Over the last week or so a bible verse has been going around in my head. It's one I first read (or was really aware of reading) when on enquiry. Since then, it pops into my head when I maybe need a bit of reassurance or am about to step out in faith, with the hope what I am doing is following God's calling.
So, what's the verse? "The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged." (Deut 31:8) All through enquiry and training I've felt God's leading me. There have been things which have discouraged me, but I have kept on climbing the path I am heading along, reassured I shouldn't be afraid or discouraged. The bottom line, I think, is this verse tells me 'God's got your back and has prepared the way for you,' which is pretty awesome.
So, I sort of wondered why it was swirling around my head at the beginning of last week. As I discovered last September, there are no guarantees in the training process. Yet, on Thursday I received confirmation of where I will serve probation and since Sunday have been making plans for beginning dates and going with some members of Airside Kirk to Malawi. All without the certainty my next annual review will be okay.
It's not being arrogant. I have definitely learnt they are not plain sailing. No, I am trusting God, knowing he goes to prepare the way for me and, with that knowledge, I should not be afraid or discouraged. Now I know why that verse was in my head (and still is). God is pretty cool and is giving me exactly what I need. And I trust in him, setting aside fear and anxiety to follow.
Showing posts with label biblical reflection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biblical reflection. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Friday, 29 November 2013
Armour of light
Last night I was writing my draft sermon for Sunday. The readings I'm using for Sunday are Matthew 24:36-44 and Romans 13:11-14, though the focus is on Romans (to my surprise - I'm still trying to work out Paul).
The phrase which really caught my eye was about putting "on an armour of light." I just loved the imagery - though me being me I think of medieval knights in armour, not Roman solider, which Paul would have been thinking of. Also wished Quarry Kirk had AV (well, they have A, no V), as I've some great photos of armour, which might have been useful for getting people thinking.
I suppose my thoughts turning to medieval armour may actually be a 'better' image, as late medieval armour of the collective consciousness covered the whole body, allowing maximum protection for the wearer. But is Paul talking about getting protection from the armour? I'm not too sure.
To the people he was writing to, their image would have been of a Roman solider, whose armour was functional, protective and worked best when the soldiers worked together, interlocking their shields. In this formation, they were pretty invincible and their array impenetrable. This only happened when they stood shoulder to shoulder with their neighbour. If one flinched or failed to hold the line, the whole system failed. Also, given the way Roman soldiers fought, they relied on the person next to them to cover their vulnerable side, as they thrust forward with their right hand with their sword, that side would be exposed, and needed protected by their neighbour.
So, maybe the armour of light Paul talks of not only is a change from old ways of life - a way of preparedness for the coming of Christ - but something which needs the whole community to do. Then, like the Roman soldier, they can look out for one another. They can support and protect each other. They can cover the others side. Then, those outwith the community will see the difference, not just to one or two individuals, but to the whole community of believers. And the community of believers putting on their armour of light can be a benefit for their wider community - as they put behind drunkenness and debauchery etc, etc, exchanging it for light - light which is shown in their love for God and love for neighbour.
The downside to armour, though, is it can put up barriers. It conveys a specific message about a group or person's job and intent. Soldiers can bring war, as well as help maintain peace. The armour of light should bring peace.
Another downside to armour, especially medieval armour, is it's heavy and hard to wear. So, it was only put on for tournaments or battle. The armour of light Paul was talking about needs to be on all the time, not just when things get tough or we need to demonstrate our strength/show off.
The only way we can make sure the armour of light is on all the time is to pray, read (the bible) and worship. To do so, especially the latter, as part of a community. From the community we'll receive support and encouragement - which we can offer them.
I wonder how that works for the minister in a parish church, though. I've experienced churches who look after their minister and where their minister feels as much a part of the worshipping congregation as any other member. I've also seen (and heard of) churches where the minister is almost seen as a paid employee, their to serve the congregation and parish, but where no one necessarily thinks to offer them support and encouragement. I know which I'd prefer (and, in fact, need). Then I will be able to put on my armour of light in the knowledge I do not stand alone, but am supported on all sides.
The phrase which really caught my eye was about putting "on an armour of light." I just loved the imagery - though me being me I think of medieval knights in armour, not Roman solider, which Paul would have been thinking of. Also wished Quarry Kirk had AV (well, they have A, no V), as I've some great photos of armour, which might have been useful for getting people thinking.
