I think Tim Chester's latest book, A Meal with Jesus, looks amazing. You can get a taster from reading his article, Making a Meal of It and watching this trailer:
A Meal with Jesus is available here from amazon.com and amazon.co.uk and there is also a Kindle version available here from amazon.com and amazon.co.uk.
[the pun wasn't originally intended, but why look a gift horse in the mouth?]
Listening to: The Unthanks on Myspace
Should you address prayers to the Son, or just the Father?
I'm not entirely sure, but think the best answer is summed up nicely by Tim Chester:
"The unity of the Trinity means we can address prayer to the Son and the Spirit - the Son and the Spirit are truly God and so can truly receive prayer. But the norm in the New Testament is to address prayer to the Father through the Son by, or with the aid of, the Holy Spirit." (p. 39, The Message of Prayer)
In relation to this discussion I found the following references in the Gospel of John, intriguing.
"Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." (14:13-14)
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser... Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me... If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you...I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." (15:1-16)
"you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy... So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full." (16:20-24)
Most exciting was to see that the parable of the true vine is so much about prayer.
Wonderfully clear post from Tim Chester:
Think how you would summarise Ephesians 5:1 in your own words: 'Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children.'
I wonder if your summary focused on the call to imitate God or the description of Christians as 'dearly loved children'?
It is all too easy for us to hear only the commands of Scripture and miss the descriptions out of which they arise. The prescription to behave like God only makes sense as the outworking of the description that we are God’s children. The imperatives (commands) of the New Testament always arise out of the indicatives (description). We are already God's dearly loved children so let's live as God’s dearly loved children by imitating our Father.
Reading Paul, and to a lesser extent other Biblical writers, as arguing from indicative to imperative, is probably one of the most important things I've ever been taught. But I sometimes struggle to spell out exactly what it means. It is easy to trot out "be what you already are", but it is more difficult to explain what that really means.
Melanchthon in his commentary on Colossians 3:1 helpfully breaks it down into three things:
I find that quite helpful in actually applying it to my life.
BTW this is my 500th post on this blog. Crazy stuff!
Tim Chester, in his excellent BST volume on Prayer, comments on 1 Timothy 2:1-8:
In the UK the traditional midweek church meeting often provided a focus for missionary prayer. But the house groups that have in many cases replaced it can all too easily become insular and self-regarding. Paul's call is for our churches and small groups to become hotbeds of missionary activity - outward-looking and inclusive with a vision for the nations.
(p. 219, The Message of Prayer)
It strikes me that it is one thing to move a house group, which because of our distorted human hearts, is self-serving to serving others by praying for the salvation of friends and family. It is another thing to get a house group praying for the world!
Tim Chester's fellow traveller, Steve Timmis, challenged me several months ago with his pointed comments on the Resurgence blog:
Is your church doing mission for its own glory or God's? Want a cunning test to help you answer? Check out how much energy and passion (evidenced by money, prayer, interest) is invested in situations in other parts of the world for which you will get no credit.
These are some snippets from a email conversation I've been having on contemplative, or wordless, prayer. It may all seem a bit disjointed and rushed. That is largely due to lack of time. But I hope they still make some kind of sense.
I must confess that wordless contemplative prayer is something I don't really 'get'. This may be down to my personality which has some trouble contemplating and meditating about anything. Although, it is also because I think prayer is about communication and specifically about petition.
It is unusual be in someone's presence and not talk to them, and it is unusual to be in the presence of someone who loves to give of his riches when you are deeply poor and not ask them for things.
Karl Barth says of pray that "in the first instance, it is simply asking". "It is the fact that [a person] comes before God with his petition which makes him a praying man" (CD III/3, p.268, cited on p. 49, Tim Chester, The Message of Prayer). Tim Chester, who shaped my thinking on this a great deal, comments:
"I have been frustrated by members of my congregation who could not be exhorted to focus on the praise of God or on confession without moving on to petition. It is an attitude of which I now repent. We too easily think of those who move into contemplative modes of praying or those who make worship or confession the focus of their praying as those who are advanced prayers. It is not so. We must recognize that it is the 'unsophisticated', simple prayers who truly express trust in divine Majesty., who truly acknowledge their own need before God, and who have truly grasped the freedom of the Father-child relationship. Many books on prayer exhort us to search for deeper experiences in prayer or more sophisticated modes of prayer that breed a sense of inadequacy in some and of superiority in others. The Bible invites us to find the model of prayer in the simple petitioning of a child before a father. This leads to freedom and peace."
(ibid)
Nevertheless, I think there is a place for stillness and silence which can help in calming your spirit. But I think that is not what I would call prayer, and can only really happen knowing that you have brought your cares and worries to a Father who has the says he will deal with them and has the ability to do so. If it is not in that context it contains the danger of being an act of escaping reality and burying your head in the sand. Much better is a faithful resting in the Father's promise to hear prayers offered in the name of his Son.
[...]
