While sermons continue to be written...

I figured I'd wax on a little about a topic raised elsewhere, regarding whether we should rethink sermons in church, and wondering if sermons are perhaps overrated as a part of church life.

I actually agree with the idea that sermons might be getting past their use-by date, and I give sermons all the time. This topic has actually vexed me for a few years now.

Let's start with a little history. The idea of having a person stand up and give a talk to a large group of people in order to persuade them of something (let's say bigger than a family) goes back a long way. I won't pretend to know how long it goes back. I can take you back to Ancient Greece, where the sophists and other classical rhetorists set up schools to teach people how to do this (Paul talks of such people in 2 Cor 11:5-6). Being able to stand up and say something persuasive was not just a method of gaining political power (like Pericles giving a funeral oratory), or sway the masses to come to your point of view (Acts 17:22-31, Paul does it himself) - it was actually something that could earn you a living in and of itself (so the great Demosthenes himself started out).

(Of course, we could go even further back, and look at what is possibly the first great speechs of the Old Testament - given by Moses in the Pentateuch. But I think our modern day sermon styles are far more built on the Greek style that was the way it was done under Rome in Jesus' time, than it was on truly ancient speech-giving such as at the time of Moses.)

Next, it is perhaps worth saying a thing or two about the purpose of sermons in churches, that their effectiveness can be all the more accurately measured. To talk about preaching as a subset of teaching is perhaps correct, and I've heard that said a lot, although I think it may confuse the matter (much like saying philosophy is a subset of thinking makes it sound like your internal monologue about what you will have for breakfast is somehow a higher class of thought to which metaphysics might aspire). Better to say that they overlap in places. In my opinion, teaching is the passing on of information; preaching is the act of attempting to persuade your audience to respond to and/or act on your message. (The good old Macquarie Dictionary separates the two in a somewhat similar fashion - "preach: to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing" "teach: to impart knowledge or skill; give instruction".)

So, to simply talk about preaching in terms of how people learn is, I think, to miss a bit of what preaching is about. Preaching and teaching are not the same thing, in my opinion. I can go back and flick through all my education books from my teaching degree, and I can throw up a half dozen models which attempt to outline how people learn (my favourite was Multiple Intelligences which was invented by a guy called Howard Gardner, where he says that everyone learns through at least seven different methods: Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Visual-Spatial, Body-Kinesthetic, Musical-Rhythmic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal) but the learning is only part of the object of preaching.

In fact, in a perfect world, you would only need to teach people incidentals pieces of information that were relevant facts allowing them to make informed decisions on the topic about which you are trying to persuade them. But since sermons have been given more and more the job of teaching people what the Bible says, there comes less and less time for them to do the job of convincing and eliciting.

Interestingly, this is a topic that pretty much does not arise in teaching at all (or wasn't really touched on in my degree). You look at how to get the information from your brain (or, more popularly in modern teaching, a textbook, the teacher being a mildy-trained daycare supervisor who may or may not actually know anything about what they are teaching beyond what is in the textbooks, which themselves are dubious) into the brains of others. You don't look at how to actually persuade them that this knowledge is worth acting on, or that it should be responded to a certain way. (Actually, that isn't entirely true. You could make an argument that by only teaching one method, or one set of facts, or one opinion, that you are causing persuasion by controlling access to information. I actually think you'll find the teaching curriculum very much has this in mind, too. One might call this less 'persuasion' and more 'force'.)

No doubt more than one person has written stuff about the topic of how to get people to do things, though. But I find it scary to think I completed a whole teaching degree, and this was not even touched on beyond perhaps looking at Pavlovian conditioning. I have always said that education is not a solution to the world's ills. While it is a popular idea that if you just teach people enough information, they will make the right decision, this not only flies in the face of historical fact, it also is theologically bankrupt.

Unfortunately, this rather disturbing epiphany regarding my dearth of knowledge around the factors of persuasion threatens to derail my whole train of thought. So what I have to do, I think, in order to continue, is to look briefly at what I think the factors involved in persuasion are (which is, unfortunately, going to be informed by my own feelings, thoughts, and anecdotal evidence - perhaps far from perfect, although one might call this the very basis of philosophical thought - but it will at least allow forward momentum) so that I can further analyse this remarkable concept that the role of a sermon is to persuade.

So far as I can see, a person's decision-making is shaped by a million different things, many of them probably unique to that individual. But the question is, can I think of some sort of symmetry into which I can break up these things? My first instinct (reinforced by a little afterthought) is to think of levels (perhaps the wrong word... but just assume I'm not creating a hierarchy for the moment) of acceptance of truth, or at least reasonableness. But let's take a step or two back from that. First principles first.

