WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!

First of all, let me say that I believe in the second blessing.  I believe that there are three stages in our journey:

1. When we believe that Jesus died for our sins, we turn from those sins and to God, and we are then declared righteous by the grace of God (Please note I do not believe we could make this decision without the Holy Spirit being present and operating within us);
2. At some later stage (although it can be almost simultaneous), the Holy Spirit enters us and fills us in a more complete way, sanctifying us; and
3. At death, (or at the second coming of Christ), we are glorified by God

In other words:

1. We are declared not guilty (as the penalty has been paid for us);
2. We are then made holy; and
3. We are glorified (This seems to me to be a state that is somehow even better than that of being "wholly sanctified"!)

The journey I am taking in this blog is to discuss just what it actually means to be wholly sanctified by the Holy Spirit.  And to do so, it seems prudent to first look at just what sin is in our lives, and what our standing is with God prior to sanctification.

I will deal with these in my next two posts, but I want to keep each post  on one topic only to allow for better discussion.

So, I would appreciate comments on the above first.  Do you agree with my three stages? Do you have any thoughts on the difference between sanctification and glorification?  Can you clear the fog for me around glorification?

God bless

OK, so I decided to keep this blog limited to more specific issues such as holiness etc and what happens... Gavin tags me and I immediately put inane stuff on it.

To make sure that it doesn't happen again, I'm moving the more mundane stuff to a "Pownce" site.  It's a new social networking site from the designers of DIGG and it has the benefit of posting and reading from a neat little programme on your computer.

If you want to an invite to Pownce I have 5 left, so post a reply...  Otherwise use the feeds on the right to subscribe via reader or email

My next post on Holiness will follow shortly, but first, I have been "tagged" by Gavin Knight...

ONE

I have a beautiful wife (Raewyn), and three wonderful kids (Ant [18], James [15] and Gabrielle [10])

TWO

My wife and I pastor a church in Wellington.  At one stage, as well as my wife, there were also two of ex-girlfriends in the congregation. (One with the same first name as my wife!)

THREE

I really enjoy sport and have played softball at representative level (colts), cricket at "Premier" level (one game only!) and hockey at "Premier 1" level.

FOUR

I believe that, without a doubt, baseball is the best and purest sport in the world.  I am probably the Red Sox biggest supporter within New Zealand (although there may be some Beantown natives at Operation Deep Freeze in Christchurch who may disagree.)

FIVE

I turn 50 next year.  Aaaarrrggghhh

SIX

My all time favourite movie remains "The Sound of Music", with "American Graffiti" following closely behind.

SEVEN

For some reasons my parents gave me two middle names, (while my four siblings only got one).  Maybe it was to make up for my Dad having no middle name, or maybe it was because Mum had two...

EIGHT

I enjoy cryptic crosswords, interesting board games (Risk, Puerto Rico etc), and most things competitive.

I tag:

Christine B
Christine D
Rachie
Ukie Wookie
Karen

When I was being interviewed before being accepted for training as a Salvation Army officer, one cunning interviewer asked me, "What do you think The Salvation Army most needs right now?"  My answer was instinctively,

"That we need to teach holiness more."

To which he said,

"And what do you think holiness is?"

I gulped, (and inwardly berated myself for not foreseeing this follow up question), and replied somewhat naively that it was being more Christ-like.

Well, now I've been an officer for about two and a half years and I have a much better understanding.  That said, most of my understanding now comes from the fact that I know that I don't know so much of the picture.  It's a case of the more I learn, the more I realise there is to learn.  In a way I envy those, (on both side of the current debate), who have their precise position tied down with such certainty!

The most pleasing thing about recent debate is that there seems to be an agreement that The Salvation Army, (and the church in general??), needs to rediscover holiness.  The least pleasing thing is that the debate occasionally turns personal and this reflects badly on Christianity as a whole. :(

This then is the start of my rambling journey towards a better knowledge and experience of true holiness.  And hopefully the start of better teaching within any church that I have the honour of serving in.

The title of this post comes from a book of the same name by J. Sidlow Baxter.  We think this new call is extremely recent, but this book was first published in 1967.  I am extremely grateful to Majors Ray (deceased) and Gladys Ford for their kind gifts of many books to Raewyn and myself when we entered Training College.  This is one of those books.

The purpose of using a book like this in my journey is to more provide a structure for my study than to quote verbatim and believe entirely.  I will often refer to other commentators, (from all sides of the holiness debate), and more importantly, I ask that my readers offer their comments as I believe this will help my understanding.  It may even be a time we can grow together!

God bless you as you take this journey with me.

two months since I last blogged!  Sorry about that all of you who keep checking.

Anyway, in my busyness I've felt led to restart blogging, but with more of a specific purpose.  In the past, this has really been a bit about this and that.  Some Leadership, some Baseball, some Team stuff.  Well... no more!

From now on this blog will be specifically about my spiritual journey as I try to hear just what it is that God is telling me.  Where that takes me, well, only God knows, but I can tell you that he has put on my heart the issue of personal holiness.

As I'm wired the way I am, this means I'll be blogging about theology and practice.  I'm looking forward to the journey and hope you'll come along with me... commenting as you go.

God bless

Raewyn and I had the pleasure to attend a spiritual day at The Salvation Army's School for Officer Training last Thursday.

We sat under the teaching of our Territorial Commander and his wife, Commissioners Garth and Mel McKenzie and appreciated their passion and wisdom.

The most notable thing for me was that we got to spend a whole day in "spiritual retreat mode".  This doesn't really happen all that often when you're a Corps Officer (pastor).  I guess it's because Sundays become one of the most pressured days of the week when you're responsible for the service.