I suppose my thoughts turning to medieval armour may actually be a 'better' image, as late medieval armour of the collective consciousness covered the whole body, allowing maximum protection for the wearer. But is Paul talking about getting protection from the armour? I'm not too sure.
To the people he was writing to, their image would have been of a Roman solider, whose armour was functional, protective and worked best when the soldiers worked together, interlocking their shields. In this formation, they were pretty invincible and their array impenetrable. This only happened when they stood shoulder to shoulder with their neighbour. If one flinched or failed to hold the line, the whole system failed. Also, given the way Roman soldiers fought, they relied on the person next to them to cover their vulnerable side, as they thrust forward with their right hand with their sword, that side would be exposed, and needed protected by their neighbour.
So, maybe the armour of light Paul talks of not only is a change from old ways of life - a way of preparedness for the coming of Christ - but something which needs the whole community to do. Then, like the Roman soldier, they can look out for one another. They can support and protect each other. They can cover the others side. Then, those outwith the community will see the difference, not just to one or two individuals, but to the whole community of believers. And the community of believers putting on their armour of light can be a benefit for their wider community - as they put behind drunkenness and debauchery etc, etc, exchanging it for light - light which is shown in their love for God and love for neighbour.
The downside to armour, though, is it can put up barriers. It conveys a specific message about a group or person's job and intent. Soldiers can bring war, as well as help maintain peace. The armour of light should bring peace.
Another downside to armour, especially medieval armour, is it's heavy and hard to wear. So, it was only put on for tournaments or battle. The armour of light Paul was talking about needs to be on all the time, not just when things get tough or we need to demonstrate our strength/show off.
The only way we can make sure the armour of light is on all the time is to pray, read (the bible) and worship. To do so, especially the latter, as part of a community. From the community we'll receive support and encouragement - which we can offer them.
I wonder how that works for the minister in a parish church, though. I've experienced churches who look after their minister and where their minister feels as much a part of the worshipping congregation as any other member. I've also seen (and heard of) churches where the minister is almost seen as a paid employee, their to serve the congregation and parish, but where no one necessarily thinks to offer them support and encouragement. I know which I'd prefer (and, in fact, need). Then I will be able to put on my armour of light in the knowledge I do not stand alone, but am supported on all sides.
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Salt of the world
I've been thinking about Jesus' saying his followers about them (and us) being "Salt of the world" (Matthew 5:13) and it's implications for the church and individual Christians in their interaction with the world. I know part of my reflecting on this is driven by my own theology, while being on placement with a very different one. In that tension, I suppose I am trying to justify why I believe in a God who will and does save all the world.
As someone who doesn't really cook with salt, and with the healthy eating stuff we encounter day to day, perhaps this analogy needs updating. To what, I'm not sure. One thing I am sure of, though, is I notice when food has been salted. I'm probably more attuned to it precisely because I do not cook with it. Bread, though, does need just a little, other wise, it's flavourless (and the yeast takes over a bit too much, which can result in a dry, crumbly textured loaf BTW).
And these two things got me thinking. Lets start with the salt in foods when I'm not used to them. I notice the salt, but sometimes because I am noticing it, I no longer taste the food. For those of us who have weened ourselves off salt in cooking, you begin to taste things as they are, really appreciating the flavours. Salt merely enhances them, but if you are attuned to their tastes, salt isn't as necessary. Maybe the Christian life should be like that. For those who are attuned to God's love, whoever they experience it, do they really need us to be salt for them? Do they just see the church and, depending on how salty it is, that gets in their why of seeing and knowing God. The saltiness of the church can mask the love of God...
On the other hand, though, when even a couple of grains of salt are added to a dish, it penetrates the whole. No part of the dish does not have the taste of salt, even though it may only be a subtle change in the dish. Might even be enough to help those who are not used to really tasting food in it's 'unsalted' state to really appreciate the flavours of the dish in all its fullness. Now, thinking of that in relation to Jesus' words - the church being salt of the earth, just a little, all through the world, might just be enough to help people to know God's love for them. To understand and know him in ways they never could if that subtle amount of salt were not in their world. I'd like to minister in the sort of church which tried to do that - encouraging and enabling all in their relationship with God, through the church being flavour in people's work, rest and play.
That would make the church truly salt for the world.
