We need more shack time

I appreciated Paul Grimmond's critique of The Shack: it is needed. You might want to check out William P Young's connections to C Baxter Kruger and his Perichoresis Ministries, especially given their November speaking tour of Australia. Kruger's fascinating re-frame of the gospel is the next ‘evangelical’ gospel aberration requiring a vigorous response, I suspect. The novel is marinated in his theological perspective—a perspective which is intensely appealing.

George Glanville of Blaxland, NSW AUS (06/11/2008)

I wonder if Tony Payne creates a reductionist focus in pointing the church to act like a “fellowship of the redeemed” when it gathers (Briefing #362, ‘Is church for evangelism?‘). In the descriptive ministry of Jesus, he turned effortlessly to the mix of his listeners (Luke 12). Paul could ask his readers to “examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Cor 13:5).

The assembly is always going to be a mixed gathering, and the pastoral role is to know that “faith comes from hearing” (Rom 10:17)—sometimes saving faith and sometimes growing faith.

True, it would be a pity to treat the believers as unbelievers (or the unbelievers as believers), but all can be exhorted to focus on Christ. Let's not call the two-edged church a single blade, or ask the saints to look ‘in’ but not ‘out’ in their pastoral work. A single focus may be assuming a pure church too soon.

Simon Manchester of North Sydney, NSW, AUS (25/11/2008)

I was blown away by ‘10 ways to discourage your husband in ministry‘. As I sat to peruse The Briefing (a useful and godly delaying tactic instead of tackling the housework), I began reading point 10: ‘Keep your home messy‘. It was like an arrow to the heart. I had never looked upon my shortcomings as a housewife in that way. As I surveyed each horizontal surface laden with clutter, I was horrified and challenged. Thank you for such a blunt and thought-provoking article.

Sheridan Buchanan of Randwick, NSW, AUS (25/11/2008)

Thank you to Carmelina and Karen for their excellent article ‘10 ways to discourage your husband in ministry’. Speaking in the negative gave so much more scope for explaining what encouragement looks like—and it also gave us a chance to laugh at ourselves. I appreciated it. Thank you!

Belinda Hopper of North Bunderim, QLD, AUS (25/11/2008)

After thinking long and hard before writing, I have decided to put pen to paper, and let you at The Briefing know how disappointed and even angry I was with Lionel Windsor's comments in ‘Welcoming children’ (November 2008). I get the feeling that Lionel forgot when to stop. The first half of his column is a timely reminder of the blessing of children. But in the second half of his comment, Lionel slipped into making some generalizations that are unhelpful, unfounded and unchristian.

The first was “However, it's not really true that overpopulation itself is causing the strain on the earth's resources ... it is human greed.” It is true that western consumerism and greed is sucking up the earth's resources. But it is also true that the sheer number of people on the earth is having an enormous strain on the earth: food, water, energy, clothing, housing. More people means more consumption means more strain on the environment. The population has more than doubled since 1960 to over 6.7 billion people. Such a significant increase does have effects on our resources.

It is very informative to read a report or two about the world situation. A UNFPA report presented in 2001 states, “The1994 ICPD recognised the interconnectedness of slowing population growth, reducing poverty, achieving economic progress, protecting the environment, and reducing unsustainable consumption and production”.¹

Everywhere we look, the earth's resources are under pressure: fish, fresh water, levels of pollution, forests, pollution in the oceans, extinction of plant and animal species. It is hard to know how Lionel could simplify the whole matter down to greed without taking into account the number of greedy people living on this planet.

The second generalization is pretty shocking: “The strain on the earth's resources would be stopped overnight if we all became content with what we had ...” I wonder how Lionel came to that conclusion. And I wonder who he is addressing this statement to. Was he talking to me, living in France, where we have central heating, several pairs of shoes and running water? Well, I guess I could try to be content with what I have. He tells me to be happy with my lot, but that is easy, given that my lifestyle is as though I have just won Lotto, compared to the vast majority of the world's population. Or is he talking to those who have no running water, no health care and no home—those whose children who are sick because there is no medication?

Furthermore, the strain on the earth's resources would not be stopped overnight if we in the West just sat pretty and were grateful for what we have. To maintain our outrageous style of living is already too costly. A little article appeared in The Daily Telegraph that throws some light on the situation: “Australians use more resources to maintain their lifestyle than nearly all other developed nations … Australia's ecological footprint rose from 6.6 global hectares per person to 7.8 gha per person since the 2006 report. The global average is 2.7 gha per person.”²

So it is not true that all we Australians (and Americans and Englishmen) have to do is just to sit pretty and be happy. In addition, this is hardly a Christian approach to the situation. We Christians are called to be generous to those who are poor. 2 Corinthians 8 calls me to give to others, not hold on to what I have and be content.

The final statement that is unhelpful and even arrogant is the call for Christians to have more children, and then to be such godly parents that they can teach their children be to less greedy. This is indeed a very tall order. I have read that “A child born today in an industrialised country will add more to consumption and pollution over his or her lifetime than 30-50 children born in developing countries”.³

I wonder how it is possible for me to halve the amount my kids consume. That means a bath a week, instead of every night; no private education; no backyard swimming pools; no eating meat; no privately owned cars; no computers. I can't even bring my own lifestyle back to what is reasonable. The mere fact that a child is born in a western country will mean that he consumes 30-50 times more than children born in developing countries.

Instead of Lionel lightly weighing in on such a touchy matter as family planning and encouraging Christians to have more children, why doesn't he call us to have less children? Or why aren't we Christians adopting children from poor countries.

I think what really upset me about Lionel's comments is that they were just not thought through. ‘Up Front’ must surely be intelligent blatant opinions, not just opinions. What Lionel wrote about touches enormous and interrelated topics: greed, generosity, ecology, family planning (when will we hear a sermon about this topic?), sin in the world, the Lord's Day of Judgement, the new heavens and the new earth. Really, The Briefing should devote an entire edition, not just a few throwaway lines.

¹ ‘Footprints and Milestones: Population and Environmental Change’, report for the United Nations Population Fund, 2001, p. 8.

² The Daily Telegraph, 30 October 2008.

³ ‘Footprints and Milestones’, p. 6.

Sandra King of Strasbourg, France (15/01/2009)