When we were actually in college ourselves, (only 3 odd years ago), I enjoyed spiritual days (once a month IIRC) but have to be honest and say I didn't realise their full significance and importance until we weren't getting them.

Food for thought.  Maybe it's a case of "the busier I am, the more time I need to take out to be with God"

I've heard and read just so much nonsense about this vexed question!

People on both sides are quoting some incredible reasons for their point of view.  Everything from:

No trial because the Privy Council have found him "Not Guilty"

Which is patently wrong, to

Yes another trial because otherwise he will get substantial compensation

Oh dear...  what to say about that one.

I also don't hold to no trial because you couldn't find an unbiased jury.  That's probably the case with almost any trial (if you really look at juror's presuppositions and prejudices).  The trial judge would merely have to be very precise and clear about what the jury are to base their decision on.

The real answer is actually quite simple.  If, with the facts that are currently available, the case would pass the threshold that would be applied for any brand new case, (eg.  A 70% chance of a guilty verdict or whatever the criteria currently used is), a trial should go ahead.  If not, don't bring it to trial.

As for compensation, if the case doesn't go ahead or if a new trial finds him not guilty, then he should be adequately compensated for his unjustified loss of freedom.

Which is better, and in what way?

Personally, although I admire the "mega-church" attitude to growth, (as long as it's growth by conversion, not by sheep-stealing), I've always felt that there are some things missing.

Now an article by David Fitch which I saw in Out of Ur has encapsulated many of my thoughts.  Although it talks about why it's more difficult to pastor the small church, I believe many of the difficulties are also reasons why the small church can be more growth oriented for the individual also (you can't hide so easily!).

I've copied the whole piece (apologies to Out of Ur if I shouldn't have!):

My recent conversation with Bill Kinnon over the big church superstar mentality spurred me on to think of my own experience as a church planter. I have often pondered the church planter's task versus the mega church pastor's. To me, what the smaller, organic, missional community leaders do is much more difficult. Here's why.

It is more difficult to take 10 people and grow a body of Christ to 150 than it is to transplant 200 or 300 people and then grow that congregation to 5,000. A crowd draws a crowd. From day one if you have all the bells and whistles, 5 full time pastors, a youth program, and a charismatic speaker with spiked hair (a shot not aimed at anyone in particular) and you don't mind putting the smaller community churches out of business, it will be harder to stop attracting a big crowd.

(BTW, did you know that statistics say that small church growth (from 10-150) is where the conversion growth, as opposed to transfer growth, occurs? Why then do evangelicals exalt the mega congregations as the answer to reaching those outside of Christ?)

It is more difficult to preach a sermon to 100 people than to 8,000 people. Of course, there are some of my emerging co-laborers who don't believe in preaching per se. I believe in proclamation of the new reality, the calling of truth into being, and my thoughts on expository preaching are already out there. My point here is that preaching to 100 people you actually know and live with is a lot harder than preaching to 8000 people, 99% of whom you don't know. It is not that it is harder to be vulnerable in a larger crowd. It is that in a space of 100 people you are more vulnerable when so many know you. You are naked.

And I might add, I've preached for our own congregation of 100+ and I've preached for 1000+, and my experience is that a joke is 10 times easier to pull off in a large audience than in a small one. (Not that I should be trying to tell jokes in my sermon but you all know what I'm talking about.)

It is more difficult to deal with conflict and leadership in a small church where our conflicts, our vision, our weaknesses must all be talked about and worked through. In small, organic, church leadership we must do the hard work of owning our weaknesses and speaking truth in love to other leaders. It's hard but we grow. In mega-sized corporate churches leadership and organization is much easier because you can just fire people/employees.

It is more difficult to build a live body of Christ where his powers are made manifest and his mission is sent forth, and poor people are actually recognized and loved, and where a politic takes shape which subverts the consumerist depersonalizing forces of our day than it is to build large mega churches that play on the consumerist forces that rule our culture and play right into church marketing programs.

It is more difficult to organically engage people's lives than it is to become a media figure for Christians looking for the next hip thing. They can simply buy your book and drive to your church. Then you do not have to deal with everyday details of people's lives. You take the show on the road to promote the idea that you started this church and overnight it turned into 4,000 people and you couldn't stop it. The mythology grows and young church planters with visions dancing in their heads become depressed and defeated when the same things do not happen to them.

It is more difficult to build a gathering that is a mission in the world, than it is to build a gathering that comes to see the show. It is more difficult to build a gathering into being the Body of Christ than it is to build a crowd around a personality. Yes it is more difficult, but in the end so much more satisfying. And when you're gone this community will keep reproducing the love of Christ, the fruits of the Spirit, and the leader(s) to carry on the transformation of the world until Christ returns.

For these reasons, to me the real heroes are the missional pastors who raise up the organic communities that take different shapes and manifest the presence of Christ in their neighborhoods. Yet status quo evangelicalism knows no other way but to extol the virtues of the mega-sized personalities at mega-sized conferences. In the process those who would be missional church pastors are demoralized, leave the pastorate, or just give up.

Have I overstated my rant? If so I apologize ahead of time. May the Holy Spirit burn away any chaff that I have written and use the rest to encourage any discouraged missional community leaders for the glory of His Kingdom.

By the way, my wife and I pastor a church which has a current Sunday morning congregation of 250ish.  This church was planted about 12 years ago with less than 20 people (not by us - we've only been the pastors for 2 and a bit years).  This congregation continues to grow through God's grace.  (Bear in mind that in New Zealand, a mega-church probably has a congregation of 1,000 to 3,000).

So here's the question then.  At what stage of our growth (because to stop growing would mean we were not fulfilling our God given mission of "making disciples") would we need to take action to keep each congregation small enough to maintain the benefits and challenges associated above?  And what should that action be?