To enable persuasion, you need, first, consciousness. This, I think, helps to separate persuasion from what might bluntly be called force, but perhaps more correctly needs to be called response to stimuli. While it is true that a caterpillar walking along a wall can be made to walk in a different direction by placing a flaming match near it, that doesn't really count as persuasion. I think that might be simply called response to stimuli. It's not so much the fact that you are threatening the beast with pain or death - one can imagine a martyr-to-be being persuaded by someone that it is not worth throwing away their life for the sake of their beliefs - it is more that the beast doesn't decide whether or not it will throw itself into the flames. It just avoids the pain as a matter of course. A true decision is being made by the would-be martyr, even though there is an attempt to coerce a decision by force. So in terms of this idea, "consciousness" refers to the ability to make decisions abstractly, rather than simply having them determined by outside phenomena. So a consciousness can be persuaded. Can it be forced? I might leave that for now. What is consciousness made up of? I'm hoping we'll get a better picture of that as we go.

What else do we need for persuasion? Probably another consciousness, to do the persuading. But not necessarily. Although I think you do need at least your own consciousness. Although we might say, "The facts persuaded me," I think that's a trick of the language. What might be more correct is to say, "I persuaded myself by acceptance of the facts." When alone, and considering whether or not to jump off a cliff to its bottom, it is not the cliff, nor the height, nor the perceived spectre of possible injury, or a fear of heights, that persuades you - it is your own consciousness appealing, in whatever way, to itself, using these as tools in its arsenal to bring about a decision.

It looks like we also need a decision to make. There can't really be persuading without a decision to persuade on. Now, that decision might be as simple as an either/or "take the left door or the right door". Or it might be as complex as, "Accept this as true," or "Conduct yourself in this way."

So, with the structures required for persuasion to take place sorted out, perhaps now we can look at levels of acceptance of truth, or reasonableness. But those two terms themselves cause us a little bit of problem. For starters, they can make it seem like all decisions are based on truth or reason. Anyone who has met another human being knows this is not the case. Perhaps we should repackage this idea as levels of acceptance of persuasion. I think it's good to look at this from the perspective of the persuadee - after all, the job of persuasion is to elicit a response from the persuadee, and so surely the persuader has to work within the bounds set by the persuadee's levels of acceptance of persuasion - persuadabilities, we'll call them.

What makes up a person's persuadabilities? I think logical reasoning certainly makes up part of it. It's hard to persuade someone to believe or do something illogical. Not impossible, though, especially when the illogic is complex or deeply buried. Of course, it is also possible for people to make decisions to believe, accept or do things that are illogical - proving not only that logical thought is not the only, or even primary, tool in human decision-making. So for example, logic might tell us "A and B" implies A. Attempting to persuade someone that the statment "A and B" does not actually imply, or even require, A, is a hard ask. Having said that, I'm sure you can think of a time when someone you know has acted on or accepted such a premise - I think of a quote from Futurama where That Guy says, "Delivery has nothing to do with the delivery business," hence proving that corporate business is fundamentally illogical. The existence of logical fallacies goes a long way to prove that illogic can be persuasive.

Something's reasonableness is probably a little more difficult to define, but let's go with reason as the process of thought which goes into seeing if something is probable to a point of acceptance. The word "thought" there is to separate it from what comes after - so we are sticking to thought processes here. Still, a lot of stuff feeds into reason. Perhaps we could call reason "the process of interpreting facts, or assumptions pretending to be facts". Reasoned belief is what you use when you sit on a chair, assuming it will hold your weight. There is a probability that it won't - either that it was built badly, is old and frail, or has been sabotaged to fail. Unless you live a life wholly more exciting than mine, though, those probabilities are probably fairly small, and so you sit without first testing every chair you meet. This measurement of probabilities happens in an instant, but takes into account historical experience, anecdotal evidence, all sorts of knowledges, beliefs and assumptions.