I do most of my thinking out-loud, in conversation, or while reading. That is the way I work, for good or ill. So I love this sort of discussion, but it does make me less receptive to the idea of wordless prayer. That may not necessarily be a good thing though. 'That is my personality' is not a good reason for very much, so it is good to be challenged.
You are right that a lot of our communication is not by words. Although I think they are more important than the commonly repeated statistics would suggest. But whether or not that is true, can we then just apply our experience of human relationships to our relationship with God? If I am communicating by telephone I can't communicate visibly, and if by letter then words are my only option. We walk by faith and not by sight in our relationship with God, and faith comes by hearing. I think it is fair to say that words are fundamental to our relating to God. That may even be why Jesus is called 'The Word'. I don't think that is a permanent state of affairs because we will see him eventually, but that is the way things are now.
That may sound an awfully restricted view of our relationship with God. N may well argue that it is. But I would tend to think that it is good news.
If God is invisible and intangible to us people waiting between his ascension and his second coming then the only avenue that he can communicate to us except through external words (spoken or visible, e.g. sacraments) is through internal words or feelings. If God is communicating to me through those internalised words and feelings then I'm in big trouble. I am creature committed to self-deception. Much of the time my inner thoughts tell me that God approves of me being thoughtless, cruel and selfish. My internal god (because in practice it is a separate deity) serves to make me more and more complacent in my sin, instead of forming me into the likeness of his Son. Other times my inner thoughts may remind me of how deeply ingrained is sin in my life. It tells me that there is no hope of me forming a relationship with God because I'm unworthy. It tells me that I'll never change because I never really have in the past.
In contrast the external word of God tells me I'm more sinful than we could ever know, but more loved than I could imagine. It tells me that, no matter what I feel, I deserved to be hung on a tree but I am now an adopted son of the Father in Christ who died for me.
There are two different ways we can relate to God. One is outward looking and the other is inward looking. One listens to external words and responds in kind, the other listens to internal words (which is really our own voice) and responds in kind. But, doesn't God live in me? Of course we are told that if we are Christians he does. We are told that the Holy Spirit dwells in us and that Christ lives is in us. But it is notable that it doesn't say that the same of the Father, and in almost every New Testament instance of prayer it is the Father whom we address.
So that is a bit more of a broad-brush picture of where I'm coming from. I can see how it could be criticised that it is quite a restricted conception of our relationship with God, but I think that it adds more colour and shape to our understanding. It is more solid and reliable, and I need my relationship with God to be as solid and reliable as his promises are when times get tough.
But as I've said earlier, I think there is a place for wordless quiet in our lives. I just think that it is secondary to, and dependant on, words.
This is a short review/summary of The Gospel Centred Church by Steve Timmis and Tim Chester for students in my church.
Steve Timmis and Tim Chester are leaders in a network of house churches in Sheffield. They wrote this short 'workbook', which is published by the Good Book company, to help individuals and groups think through their church life. It is notable for not arguing for certain church structures or activities for pragmatic reasons but because of what the Gospel implies. The Gospel-Centred Church that the book wants to see is a church 'in which the whole of its life and activities are shaped by the content and imperatives of the gospel'. To help us evaluate whether we are being faithful in this calling it identifies 3 key priorities of the church:
They assert that mission is the central purpose of the church in the world. Given that. they argue that every church member should be involved in mission and should do so confidently and daringly. We shouldn't stay hunkered down in our 'cosy, safe ghettos' but go out to the ends of the earth. You may question this and ask whether there are more central purposes of the church such as worship. After all as Andrew pointed out to me last night we will not be doing mission after the second coming of Christ. However, worship we all know is a whole of life thing and so mission and worship are not two opposing purposes we have to hold in balance but 'in the world' they are welded together. Mission should not be one of many activities we do but should be all that we do. We therefore worship as we go on mission.
So everything that we do as a church and as individuals should be measured by our faithfulness to this priority. Does the priority of mission shape the decisions you make about where you live and work? Does it shape your prayers and your meetings together as Christians? Does it effect the standard of living you expect?
But if mission is the central purpose of the church, what is the church? As we have been considering quite a lot recently the church is the people of God. As Timmis and Chester put it 'The church exists wherever believers are covenanted together under the authority of the word of God.'
This means that mission is not a question primarily of programmes or events. It does not require a building or paid staff. It is done by everyone because everyone is part of the church and it is often low-key and through long-term relationships.
Church leadership should then enable people to serve and not shape activity around 'things'. But the priority of people also means that the whole church has to be involved and active. The leadership are not the church but we all are. That means we cannot be passengers but must have our lives shaped by the priority of mission too.
But the priority of people could lead to lots of isolated individuals going off doing their own personal missions. This is not what God intended. He wanted the church to be doing mission and the church is a community of people. Hence the third priority is the priority of community.
This is a great comfort as we are not alone in our mission. It is not us up against the world. We can do mission in partnership, and in fact this is the best way to do it. Jesus prays in John 17:
'The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.'