As someone who doesn't really cook with salt, and with the healthy eating stuff we encounter day to day, perhaps this analogy needs updating. To what, I'm not sure. One thing I am sure of, though, is I notice when food has been salted. I'm probably more attuned to it precisely because I do not cook with it. Bread, though, does need just a little, other wise, it's flavourless (and the yeast takes over a bit too much, which can result in a dry, crumbly textured loaf BTW).
And these two things got me thinking. Lets start with the salt in foods when I'm not used to them. I notice the salt, but sometimes because I am noticing it, I no longer taste the food. For those of us who have weened ourselves off salt in cooking, you begin to taste things as they are, really appreciating the flavours. Salt merely enhances them, but if you are attuned to their tastes, salt isn't as necessary. Maybe the Christian life should be like that. For those who are attuned to God's love, whoever they experience it, do they really need us to be salt for them? Do they just see the church and, depending on how salty it is, that gets in their why of seeing and knowing God. The saltiness of the church can mask the love of God...
On the other hand, though, when even a couple of grains of salt are added to a dish, it penetrates the whole. No part of the dish does not have the taste of salt, even though it may only be a subtle change in the dish. Might even be enough to help those who are not used to really tasting food in it's 'unsalted' state to really appreciate the flavours of the dish in all its fullness. Now, thinking of that in relation to Jesus' words - the church being salt of the earth, just a little, all through the world, might just be enough to help people to know God's love for them. To understand and know him in ways they never could if that subtle amount of salt were not in their world. I'd like to minister in the sort of church which tried to do that - encouraging and enabling all in their relationship with God, through the church being flavour in people's work, rest and play.
That would make the church truly salt for the world.
Monday, 7 January 2013
Believing what I was taught
I get a daily bible reflection and prayer. It's short, but it makes me think (and I don't always agree with what's said), while ensuring I have some sort of regular devotional time.
Today's passage was 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and verse 14 especially struck home -"But as for you, continue in what you have learnt and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learnt it." This immediately made me think of all the people who influenced and taught me as a grew up; people within and outwith the church. Their teachings were always about love, not hate; inclusiveness, not exclusion; of questioning, not certainty. They have given me a certain moral standard, a certain way of looking at the world, a particular way of living out my faith. That, I know, both influences my theology and my attitudes to those without a Christian faith. Some would even describe me as a liberal because of this, but I hate labels. And, no matter how liberal and open minded a person is, there will always be the barrier, where they say 'no, I cannot sign up to that.'
So, if all a person has ever been taught and experienced is from a certain theology, do they accept what they are being told or begin to question it, in light of their experience and scripture reading? Or, are their congregations which would not tolerate questioning or have a hundred reasons that person was wrong (my challenge, in that circumstance, is to offer 101 reasons why I wasn't - it has happened). Even more, though, it makes me wonder if a person has been brought up a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist are they really going to convert to Christianity? Surely, most people keep the faith they have been brought up in, especially where the predominant culture is influenced by that faith tradition? In that case, can they be saved? Are they part of God's salvation plan? I think so. That's what I was brought up with and what I think the overarching theme of scripture is. Because I know a God of love. Love will not exclude anyone. Love is patient and kind. Love will wait as long as it takes to bring humanity back to love. That is what I believe, because that is what I was taught.
Today's passage was 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and verse 14 especially struck home -"But as for you, continue in what you have learnt and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learnt it." This immediately made me think of all the people who influenced and taught me as a grew up; people within and outwith the church. Their teachings were always about love, not hate; inclusiveness, not exclusion; of questioning, not certainty. They have given me a certain moral standard, a certain way of looking at the world, a particular way of living out my faith. That, I know, both influences my theology and my attitudes to those without a Christian faith. Some would even describe me as a liberal because of this, but I hate labels. And, no matter how liberal and open minded a person is, there will always be the barrier, where they say 'no, I cannot sign up to that.'
So, if all a person has ever been taught and experienced is from a certain theology, do they accept what they are being told or begin to question it, in light of their experience and scripture reading? Or, are their congregations which would not tolerate questioning or have a hundred reasons that person was wrong (my challenge, in that circumstance, is to offer 101 reasons why I wasn't - it has happened). Even more, though, it makes me wonder if a person has been brought up a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist are they really going to convert to Christianity? Surely, most people keep the faith they have been brought up in, especially where the predominant culture is influenced by that faith tradition? In that case, can they be saved? Are they part of God's salvation plan? I think so. That's what I was brought up with and what I think the overarching theme of scripture is. Because I know a God of love. Love will not exclude anyone. Love is patient and kind. Love will wait as long as it takes to bring humanity back to love. That is what I believe, because that is what I was taught.