Our senses also inform a part of our decision-making. Whereas using reason alone one might read a statement such as "the object is made of metal" and come to the conclusion on the balance of probabilities that the object is solid (to be rather shocked when they find the object is made of mercury at room temperature, which is a liquid), information about an object's physical characteristics discovered by physical senses may assist in determining more facts. I want to separate our senses from our thought life, though. While senses are probably primarily an information gathering tool, we no doubt use them in the way we make decisions. I suppose one could make the argument that the senses give us information, and then we think about it, process it, and decide using thought. Could be true. But I think there is more to it. Think about when you eat something that contains a food you don't like - I don't like coffee at all. Someone puts chocolate brownies in front of me and I go, "Ooooh, brownies!" but I take one bite and I find that they used a teaspoon of coffee in their recipe, and I decide not to eat any more. That decision is not so much based on the information that I don't like coffee (I eat things made with olive oil, and I don't like olives). It is based pretty much straight on sensory perception (tastes bad, not eating this). That I am willing to try eating a Calypo every few years, despite knowing full well I don't like them, is proof that I can be persuaded to ignore my senses (and my reason).

So now we come to things that are probably even harder to quantify. Think of emotions, cultural conditioning, and natural stasis. These all play a part in decision-making. If something makes you feel good (not just in a sensory way, but emotionally) you may well go along with it - donating to charity, perhaps. Cultural conditioning may simply be peer pressure on a grander scale, but I would say that there is an element of decison-making that is wrapped up in the identity of the maker as part of a culture. The actions permissible under the effects of intoxication are a fascinating example, in their difference between various alcohol-consuming cultures, and their acceptance of, for example, anti-social behaviour. Natural stasis could possibly just be called laziness, but it's a huge hurdle in matters of persuasion. Whether linked to a desire for idleness, a preference for the familiar, or a belief in conservatism, the fact is that it is difficult for people to make change, as a rule. Tell someone that if they invest their savings in your firm instead of the firm they are currently invested in, and they will make exactly the same amount of money, and they won't change. You need to offer something more to overcome their inertia.

Some thoughts about persuasion, as opposed to coercion. I would seek to define persuasion as "the act of attempting to achieve a decision being made by someone through affecting their persuadabilities." Coercion, on the other hand, would be "the act of limiting the persuadabilities of someone in order to achieve their making a certain decision." The first thing to be acknowledged here is that it is pretty much impossible to force someone to make a decision. Hold a gun to someone's head and say "Eat this cake or I will shoot you," does not rob them of their ability to make the decision between the two options - it merely attempts to limit their options by making one of their persuadabilities very loud.

Coercion, however, is not always evil - building a wall in front of a cliff might limit people's choices about how they interact with the cliff, but it also stops them from falling or jumping to their deaths. By that same token, persuasion is not always good. Giving someone false information, or tricking their senses, is not attempting to limit their persuadabilities, but is still wrong - convincing someone with a logical fallacy could fit into this category.

It's interesting that, looking at persuasion in this way, rather than preaching being a subset of teaching, teaching actually becomes a subset of preaching - informing people of data so that they might later make a decision based on that data. After all, that is the end, isn't it? We don't teach people things merely so they know them, do we? We hope that by their knowing them they will be persuaded to do something - be a good citizen, recycle, kill the enemy, whatever. It is by not teaching them, or only telling them a little bit of information, or one side of an argument, that we may well be coercing them.

Anyway, that little thought game has helped me understand my own thoughts on persuasion a fair bit. Back to preaching in churches. If the purpose of preaching is to persuade people, then obviously sermonising is not the only method of doing so.

It's worth considering how disruptive it would be to the church model to displace sermons. For all its faults, it is probably efficiency that keeps it in its place. The "preacher speaks, audience listens" model works at every size, from tiny church to massive convention. While there are other forms that allow delivery of persuasion and information, that might even work better on a per individual basis, they tend to lose efficiency when multiplied up - either they just don't work with large groups, or the amount of work in including more people becomes exponentially large.

Another point, that I think we don't make enough of historically, is that listening to preachers was as massively popular form of entertainment. People could make a living just going from place to place giving speeches (and yes, I know this still happens, but not so much for entertainment any more). That's sort of fallen from favour these days. People would rather watch TV (and not just watch people give speeches on TV either).

I have often wondered what church would be like if, as the centrepiece of our services, we were offering up something that people actually found entertaining, that also offered the delivering of persuasive and informative messages. What methods of communication are open to us that would be entertaining as well as informative and persuasive? Question and answer times is perhaps a starting point. Discussion groups are obviously one model that flows from that, where conversation facilitators have the role of leading conversation to certain conclusions that people should consider in their own lives. I guess you could go on mass outings, and actually take people by the hand and get them to do what it is you are wanting them to do, so they get a feel for it.

