he decided to make bigger barns. It reminded  me of great natural disasters, such as the earthquakes in New Zealand and the Tsunami and quake in Japan last year. They are both wealthy countries which had a lot of devastation from the disasters. The people who died were no more or less deserving of their fate than anyone else (cf. Tower of Siloam Luke 13:4) and they were going about their lives in a normal way when devastation struck. Many lost their lives, many more lost everything they had. Wealth is worth surprisingly little in this life.

Later (Luke 20), Jesus is teaching and some teachers of the law wanted to catch him out in what he said. So they sent people to ask a question that might get him into trouble. “Is it right for us [Jews] to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”. If he said ‘Yes’, the Jews would be upset as they resented the Roman presence as an occupying force. If he said ‘No’ they could legitimately take him to the governors under the charge of undermining the authorities.

To answer, Jesus asks the poser of the question for a Denarius (a coin) and notes that Caesar’s image is on the coin, much like the Queen’s profile is on our coins today. He then remarks “give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s” (Luke 20:25). The unspoken question that follows is “Who’s image in on you?”. Every Jew would know that they are made in the image of God, and that if they owe the coin to Caesar, they owe their life to God. This is a call to close discipleship once again, and is applicable to men and to women.

To conclude, from my first post (chapters 1-3) we have a call to commitment to God and to your family, bringing them up in the way of God.

From my second (chapters 4-8)  we have an exhortation to work hard, be honest in what you do, and content in what you have. We can bring God’s wisdom and attitude into everything we do, not leaving him at the door. Again from Jesus’ interactions with the man who was healed of demon possession, there is a call to be committed to family by being there for them and representing Jesus in the place where you are.

And in this post, the emphasis of the passages seems to be about allegiance – to God above everything else.

Biblical manhood, is about biblical discipleship. Becoming fully human in God is emphasised more than trying to match up to a version of manhood or womanhood.

2. Lucio and Kaka show their faith – Comment on the place of faith in football, written just before the 2010 world cup.

3. Henry Scott Holland: “Death is nothing at all” – Some thoughts on the popular poem by Henry Scott Holland which is often used at funerals.

4. You can’t help who you fall in love with – A response to a news article where a prison guard falls in love with an inmate.

5. The poor in the gospel of Luke (iv) – One of a number of posts examining what Jesus says about the poor and injustice in the gospel of Luke. For the whole series, click here.

6. Into the Wild – movie review – review of the 2007 film about the true story of Chris McCandless.

7. New Starbucks Logo – Comment on the new starbucks logo announced in Jan 2011.

8. Kieran Richardson and Kaka – More about faith and football following Kieran Richardson’s “I belong to Jesus” T-Shirt and goal celebration in November 2011.

9. Martin Luther on Religion and Politics – Quote from Martin Luther.

10. Why didn’t the rapture happen? Will it ever? – Response and critique of rapture theology following Harold Camping’s failed prediction of the end of the world in May 2011.

11. Donald Miller reviews Love Wins – Donald Miller’s take on Rob Bell’s controversial book.

12. I just can’t find it in me to be glad one more person is dead… – Quote in the aftermath of the killing of Osama Bin Laden. See also Has Bin Laden been brought to Justice.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 9,600 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 4 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.