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
The light shines in the darkness
(This is triggered by Isaiah 9:2-7, but is more a general reflection)
Christmas fascinates me, even though I am not a huge fan. The secular and profane combined. Whether Christians like it or not, this is a festival almost everyone in the western world celebrates. In Britain, I suppose it's our festival of light. It occurs just at the time of year when the shortest day has occurred and, though barely perceptible, the days are lengthening.
Christmas is the interface between the dark and the light; between despair and hope; between hate and love. In many ways, it is only possible to understand one in relation to the other. Would we know light, would we understand light, if we'd only ever experienced dark? There are creatures in very deep caves, which have evolved there for eons, which have never experienced light. They have no eyes and do not even have a way of experiencing light. So complete was their darkness, the means to detect light had been evolved from them.
And even those of us who do know light sometimes fine it had to deal with. If I were to look directly at the sun, it would cause irrepairable damage to my retina. When a white sheet is hung out to dry on a bright day, any slight flaw, any blemish is all too noticeable under the glare of the sun.
Yet, ever day of my life, I choose to walk in the light. The light which God gives me, which God gives the whole world. The light which is God. The light which exposes all which is blemished and flawed in me; the light which cleanses too; the light which shines through me. Just like a sheet hanging out in bright sun, through God's light may be behind me, I cannot help but allow it to pass out through me. What a burden and privilege, especially as a minister I will be, for many, the representation of God in the world. But how can people know God, if not through the light which I carry within me?
Then maybe I can hold up those who do not know love or hope or light, that through my actions and words they will come to know them. In doing so, they will come to know God.
Christmas fascinates me, even though I am not a huge fan. The secular and profane combined. Whether Christians like it or not, this is a festival almost everyone in the western world celebrates. In Britain, I suppose it's our festival of light. It occurs just at the time of year when the shortest day has occurred and, though barely perceptible, the days are lengthening.
Christmas is the interface between the dark and the light; between despair and hope; between hate and love. In many ways, it is only possible to understand one in relation to the other. Would we know light, would we understand light, if we'd only ever experienced dark? There are creatures in very deep caves, which have evolved there for eons, which have never experienced light. They have no eyes and do not even have a way of experiencing light. So complete was their darkness, the means to detect light had been evolved from them.
And even those of us who do know light sometimes fine it had to deal with. If I were to look directly at the sun, it would cause irrepairable damage to my retina. When a white sheet is hung out to dry on a bright day, any slight flaw, any blemish is all too noticeable under the glare of the sun.
Yet, ever day of my life, I choose to walk in the light. The light which God gives me, which God gives the whole world. The light which is God. The light which exposes all which is blemished and flawed in me; the light which cleanses too; the light which shines through me. Just like a sheet hanging out in bright sun, through God's light may be behind me, I cannot help but allow it to pass out through me. What a burden and privilege, especially as a minister I will be, for many, the representation of God in the world. But how can people know God, if not through the light which I carry within me?
Then maybe I can hold up those who do not know love or hope or light, that through my actions and words they will come to know them. In doing so, they will come to know God.
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Running the race
I have been keeping up with the Olympics with interest. What I have been especially impressed with has been the sportsmanship of almost all the competitors. They have been trying their best, even when it was unlikely they would do well enough to gain one of the much coveted medals. It would be so easy to just not bother giving their all and feel defeated before they even started, due to the impression that it wasn't going to result in a medal.
To even get to the Olympics, never mind anything else, is a major achievement. No one should be knocked for now coming in the top 3. They are there and that takes guts, determination, discipline, training and commitment to get there. Add to that the pressure of competing on a global stage in what is, for most sports, the pinnacle of sporting endeavour. I especially feel for the members of Team GB - though the crowds are obviously backing their team, I think that is a double edged sword for the athletes - the support of the crowd, but with the added expectation from the crowd (real or perceived).
And this all makes me think of the church - this group of people who follow Christ. We are called to run the race for Christ in such a way as to try to win the race (1 Corth 9:24-27). How do we do that?
By committing to Christ, in body, mind and soul.
By trusting God, even when the training is hard and nothing seems to be improving.
By being the best we can be, in the way we live our lives and treat others.
By taking the risk that we may lose the earthly race, but in the sure and certain knowledge we are running for eternal life.