To include teaching, persuasion and entertainment, I actually like the idea of using roleplaying games. Yeah, they're not for everyone, but then, that's why we have a bazillion denominations - for differences in practice as much as dogma. Some people find roleplaying fun, and it is very difficult not to learn things from roleplaying (in the same way it's difficult not to learn things from living). It provides a safe sort of practice area for exploring different aspects of ideas, concepts, and even actions. And, it can be a great generator of further discussion on issues which you seek to persuade on, because it helps to make them more directly and immediately relevant.

Obviously it's a bias that I have, due to it being an activity I enjoy. But it seems to fit the bill a little more easily than sport, or watching TV. And even if it only inspired a church to be built up from nerds, that would still be awesome.

Three sermons on John - sermon 1: John 3

So this is what my mornings get used up on when I have been asked to preach a three sermon series less than a month from now.

Edit: Did I say less than a month? I meant 12 weeks away. Apparently, I can't tell the difference between March and May. They both start with M, leave me alone! It was wondering, too, because normally this church gives me so much lead time - it's one of the reasons I like them.

Sermon 1: John 3:1-36

John 3 – Jesus makes it clear who he is (John the Baptist backs him up). Will you accept him or reject him? Your judgement is in your hands. You can choose what your judgement will be.

Will you reject him like the Pharisees (who are supposed to love God, but don't when he confronts them – thinking we can get to God ourselves), or like the Baptist's disciples (who are jealous, and don't listen to their own teacher, because Jesus does things in ways we don't like)?

Or will we accept Jesus for who he is, accepting that we can't do anything to come into God's family, but he must make us born from above (like John the Evangelist 3:16-21)? Will we accept that our joy comes from the truth that Jesus comes from heaven – that he is from God (like John the Baptist in 3:27-30, and the Evangelist in 31-36)?

Sermon 1 words

In 2008, an American church planter called Mark Driscoll came to Australia, at the invitation of someone, I don't know who. He's well-known for being masculine to the point of chavinist, and he basically took his opportunity at St Andrews Cathedral to slam Australian Christianity (particularly Australian Christian men) for not being manly enough, and not being American enough. He is the kind of person who, at a Christian conference, invites people to come up and punch him in the face – and when they don't, he says that Christian men aren't manly enough, and so punches himself in the face. He's lucky I wasn't at the conference, as I would have been sorely tempted to sock him one. My opinion is he is invited on speaking tours and such because he is a success (he planted some big church in the USA), not because he is wise. I'm sure he has some good things to say, but his attitude and his opinions on some things have just turned me off completely. I'll never listen to him.

Have you ever looked up to someone, a famous or important person, only to have them say or do something that really stood against what you think or believe? It happens in political and religious situations, but can occur in most any educational situation too – where someone who is in a position of authority makes a statement that grates against you, and causes you to seriously reflect on whether you can continue to submit to their authority, how far you can follow them. No doubt you will have had similar experiences in your lives. We shouldn't be surprised, then, that when we look at the great Teacher, Jesus, we find there are people who are challenged by what he has to say, and must decide whether or not they can live with the claims he makes. This is a strong theme of the Gospel of John – over and over, Jesus will say challenging things to people, make impressive claims, and people are left having to decide whether they can reconcile themselves to him or not.

Today, as we look at John chapter 3, we will see two such reactions towards Jesus. Chapter 3 is not a hugely long chapter, but, as with much of John's Gospel, it is incredibly thick with rich material, and there is no way we will touch on it all today. But I will give you the basic structure, and then we will look for the main points. There are two stories here – one is about a Pharisee (the religious leaders of Jesus' time) called Nicodemus, who sneaks out at night to go and talk to Jesus – that's 3:1-15. The other story is about John the Baptist talking to his disciples about Jesus – that's 3:25-30. You'll see those numbers don't match up. That's because after each story, there is some explanatory information given by John the Evangelist, who wrote the Gospel, to help us understand these incredibly deep and important stories. That should give you an idea of how deep these passages are. It's not a coincidence that two of the Bible's most famous verses come from this chapter.

Nicodemus, we are told, was a Pharisee, but not just any Pharisee – he was a member of the Jewish ruling council. These were important religious leaders that made decisions about what people should believe. They were well respected, and powerful people. But they were met with a problem – this man called Jesus had turned up, and was performing many miraculous deeds, but the things he had to say didn't match up with what the Pharisees told people to believe. Now, it could be thought that Nicodemus was sent by the council to go and talk to Jesus officially, but since he visits Jesus at night, the suggestion is more that he sneaks away to talk to Jesus without anyone else knowing. Perhaps this shows us that the ruling council has already made their mind up about Jesus, but Nicodemus wants to find out more for himself.

