Life + Faith

Hey, I’m Jon.
And this is where I write about life and faith, no niche included. Just an honest attempt to be faithful and fruitful for Jesus. If that’s something you want more of, subscribe.

  • Can Ruth Help With Race?

    The book of Ruth is one of the great literary stories in the Old Testament. While it might be a short story, it is a brilliantly constructed piece of literature that involves love, tragedy, and hope. It is packed with subtlety, meaning, and is masterfully written. And as I’ve been preaching through this wonderful book I’ve noticed how this story may well help us when we talk about race, ethnicity, and cultures.

    It is in the introduction where this cross-cultural theme is raised. Elimelech, Naomi, and their two sons move away from God’s Promised Land to Moab. In crossing the Jordan River they arrive in a foreign land, with a foreign people, who worship foreign gods.

    Here tragedy strikes.

    Can Ruth Help With Race_

    Elimelech dies; seemingly before his time. And Naomi’s sons marry Moabite women.

    And so, the author constantly references ‘Ruth the Moabitess’ as the story progresses. This action to marry women of Moab is not seen as a good thing. Given the historical context of the story these marriages, and the decision to leave the Promised Land, is a rejection of the promise-keeping, covenant-bound relationship with God. It is an act of disobedience.

    The issue here in the book of Ruth is one of fidelity.

    It is an issue of faithfulness.

    The promise-keeping, covenant-bound marriage between God and his people is being broken through (1) a lack of trust in God’s provision and (2) what is more than likely a drifting into worshipping of other gods, rather than worshipping YHWH, the Lord God.

    Any infidelity through other gods from foreign nations is considered a breaking of this promise-keeping, covenant-bound marriage between God and his people.

    There is a constant refrain in the Old Testament of God having a people he calls his own. This is biblical Israel. This is those who are to trust and obey him with their hearts and actions.

    Yet, the Old Testament also speaks of the people of God accepting and including the outsider, the foreigner, into the family of God. Israel is to refrain from oppressing the foreigner and provide justice for them, incorporating them into their festivals, celebrations, and sacrifices and offerings. They are incorporated into the people of God and to be treated as such (Leviticus 17:8-9; 18:26; 20:2; 22:18; 24:16, 22; Deuteronomy 10; Numbers 15:14).

    God’s people are to be concerned and care for them just as they are to care and be concerned for their own people.

    And so there is this balance. God wants his people to remain his people, while also being open to the outsider, the foreigner.

    The author of Ruth highlights the disobedience of this particular family but across the story shows the significance of this particular foreigner. Ruth the Moabitess is to be the person in whom God fulfils his promises and plans; leading to salvation and redemption for all nations.

    As we sit here today–post-Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection we understand the gospel continues to have a radical challenge for us in terms of cross-cultural relations.

    As Ephesians 2:11-22 reminds us,

    “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…” 

    It seems to go without saying that of all people Christians are not to be people who are racist or ethnically monochrome.

    First, we understand that all people are created by God and made in his image.

    Not much more needs to be said, other than this is a foundational truth for us as believers. Those we sit next to at work, those we play sport with on the weekends, those we interact with in our street, are all people created by God and are his image-bearers. Genesis 1-2 outlines the imageo dei for us, a crucial understanding of who we are as persons.

    Second, we understand that the gospel is for all races, nations, tribes, and ethnicities.

    Paul writes in Galatians 3:27-29,

    For those of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.

    The promises of God, and the good news of what God has done in Christ, is open to all people. This is leading to a time when people of all nations and tribes and ethnic groups will worship God together. Revelation 7:9-10:

    After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice:

     Salvation belongs to our God,
    who is seated on the throne,
    and to the Lamb!

    Third, we understand that God’s people, the Church, is made up of people from all nations and tribes and tongues.

    There isn’t a flattening of cultures and ethnicities into one monochrome Christian culture. Rather, the Christian church becomes a deeper and more diverse faith because of the worship of God through cultures and ethnicities worshipping God in ways they understand.

    God, in his wisdom, has provided a church that is multi-ethnic; and we as the people of God are to reflect that multi-ethnicity in our local communities of faith.

    And fourth, we understand that we are to go and tell; to share this message of racial inclusivity to all nations and cultures.

    The mission of his church is to show the gospel and the Christian faith isn’t a nationalistic faith, a ‘white-man’s faith’, or a Western faith.

    It is good news for all people of all cultures at all times.

    When we read the opening of Ruth we may have lots of questions around this issue of Ruth being a foreigner. Why does it seem so significant? But really, the surprise comes in that she is included into God’s family. In a similar way to Abraham, she is a person who accepts God by faith, and in doing so is accepted by God.

    I wonder, I just wonder, whether Ruth can help us in our understanding of others…?

  • 5 Learnings From Being ‘Acting Senior Pastor’

    Earlier in the year my Senior Pastor went on paternity leave for three weeks.

    I was technically ‘Acting Senior Pastor’ during that time. There were extra responsibilities. This is what I learned.