Timmis and Chester put it like this: 'a Christian community is a persuasive apologetic for the gospel'. People who are not yet Christians are attracted to the community of self-giving love that the church should be. They may be initially attracted to that community itself but Jesus recognises that by seeing that community in action they come to know God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are united in a community of love which is imaged in the new humanity of the church. But like the Trinity our community should not be closed and exclusive but outward-looking, welcoming and inclusive. This means we should asking questions of ourselves such as whether when we meet together we can be understood by non-Christians present. Nobody should feel on the fringes.
So lets think about how we can reach friends, and those we have never even met yet through exposing them to the church which is shaped by the Gospel. Lets ask ourselves how how we we can build relationships as a community of people with those outside the church.
So that is my take on the book. It is well worth a read, but it is not a book you can passively read in a comfy armchair. It is a workbook. It is quite provocative and you may not agree with all of it. It is always (literally) asking questions of you, but also providing plenty of stimulating answers.
About one in four people in the UK suffer from a mental illness (source). Probably the most challenging thing that has happened in the last two years of my life has been to discover its destructive power over so many people's lives.
I am extremely grateful to Steve Timmis and Tim Chester in particular for making me see how the Gospel is relevant to this as with any area of life - hard though it is to apply it. Tim Chester has just posted on depression, and there is more from Steve Timmis here. I encourage you to read/listen and absorb it.
Audio from the North American Total Church Conference including Tim Chester and Steve Timmis is now available here (HT Tim Chester).
Most modern Christian apologetics is a response to the Enlightenment and its apparent rejection of Christian revelation in favour of rationalism.
[...]
This reading of the history of Western thought has been challenged by Stephen Williams in his book, Revelation and Reconciliation. Williams argues that modern atheism has its roots elsewhere. The rejection of revelation is only a symptom of an underlying problem. The real problem is the rejection of the idea or reconciliation and all that is implicit in that idea: moral accountability to the Creator, human helplessness, and reconciliation with God through a substitutionary sacrifice. The underlying issue was not a rejection of the possibility of revelation, but a rejection of the actuality of revelation.(pp.159-161, Tim Chester & Steve Timmis, Total Church: A radical reshaping around gospel and community, IVP)
I think it is right that the Enlightenment was not firstly a rejection of supernaturalism and so revelation. I think it had more to do with rejection of authority (rather than reconciliation). Having said that, God's saving action is where his authority is most clearly demonstrated (that was what the OT writers thought, e.g. Exodus 7:5, and NT writers followed when they said that 'Jesus is Lord').
...and new Christians.
I find time and again that talking to non-Christians forces me to take my theology to another level. 'I pray', says Paul to Philemon, 'that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ' (1:6). Unbelievers are not satisfied with the pat answers and unexplained terminology that Christians all too readily accept.
(p. 152, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church: A radical reshaping around gospel and community, IVP)
Recent examples from my life:
...but just wanted to say that You can change: God's transforming power for our sinful behaviour and negative emotions, Tim Chester's new book, is exceptionally good and may just be my book of the year so far. I read it very quickly, but I think it is best read slowly so I'm going to do that with the extra material on the IVP website.
You really should buy it now.
I've tried a few times to adequately put down a paragraph long review but don't feel like I am doing it justice. So I will brutalise Paul Tripp's endorsement:
This book is 'brutally honest'. It is real not just in Tim being honest about his struggles to change, but in forcing you to be honest about your own heart and motives both to change and to sin. You cannot sit on the sidelines when reading this book.
This book is also 'carefully theological'. Not in a dry or detached way. It is soaked in the bible and theology because of a conviction that it is truth that will set us free. Change comes through hearing the word and believing it.
And finally, this book is 'gloriously hopeful' because it shows that you can change. Not on your own strength, not easily, and not completely this side of death, but certainly because of God's promises.
If there was just one thing I will take away from this first reading it is that if I am serious about change then I have to be serious about confessing to, loving and engaging with the Christian community I am a part of. A community deeply involved in each others lives and itself is changing is the best place to change personally.
Anyway...
Dave Bish has already reviewed it, and liked it so don't believe me, believe him. Also read extracts and endorsements here and here.
Here is a video of Tim introducing the book:
Finally, I will just add that it hasn't come as a surprise to me that this book is so good. I have read most of Tim Chester's output and it has all been brilliant. Other titles I will happily recommend you read include:
You can buy them all from his Amazon.co.uk store here.
Happy reading.... now back to the OU study I should be doing.
A truly brilliant book. As I said on my old blog:
In an age when there are so many Christian books purporting to be relevant to the 21st century, or to the reality of our lives, this is the first book I’ve read that actually delivers ... This is the most beneficial book I have read this year. A perfect mix of big picture Christianity, and day-to-day practicalities... I thank God for this book.
...also my first attempt to post video. Not that complicated really.
I'm currently burried under work, but I wanted to link to this post by Tim Chester. If you don't already read his blog you ought to, and stop wasting time around this neck of the woods. He has just posted a very suscinct definition of what we (should) mean by submission/headship within marriage:
- The wife puts her husband’s will before her own.
- The husband puts his wife’s interests before his own.
Brilliantly put I think.