And so they have a conversation, in which Jesus puts to Nicodemus a spiritual truth that confuses him, verse 3, “Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” This is a strange saying. In the book of Mark, we read Jesus saying, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” Jesus speaks in mysterious phrases a lot in John, but we must remember that while these phrases might be difficult to understand, those who have ears to hear them will be given the secrets of the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus does not understand. To be fair, “born again” in Greek is a homonym – it can mean two things with the same words. So “born again” can also mean “born from above” - born from heaven, or born from the spirit. Jesus obviously meant the latter, but Nicodemus hears it simply as 'second birth'. He is forced to ask in verse 4, “How can anyone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” Which obviously they can't. It is the real meaning of this term, 'born again', or 'born from above', which will shake Nicodemus, and cause him to question if he can believe what Jesus says, whether he can follow Jesus.

You see, Jesus goes on to say that no-one can enter God's kingdom without being born of water (that is baptism, which is a representation of repentance for sin) and the Spirit (that is, through the work of God through the Holy Spirit). I'll say that again. No-one can enter God's kingdom without a new life of repentance for their sin, and the work of God's spirit in them. Not only must you turn away from a sinful life, but God must choose you, must work in you, must change you by his Holy Spirit, or else you will never get into heaven.

This might seem clear to us as Christians today. But to Nicodemus, to the religious leaders of Judaism, it was unheard of. They believed, wrongly, that access to heaven came from a mixture of being born of Abraham (that is, being a Jew racially), and following God's laws (that is, being a Jew religiously). Jesus was saying something different, and so Nicodemus replies in verse 9, “How can this be?”

So Jesus rebukes him. Nicodemus is a Pharisee, one of the ruling council, and yet he does not understand how people can come to God. How would you feel if your church's leaders didn't know how you could come to God? It's outrageous. Jesus says that they wouldn't know God if he was right there talking to them – which he was! And so Jesus then fills Nicodemus in on the truth. What Jesus has to say is incredibly thick with meaning, and we just don't have time to cover it in depth. But in essence, he says that he has come from heaven, that he has spoken of what he has seen in heaven, and yet the religious leaders don't listen to him. He asks Nicodemus, “If you won't accept what I say about how God works here on earth in people, to bring them to himself, then how can I tell you more about what God is like in heaven?” And he tells Nicodemus that just as God empowered Moses in the Old Testament to lift the bronze snake so that those who looked at it would be spared God's wrath in the wilderness, so must Jesus be lifted up on the cross, so that all who believe in him may be spared God's wrath, and have eternal life.

John goes on to explain it more for us, and again this is powerful, deep stuff. The point I want to bring to you today comes mainly from verses 19-21. Verse 19, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” I want to be clear about this – John is writing this, not after the story of some prostitute, or tax collector, or thief or murderer. He is talking about Nicodemus! He's talking about a member of the Jewish ruling council! A religious man! His deeds are evil, and he loves darkness, not light! He's the one sneaking around in the dark. Just like someone who lives a good life by today's standards, someone who goes to church, maybe even someone in charge of a church. People who turn their backs on Jesus and what he says, turn their backs on God.

Verses 20 and 21, “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.” The point is not that those who live by the truth come into the light because people will see all the good things that they do. No, people who live by the truth are living by the truth that God alone has the power to heal them of their wrong, to take away their sin. The only difference between those who love God, and those who love darkness, is those in darkness are trying to hide their sinfulness from God. They're trying to say to God, “Look at me! I'm a good person! I'm worth bringing to heaven!” But you can't fool God. He sees everything.

People who live by the truth, on the other hand, know that they can't hide from God, and know that only God has the power to make them born again, born from above; born from water and spirit, born from repentance of sin, and by the Holy Spirit's power. They come into the light, because they admit that everything they have done is in the sight of God. They bring the good and the bad to God and say, “God, look! I am a sinner! Help me, please, because no-one else can!” And God's reply is John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

Do you, like Nicodemus, think that you know God better than Jesus does? Do you think you can make a better way to God than that which Jesus offers? Do you think you can hide your sins from God? You can't even hide them from yourself. Don't try and cover them up. Bring them to God in prayer. Say, “Lord, I have wronged you. Please forgive me, and take these sins away.” Admit that you have wronged God, and turn away from such a life, and God in his Holy Spirit will work in you, to make you his own.