    5 Learnings From Being 'Acting Senior Pastor'

    1. The amount and variety of decisions required to be made is enormous.

    This is the main difference between what my role is normally and what I stepped up to.

    It took me nearly two weeks to realise the main difference in roles was that of decision-making.

    Each day there were new queries, new decisions to make, new things to have conversations about and then make follow up decisions to enable progress. Upon reflection, I realised that the decision-making required is at a new level, a level you just don’t get at the associate pastor level.

    At first I was tempted to put this down to not being used to making these decisions, but after further reflection I don’t think it’s just that. I need to make many decisions in the associate role, some I’ve been used to making for many years. But in the senior role there are a greater variety and range of questions asked of you, leading to a greater variety and range of decisions required.

    2. The regular preaching is a joy and privilege.

    I expected to be weighed down because of the extra preaching load. Rather than preach once a month or so I had to preach five out of six weeks.

    Maybe it was the series we covered, an expositional series on the book of Ruth, but I was enthusiastic and excited about teaching and preaching each week. It was great to prepare for it as a series and to then present the material through the preached Word each week.

    3. The one-on-ones became more reactive than active.

    In reality the extra load did mean there were some things I didn’t do that I normally would’ve. One of those things is actively searching out young adults and others for one-on-one catch-ups during the week. Instead of being active is sourcing these meetups those I did have were usually reactive. That is, people would call and want to meet, or people popped by the church office and sat in with me for a while. Both are important of course, but I do prefer being active rather than reactive.

    4. The phone becomes more important than ever.

    The invention of the phone has got to be the greatest thing in the ministry kit bag. I was on the phone a lot more, particularly through phone calls, than I usually am. Part of this is the greater number of people who want to talk to me, or share something, or who I needed to follow up. But, the phone became a great resource for me to have pastoral conversations and show care to those in the congregation.

    5. The true day off, mentally and physically, is nearly impossible.

    I am usually pretty good at switching off and making sure I’m not available. But, I also find myself thinking about youth ministry a lot because I am passionate about it. I like to reflect, write, and think through it.

    In the senior position I found myself thinking about the church, its people, and the ministry more often than I would normally. People didn’t know when my days off were and so I would get calls on every day of the week. This led me to then take the call or return the call on the same day because of the context I am in. And so, a full day off of nothing was something that became harder to implement, even though my intentions were to do so.

    There’s a lesson in self-care here somewhere.

  • Luther’s Evening Prayer and The Practice of Written Prayers

    Luther’s Evening Prayer and The Practice of Written Prayers

    Reading written prayers of saints of the past, or writing our own prayers for specific events or days of the week can be beneficial for our walk with Jesus and life of prayer.

    In recent years I have sensed greater communion with God, and a more helpful and deeper practice, to be reading and writing written prayers. The more I have experienced prayer in my life, and the more I have read about the life of prayer others have, the more convinced I have become about the necessity of prayers that articulate what I can’t.

    We could say this is what the Psalms are written for, articulating what we can’t. And this is true. Like the Lord’s Prayer, it is helpful to be trained or train ourselves in praying these written prayers of the Bible. It’s also helpful to have others speak words to God that we want to speak but can’t conjure up ourselves.

    Recently, I came across Martin Luther’s evening prayer, written in his Small Catechism (circa 1529). I found it a prayer that encourages rest and solid sleep, recognising God’s hand and trusting his oversight and care in our lives.

    “I thank You, my heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, Your dear Son, that You have graciously kept me this day; and I pray You to forgive me all my sins where I have done wrong, and graciously keep me this night. For into Your hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and all things. Let Your holy angel be with me, that the wicked foe may have no power over me. Amen.”

    Sleep well.

  • The Benefits of Short-Term Teams

    Questions are raised about short-term teams all the time. As I defined in my previous post, short-term teams are:

    “A group of up to a dozen Christians, spending up to three weeks, specifically exploring the idea of mission in a context that is culturally and linguistically different to their home culture.”

    And even a definition like this will raise questions.

    Many of these questions consistently revolve around finances, impact, development, need, politics, and church relevance. Questions like:

    • Are they worth the cost? Couldn’t the money be used elsewhere?
    • Do Westerners arriving on the shores of a developing country for a couple of weeks actually help anyone? Are these teams a modern form of colonialisation?
    • Is anything really achieved for the participants and the people in the host country by a 2-3 week stay?
    • What is the image given to people who see wealthy Western Christians coming and going from their country while they are never helped themselves?

    These are good and valid questions.

    I know a number of people who have seen damage done spiritually, personally, financially, culturally, and socially because of these teams. And so rightfully, questions do need to be asked of this $2 billion industry. Depending on where you come from will mean different questions.

    The Benefits of The Short-Term Mission Team

    In recent years there have been helpful books written, like “When Helping Hurts“, that have promoted better practices for short-term mission teams. These practices have elevated the need to think through short-term teams, not only from a participant point-of-view but for those in the country where the team is going. They have also provided helpful frameworks, and questions to ask of teams, in the areas of finance, community development, spiritualisation, evangelism, discipleship, and more.