But that isn't just for us, it is for the whole world. Only in being the best people we can be, in mirroring in our daily lives the way of life Jesus taught his followers, can we take the message of God's kingdom to the world. It is outwith the churches most people encounter Christianity these days. Are we a good example or holier than thou? Sometimes I think the Kirk can be the latter - hiding behind the banner of "we are the Church of Scotland" and not reaching out beyond the bricks and mortar into peoples lives. It is in how we, as the whole body of Christ, show compassion, grace and love in our daily lives that we will win the race, not for our own sakes, but the sakes of everyone we encounter in our ordinary lives, if we live them in and for God.
(Mmmh - this started as a reflection and has sort of turned into a sermon. Normal service will resume shortly!).
To even get to the Olympics, never mind anything else, is a major achievement. No one should be knocked for now coming in the top 3. They are there and that takes guts, determination, discipline, training and commitment to get there. Add to that the pressure of competing on a global stage in what is, for most sports, the pinnacle of sporting endeavour. I especially feel for the members of Team GB - though the crowds are obviously backing their team, I think that is a double edged sword for the athletes - the support of the crowd, but with the added expectation from the crowd (real or perceived).
And this all makes me think of the church - this group of people who follow Christ. We are called to run the race for Christ in such a way as to try to win the race (1 Corth 9:24-27). How do we do that?
By committing to Christ, in body, mind and soul.
By trusting God, even when the training is hard and nothing seems to be improving.
By being the best we can be, in the way we live our lives and treat others.
By taking the risk that we may lose the earthly race, but in the sure and certain knowledge we are running for eternal life.
But that isn't just for us, it is for the whole world. Only in being the best people we can be, in mirroring in our daily lives the way of life Jesus taught his followers, can we take the message of God's kingdom to the world. It is outwith the churches most people encounter Christianity these days. Are we a good example or holier than thou? Sometimes I think the Kirk can be the latter - hiding behind the banner of "we are the Church of Scotland" and not reaching out beyond the bricks and mortar into peoples lives. It is in how we, as the whole body of Christ, show compassion, grace and love in our daily lives that we will win the race, not for our own sakes, but the sakes of everyone we encounter in our ordinary lives, if we live them in and for God.
(Mmmh - this started as a reflection and has sort of turned into a sermon. Normal service will resume shortly!).
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
One more step
I led the last of the full services I am to lead during this placement yesterday. And I think it went well (I even spotted someone who usually never sings joining in for one of the hymns!). Feedback was very encouraging, though (and this is going to sound negative), it would be good if there were people who would criticise it. I'm sure I'll get that feedback in due course and need to focus on the positives, as I tend to sometimes get bogged down in the negatives, resulting in a focus on them so the good things maybe don't get built up.
The children's address seemed to go well. I am definitely building up a relationship with the children, though some are still quite shy. I feel I brought the theme broadly onto their level – it was about God's new covenant so I talked about promises. I think I could have done with talking a little about promises changing, but I don't want to bore the children. One child did go a bit off topic, but that's fine – I've no fixed notions of where the address should go, just roughly a start and finish, what happens in between depends as much on where the children take it. Didn't get much feedback for this. One person told me “you shouldn't let the children speak”. Another complemented me on how I am able to relate to the children, they seem comfortable talking to me and I seem to speak on their level. I must admit I pretty much disregarded the former comment.
The service was a smidge more traditional than usual. That was a combination of hymns (where I did slip a couple of my favourites in, but what's the point of being a minister if you can't choose the hymns you like occasionally? Now I will remove my tongue from my cheek.), me power dressing, no powerpoint (except the hymns) and a prayer of confession (usually there's just opening and intercession prayers). I think if services are more 'modern', it's useful to occasionally have a traditional service. It's a change from the norm, apart from anything.
The sermon went generally well. I think I may have seemed to be slightly repeating myself and I'm undecided if that would be seen as emphasis or me not really knowing what I was saying. I also was a bit challenging, but I hope, encouraging too. I'm not sure if I had that much tonal variation in my voice. It's hard to tell, as I hear more than others may do. I was consciously trying to do this, so I hope I managed.
Overall, good. Definitely room for improvement, but if I stop improving and become complacent (at any stage in ministry), I think it would be time to re-examine what I am doing.