The scene changes now, and we are taken to the countryside, where John the Baptist is doing what he does best – baptising people. Jesus and his disciples go up the river a bit, and they baptise people too. Verse 23 says there was plenty of water, and it sounds like there was also plenty of people wanting to be baptised. And considering that Jesus had only just said that people must be born of both baptism and the holy spirit, it would be strange for him not to spend some time with people getting baptised.

Now, John the Baptist is an old hand at this baptism thing. He has been doing it for a while, and he actually had quite a following. We learn from Mark that, “The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him.” John the Baptist was a bit of a religious rock star. He was famous, he lived a quirky and strange life, and many people followed him.

So perhaps we shouldn't be surprised when we read this story here in John's gospel, which tells us that John the Baptist's disciples come to him after having an argument with 'a certain Jew' about ceremonial washing, and start to complain that Jesus now is baptising on the other side of the river, and more people are going to him than to John.

You see, John the Baptist came to prepare the way for Jesus. He had been baptising people for a while, calling them to repent of their sins, and to live the life of a good religious Jew, because soon the Messiah would come. John was not a radical – he wanted people to follow the Jewish law properly, and live righteous lives. But Jesus had spoken out against the Pharisees, saying that they made God's people jump through useless hoops, pushing them to follow rules that were unnecessary and not part of God's law. It would seem that some of John's disciples have met up with one of Jesus' disciples, and have had this argument between themselves. Not only that, but Jesus seems to be getting more popular than John, and that also makes them a little envious.

Now here's the thing. John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Messiah they had all been waiting for. He announced it! He baptised Jesus when the Holy Spirit came down on him! He was the one who told the world, “This guy here, Jesus, is the Messiah, the Holy One of God!”, and more than that, John's disciples knew that! In verse 26 they say, “that man you testified about, look, he is baptising, and everyone is going to him,” and complaining about his teachings on ceremonial washing. John's disciples knew what John's teaching was about Jesus, but they rejected it – and yet still tried to call themselves his disciples.

There is a big temptation for Christians today to criticise other parts of God's church because they have this practice, or don't have this practice, or even just because we're jealous, and it seems that God is blessing their ministry more fruitfully than ours. Such bickering between God's followers is pointless. Times change – one ministry loses its relevance and therefore its appeal, where another ministry blossoms and bears much fruit for God. To say that what they're doing is wrong because it doesn't follow laws that you made up misses the point of God's kingdom. Yes, Jesus' disciples didn't follow the rules of ceremonial washing that the Pharisees made up. They didn't follow the Sabbath rules that the religious leaders made up. They didn't have to. They followed God, and God blessed them.

John the Baptist's reply to them is a picture of perfect Christian humility before God. He says to them, in a paraphrase of vs 27-30, “Guys, the truth is your ministry will only ultimately succeed if it is blessed by God in heaven. I'm not the Messiah, Jesus is. I'm just the best man at his wedding. I'm not there to get married. When the groom turns up, he gets the bride, and the best man is happy for him. That joy is mine now that Jesus is here. He must become more prominent and important, and I must become less prominent and important.”

We don't serve God to get popularity. We don't serve God to get success. We don't serve God for ourselves. You don't turn up at someone else's wedding to get the bride! God's Kingdom is about God's glory and about him calling a group of people to himself, to make them his people. When we see that happening, whether we get to be a part of it or not, we should rejoice. Whether those making it happen do it within our church culture or outside of it, we should be full of joy that people are coming to the kingdom.

John the Evangelist again writes after telling this story, to help explain, from verse 31, “The one who comes from above is above all” - that's Jesus. “The one who comes from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth.” That's like John the Baptist, or us – here on earth, doing our bit, but remember, as John even repeats it - “The one who comes from heaven is above all.” Then in verse 36 he says, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them”.

John the Baptist's disciples had refused his testimony about Jesus, and in doing so had rejected the Son of God. We must be so careful to make sure that we do not reject Jesus ourselves by rejecting those that are working for his kingdom, just because they are not 'one of us'. God's church is bigger than that. When we start putting strictures and restraints on how Christians can serve God, we are in fact putting ourselves ahead of God, saying that our rules are as important, or more important, than God's rules. Not so. Jesus must become greater; we must become less.

Let's not be like Nicodemus, and think that we know better than Jesus how people can come to God. Instead, let's live by the truth, and accept that we are sinners, and we don't know everything, and put that in God's hands, knowing that people only come to God because of his Holy Spirit. Let's not be like John's disciples, and think that we know better than Jesus how people can come to God. Instead, let's be like John the Baptist, and seek to serve God's kingdom, attracting people to him, making him greater, making ourselves less. To God be the glory. Amen.

