Wild Card!

The Michael Card concert last night superb – in the end well attended, with around 140 there; but much more than a concert, this was challenging, a great evening of teaching, and everyone there was drawn in to the presence of Jesus.

Michael really is a humble man, a very natural guy, no ‘airs and graces’ at all. The songs were great, and in the gaps between he effortlessly incorporated some powerful teaching points – showing the way that people who came to follow Jesus left something behind; setting out so clearly in just a few words that Jesus came not just as a servant but as a slave to free those in slavery, and to show us that he could deliver us from the apparent freedom we have, which is really enslavement, and bring us to become slaves under his yoke – which is perfect freedom. A great evening.

Which it might not have been without such a splendid team here. Huge thanks to Lynda, whose commitment to this concert has kept us all on track, despite some hiccups; and with her to Jan and Carol. To Sophie, who has been a superb (and always cheerful) administrator throughout the summer months. Thanks to all those who prepared food, both as concert interval refreshments and for Michael and his team.

Thanks to Bob, Geoff and David, the FOH crew, who made sure cars were parked without mishap and folk were welcomed in from the rain. Thanks to Mike, whose help and understanding as the Church sound system was dismantled and concealed was invaluable.

A big thankyou to Ben Marshall, who helped us out of a tight spot – when the budget seemed to be spiralling out of control, he offered real practical assistance, and we were able to have a good digital mixer in place for the concert, which made a huge difference both to the sound and to the ease with which Mike’s sound guy got set up.

And I’m sure I’ve missed people. So thanks to everyone else who helped!

All is not what it xeems

Years ago – actually, back in my Gillingham days (see a previous post for more about that) – I did the EE (Evangelism Explosion) course, and enjoyed it very much. EE is a teaching programme which helps ordinary folk by giving them a structure for presenting the gospel to their friends. The ‘classic’ EE begins with 2 key questions:

• If you were to die tonight, could you say for certain that you would go to heaven?
• Suppose you were to die today and stand before God and He were to say to you, "Why should I let you into My heaven?" what would you say?

I’ve felt for some while now that these questions just don’t make contact with people any more. Most of the non-Christian folk I meet start much further back - ‘Is there a God? Does God care about me?’ And there is no common assumption that ethical and moral issues connect with the nature of God. Heaven, to quote those 20th Century philosophers Rick Nowels and Ellen Shipley, is a place on earth.

So it’s exciting to see EE responding to those concerns, by recasting the course in a more relational form. An Australian initiative, XEE is EE for Generation X (!) – but ignore the media-sensitive tagging; it actually looks quite good, if still a little programmatic. I’m going to investigate a little more, and I’ll offer you all my opinions later!

Dear Prudence…

It’s been rather heartening to have had so many messages of encouragement following our recent minor break-in. Facebook clearly has its uses! (By the way – if you want to keep in touch with us through Facebook, I’ve added a link to the sidebar over there>>>>)

But it has made me think about security. It’s a lot easier to talk about placing all our trust in Christ, finding our ultimate security in Him, than it is to do it.

I have insurance policies for my stuff, my home, my car, my motorbike, and even my life! I have indemnity cover to protect me if I do anything stupid at work, and I pay a sizeable chunk every month to provide for my future. I have locks on all my doors and windows, padlocks on gates, security lights in the garden, and alarms in the car, the garage and the house.

And let’s not get started on the security of my identity. I have more passwords than you can shake a stick at. (What is the origin of that expression?) And the hoops that I have to jump through to prove who I am to people on the telephone!

With all that in mind – where is my security really?

And what does this say about the things I value? If to value something is to invest time or money or effort in protecting it and keeping it safe, then the deduction to be made is that I value ‘stuff’ quite highly. Where is the boundary between faith and prudence to be found?

(I could start a whole new topic about Prudence. What has happened to her? Has Gordon dumped her? Did he ever really care for her, or was she just a passing fancy, to be discarded when she no longer appealed to him? And what does his wife Sarah feel about Prudence? Is he telling his children about Prudence? All this and so much more? We should be told!)

 

In case you’re interested…

The Kirby Muxloe Free Church website (which takes much of my online effort) is worth checking out. We post sermons through Sermon.net and would recommend them. 

The last post nearly had a discussion of Spurgeon’s approach to the printing of his sermons, until I discovered that I had completely mis-remembered it! So check out this great site about CHS and also remember to visit the website of my alma mater, Spurgeon’s College.

I’ve got  multiple almae matres, if that’s possible. The other one would be The Queen’s College, Oxford. You should note that the Oxford college is the College of a singular Queen (founded in 1341 by Robert de Eglesfield, and named in honour of his employer Queen Philippa – or to give her her full title, Philippa of Hainault, Queen Consort of Edward III of England.) The Cambridge college is usually written as “The Queens’ College”, conventionally because it was founded twice, by two different Queens. But the new guys can’t seem to make up their minds:

Everyone gets told that the name of Queens' College is spelt with the apostrophe after the final "s" because the College was founded by two Queens of England - first in 1448 by Margaret of Anjou (daughter of René of Anjou), wife of King Henry VI of England (the founder of King's College Cambridge), and secondly in 1465 by Elizabeth Woodville, wife of King Edward IV of England.

The use of the apostrophe in English to indicate the possessive is of no great antiquity. The earliest examples of the name of the College spelt with an apostrophe always have the apostrophe before the "s". The first example of the name of the College spelt with an apostrophe after the "s" was in 1823, in a printed and bound version of the form of service for the Commemoration of Benefactors, probably edited by G.C. Gorham.

The spelling changed from Queen's to Queens' in the calendar of 1831.

In Le Keux's Memorials of Cambridge, the author, writing about 1840, spells the name of the college as Queen's College, and appends a footnote:

“

A custom has arisen latterly of writing the name Queens' College, as being the foundation of two queens. This appears to us an unnecessary refinement. We have the authority of Erasmus against it, who always calls his college "Collegium Reginae".

"Reginae" is Latin for "of the Queen", in the singular.

Despite this complaint, the change of spelling to Queens' became well established in the 19th century.

The formal corporate title of the College is now:

The Queen's College of St Margaret and St Bernard, commonly called Queens' College, in the University of Cambridge.

which shows both forms of spelling. This is formally correct. The name of the college when qualified by the patron saints is spelt in the singular; the short-form name is spelt in the plural.