The children's address seemed to go well. I am definitely building up a relationship with the children, though some are still quite shy. I feel I brought the theme broadly onto their level – it was about God's new covenant so I talked about promises. I think I could have done with talking a little about promises changing, but I don't want to bore the children. One child did go a bit off topic, but that's fine – I've no fixed notions of where the address should go, just roughly a start and finish, what happens in between depends as much on where the children take it. Didn't get much feedback for this. One person told me “you shouldn't let the children speak”. Another complemented me on how I am able to relate to the children, they seem comfortable talking to me and I seem to speak on their level. I must admit I pretty much disregarded the former comment.
The service was a smidge more traditional than usual. That was a combination of hymns (where I did slip a couple of my favourites in, but what's the point of being a minister if you can't choose the hymns you like occasionally? Now I will remove my tongue from my cheek.), me power dressing, no powerpoint (except the hymns) and a prayer of confession (usually there's just opening and intercession prayers). I think if services are more 'modern', it's useful to occasionally have a traditional service. It's a change from the norm, apart from anything.
The sermon went generally well. I think I may have seemed to be slightly repeating myself and I'm undecided if that would be seen as emphasis or me not really knowing what I was saying. I also was a bit challenging, but I hope, encouraging too. I'm not sure if I had that much tonal variation in my voice. It's hard to tell, as I hear more than others may do. I was consciously trying to do this, so I hope I managed.
Overall, good. Definitely room for improvement, but if I stop improving and become complacent (at any stage in ministry), I think it would be time to re-examine what I am doing.
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Preparing the ground for sowing
As part of my regular personal devotional time, I have been reading through Mark's gospel. Today, I was reading Mark 4:1-9 – the parable of the sower.
As someone training for ministry, I find this parable so reassuring, yet so daunting at the same time. Reassuring as it shows that it isn't all down to me. No matter how much I try to follow Christ, to preach and teach as God calls me to, to show God's love in all I say and do to all those I may minister to, people will reject the good news of the gospel. Or they will take it to heart, but as soon as something serious happens in their lives, they will abandon their new found faith. I am merely the sower and it depends on the ground the message falls on whether the message will go on to produce more grain, though some will and it will be very productive. So long as I focus on God in all I do, then the message I give will be productive one way or the other for God's kingdom.
It's daunting as it places responsibility on me to prepare the ground well. Having preached on this passage to a rural community last year, I was all too aware of the preparation which goes on before a field is sown. Even though farming is much more mechanised now than it was in Jesus day, preparation is still necessary and important for getting the best crop. So, why hadn't the ground been well prepared before the seed was sown? Just seems crazy to go to all the effort to save seed from last year's crop them sow it without preparation. In the context of the message of the gospel, this passage from Mark's gospel seems to be getting to that. So, it's important that I prepare the ground well. I may be walking with people for whom the church is a distant organisation, they don't really think that God is relevant in their lives. As I walk with them, I hope I am preparing the ground well rather than making it rocky or full of weeds, so if I or someone else eventuality sows the gospel, it has a chance to grow and be productive. Unfortunately, I know of many people who have had bad experiences of church and that has made them completely unreceptive to God's love and good news for them. I pray I never do that.
As someone training for ministry, I find this parable so reassuring, yet so daunting at the same time. Reassuring as it shows that it isn't all down to me. No matter how much I try to follow Christ, to preach and teach as God calls me to, to show God's love in all I say and do to all those I may minister to, people will reject the good news of the gospel. Or they will take it to heart, but as soon as something serious happens in their lives, they will abandon their new found faith. I am merely the sower and it depends on the ground the message falls on whether the message will go on to produce more grain, though some will and it will be very productive. So long as I focus on God in all I do, then the message I give will be productive one way or the other for God's kingdom.
It's daunting as it places responsibility on me to prepare the ground well. Having preached on this passage to a rural community last year, I was all too aware of the preparation which goes on before a field is sown. Even though farming is much more mechanised now than it was in Jesus day, preparation is still necessary and important for getting the best crop. So, why hadn't the ground been well prepared before the seed was sown? Just seems crazy to go to all the effort to save seed from last year's crop them sow it without preparation. In the context of the message of the gospel, this passage from Mark's gospel seems to be getting to that. So, it's important that I prepare the ground well. I may be walking with people for whom the church is a distant organisation, they don't really think that God is relevant in their lives. As I walk with them, I hope I am preparing the ground well rather than making it rocky or full of weeds, so if I or someone else eventuality sows the gospel, it has a chance to grow and be productive. Unfortunately, I know of many people who have had bad experiences of church and that has made them completely unreceptive to God's love and good news for them. I pray I never do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)