Sermon: Mark 4:1-20 Soils

So, I was asked to finish my sermon for Feburary two weeks early so that it could get some constructive criticism and such. And now, I've been asked to write three sermons for March! Which isn't as much time as I'd usually like, but I was asked to preach on these dates some time ago, so I still feel okay about it.

So there won't be a lot going on here over the next few weeks, since I'll be using my mornings to write sermons, as is my practice. To show I'm not lying, here's a sneak preview of the sermon I'll be giving in two Sundays' time!

------------------------

Mark 4:1-20 – The parable of the sowing of seed

• Jesus: Prophet, or Performer?
  • Jesus had crowds of people listen to him (Mark 4:1), but;
  • How many were really listening?
• Four Ways To Live
  • Which ground are you?
  • Fruitful (Mark 4:20) – The pinnacle of Christian living
  • Strangled (Mark 4:18-19) – where is your energy going? (Wants, Wealth, Worries)
  • Withered (Mark 4:16-17) – what are your struggles?
  • Barren (Mark 4:15) – why aren't you listening?

Sermon words

Have you ever missed out on learning some important information because you weren't paying attention? Like poor Manny in the TV show Black Books (Black Books, Series 1, Episode 5 [1:30-2:02], who should have learned the security code for the new door, but instead was distracted by the subbuteo toy in the man's hair, perhaps you have been listening to instructions or lessons from a teacher, instructor, or maybe even a preacher, and something distracts you – a mobile phone ringing, or a friend next to you asking what you're doing afterwards. What's even worse is when you are then supposed to be able to explain what you've learned to someone else.

In the gospel of Mark, which we've been looking at for a few weeks now, we see that Jesus had a lot to say to the people around him. And people were keen to hear it! We've read that so many people crowded to hear him speak, that he had to get on a boat and use it as a floating pulpit. Maybe you've occasionally thought that it would be nice if our church was crowded by thousands of people, so many that Bruce had to get up on the roof to preach to them.

Don't feel dejected if that doesn't happen. Remember that not only was Jesus a better preacher than anyone here (and that is not a reflection on anyone – it's hard to beat someone at preaching who goes by the name Word of God), but also remember that entertainment options back then were a lot harder to come by. No internet, no youtube, no iPad. No TV, no radio, no news programs. Most people couldn't read, and even if you could, there wasn't much to read – no newspapers, no novels. There wasn't even organised sporting competitions to watch or participate in! So when someone turns up in your town and starts preaching, that's a big deal. It's like Justin Bieber giving a free concert in Sydney – lots of people are going to show up.

It's important to realise that while some of those who were there to hear Jesus speak believed that he was a great teacher, or perhaps even a prophet sent by God or something more, many were there simply because it was something to do. And, as I'm sure you all know, your attitude towards what someone says will affect how closely you listen to them.

For example, when I used to work in a service station while I was at uni, people would come in, and I would say, “Good afternoon, sir,” and they would reply, “Fine thanks, mate.” You see the problem there? I may as well have said, “Stock standard greeting, sir,” and had them reply, “Habitual response, mate.” But, if you say to someone, “Don't move!” you are very likely to get their attention. People are less likely to listen carefully to someone if they don't think what's being said is important.

So when Jesus starts talking about a farmer throwing seed on the ground, and what happens to it, there were going to be a number of people who switch off. “I know this,” they'd say to themselves, “I plant my crops every year. What's the point?” Or they might say, “Well, I assume there's some sort of hidden meaning to this, but I can't be bothered working it out.” They hear the words being said by Jesus, but they don't try and puzzle out the meaning, or go and ask him what it means. Like Manny with the security code, they don't admit that they weren't listening, or they don't understand. That would make them look stupid. So they just nod, as if it all made sense, protect their ego, and hope they can pick it up later. Have you ever done that before? I have.

The thing is, Jesus isn't giving talks on farming practices. Back at the start of his speaking tour, Jesus makes it clear what he's talking about: At Mark 1:15, he says, “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

This parable of sowing seeds is really about how people respond to what Jesus is talking about. It shows that there are four ways to live, four ways to react to Jesus' claim that the kingdom of God is near, and that you must repent and believe.