    This goes a long way in helping those of us who lead teams and involved in short-term missions to think through the issues. Sometimes there is the need for change because of this thinking and questioning. And sometimes, we may only need to shift our goals a little and see the benefits of these teams can occur from a better and more solid foundation.

    Benefits Of Short-Term Teams

    And while there are plenty of criticisms and plenty of questions to be asked, I believe there are also plenty of benefits. Many of these I have seen myself, for me personally and for others who have been on teams before. And I’m sure there are also plenty of others that come from short-term teams too. But in the mean time, here are 15 benefits of short-term teams.

    1. They increase mission awareness within your church.
    2. They give the church a tangible opportunity to be involved in global mission.
    3. They broaden the worldview of those who participate, and those in the congregation.
    4. They increase the participation of of church members in local mission.
    5. They help grow followers of Jesus.
    6. They open participants eyes to the needs and realities of other people in other cultures.
    7. They develop a sense of connection between church members, participants, and the missionaries visited.
    8. They encourage the ministry of the the missionaries who are visited.
    9. The provide opportunity for participants to receive training in cross-culture ministry and settings.
    10. They help people understand the nature of support-raising.
    11. They enable participants to see what the reality of missions is like on the ground.
    12. They give another person in the world the opportunity to interact with someone from another culture.
    13. They increase the passion for helping people and being a good neighbour.
    14. They provide action-reflection experiences for participants in emotional, physical, and spiritual ways.
    15. They change lives and career paths.

    Each of these points could be expanded. There are no doubt others to add too. But, as I’ve said here, and previously, these benefits give good impetus for short-term teams and their value to the church.

  • Defining The Short-Term Mission Team

    In recent years there has been much written decrying the short-term mission trip. Thankfully, there has been much written promoting healthy ways to engage in short-term mission trips too. But for a number of year now there have been a plethora of articles on the issue of short-term teams and whether they are actually beneficial to anyone.

    And in many ways much of what they say is right.

    Defining The Short-Term Mission Team

    For over 60 years the short-term mission trip–where a gaggle of young people raise money, buy new clothes, luggage, and gifts, and spend time in a culture that is not their own, all for the sake of believing they are helping people-–has been one of the sexiest things the church has been doing.

    And of course there are plenty of caveats that should be said here.

    • No doubt many people have been helped because of these trips.
    • Many who have gone on these trips have grown themselves. 
    • And, some have even turned their short-term experience into a long-term missionary career.

    And that’s great.

    Truly, it is. 

    But knowing that over $2 billion dollars is spent on short-term teams per year, and many who go leave the experience behind them, then serious questions are worth asking.

    Having been on these types of teams, helped numerous churches facilitate them, and continue to lead these teams, I still believe they are worthwhile.

    I believe that with a good framework these teams can become a terrific investment for individuals, the local church, and the church-at-large.

    Over the coming weeks I will be publishing a series outlining a healthy approach to short-term teams, giving adequate thought to preparation, delivery, and debrief.

    But first, it is helpful to start with some definitions.

    Defining The Short-Term Mission Team

    Before outlining a framework it is worth defining what a short-term team is.

    First, short-term teams can be defined by length.

    Some organisations have teams that only last a week. Other organisations classify short-term up to two years. That’s a big difference. For the purposes of defining short-term teams in this series I think of them lasting up to three weeks in duration.

    Second, short-term teams can be defined by what participants actually do.

    (1) Some teams spend time linking up with another church in another city, in their home country, and do mission-type activities together.

    (2) Some teams involve going to a majority world country and helping an organisation in that country by painting their building, or their church, or a local school. This is the project-type team, which spends the majority of time doing a practical project in a particular place.

    (3) Some teams spend a few weeks exploring the life and culture of a different country, visiting the work that is already going on in that place. This then involves lots of observation, cultural activities, and asking key questions to workers and missionaries already there. In this team there is a recognition that 2-3 weeks in a particular country won’t make much of a difference, except for the participants themselves.

    (4) And finally, some teams are ‘longer’ short-term teams whereby the participants learn the language and culture of where they are going and spend significant time in one city, connected with one or two particular ministries going on in that place.

    Third, short-term teams can be defined by their destination.

    If the team is going to a developing country then it is more likely to be seen as a ‘proper’ short-term team. A team visiting their own country, or at least a place with a similar culture and language, may consider themselves more a partnership team, or just a few people from a church serving in another place for a short period.

    There may be other ways to define what a short-term team is, but I believe this covers most of what would be expected and understood by churches, mission groups, and other voluntourism organisations. And this leads me to define these short-term teams as:

    “A group of up to a dozen Christians, spending up to three weeks, specifically exploring the idea of mission in a context that is culturally and linguistically different to their home culture.”

    What about you? How would you define these short-term teams?

    Having this definition will help us think through some of the benefits of these short-term teams before helping us unpack some foundational thoughts about a healthy framework for short-term missions. This is where we will turn to next in our series. I hope you will join me.