There are four ways to live here; four ways to respond to Jesus' message (listed in the second point on the handout). I've listed them there as fruitful, strangled, withered and barren. My question to you tonight is going to be, which of these four soils are you? The seed is the same for everyone – God's word. But the reception of God's word differs for people. So when you read the Bible, or you listen to a talk at church, how do you react to the information you hear?

The fruitful ground is the example all Christians should be aiming for. It represents a life that hears what God has to say, plants it inside, and lets it grow to maturity. A fruitful Christian evaluates every message from God, whether from the Bible, heard in a sermon, discussed in a small group, or read in a Christian book, and seeks to have that message reflected in their life. The fruitful Christian life is a life of accepting the truth, changing to reflect that truth, and helping others to also change to reflect the truth in their own lives.

If you look at your reaction to your Bible readings, or to Christian books, sermons, and bible studies, and you're struggling to see changes in your life and other people's lives, then chances are your attitude is reflected by another kind of soil.

If you hear God's message, and your response is, “I'll try to fit this into my life somewhere, but I'm really busy,” this is the common feeling of the life of strangled soil. There is growth there, for sure. But there are also weeds. You know what weeds do? They suck the nutrients from the ground, so that the proper plant doesn't get the energy to be fruitful. It spends all its time trying to survive. If this sounds like you, then ask yourself the question: what are your weeds? What are those things that are taking up your time and energy, that are stopping you from giving that time and energy to obeying God?

Jesus actually makes some suggestions about what your weeds could be. Sometimes it's because what you want doesn't line up with what God wants for you. So you put your energy into what you want, and it strangles your growth with God. Some people think that wealth can keep them safe, secure and comfortable, and so put their energy into making money. But that's a lie. Any feeling of security that does not come from God is actually a weed, strangling you. And sometimes we just get so caught up in all the worries of life - “Do people like me? Can we pay off our debt? What's going to happen tomorrow?” - and we don't simply trust God's word that the Kingdom of God is near, and these things won't matter. Maybe it's time for us to do some weeding, and put our energies into producing God's eternal fruit, not our own temporary security.

The shallow soil that produces a withered response to God can sometimes be the most difficult to spot. There's growth, looks like a normal plant; there is joy in the person's life. But whenever following God's way becomes hard, when the spotlight is on you, when it conflicts with what you want, or people might ridicule you for it, you cave in. If this is you, then you will find that you can't be fruitful, because your seed is only half-planted. You have understood the message of, and you have accepted it's truth – but you don't live it. When a problem occurs, you don't ask, “What would Jesus do?” You don't ask God for help with the problem. You just do whatever you think is right. Sometimes, you do things you know are wrong, because it's easier.

If this sounds like you, then ask yourself: what are your struggles? What is it that stops you from living the way you should, from putting what you hear from God into practice? What are the things that, when they come into your life, make you feel powerless to live a godly life? Perhaps it's problems with anger that you can't control, or a desire to put other people down to further your own ends. Sometimes it can be choosing to do something you know is against God just because it makes you feel good. Whatever your struggles are, the fundamental solution is to be rooted in God's words, and his message to you. Other Christians can help, but ultimately, if you are not dedicated to living your life for God, then you will wither, and fall away from your faith in God.

Finally, people who are the rocky ground are basically just deaf. There's no reaction, no growth, nothing at all. They simply don't listen to God's message. They may as well have earplugs in when they go to church, if they ever go to church. If this is you – if you find that what Jesus has to say about the kingdom of God has no impact on your life whatsoever - perhaps I can just ask one question for you to think about: why aren't you listening? What gets between you, and Jesus and his message? Surely it is worth at least sitting down and working out what you really think about what he says, the problems you see with what God says, the statements you can't accept.

Because Jesus makes it clear that he doesn't think it's a matter of choice. He says that Satan actually works to keep people from paying attention and hearing what he really has to say about the Kingdom of God. All they hear is the speech about farming practices.

The fact that people can be barren in reaction to God's word is perhaps the biggest challenge to all of us. It means that sometimes, when Jesus speaks, people don't listen. It means that when we talk about the good news, people might not listen.

If you struggle to understand it, or if you find your attempts to be fruitful and share the gospel just bouncing off barren ground, then take heart – even the disciples didn't understand this parable, and had to ask Jesus what he meant. Just remember that Christians who fruitfully obey God are not fruitful because they have no weeds (no distractions), or because the sun doesn't shine on them (no struggles) – they are fruitful because they work through these issues, through faith in God and by his strength. So reflect on your life, on your attitude to what God says to you, and try to bear fruit by living out what you hear from God.