No. 3 - The desire for something to believe in

Hugh MacKay writes like so many Australians - he has rejected the conservative Christian faith of his upbringing (Baptist, I think!?) but has returned (in later life) to a sense of the numinous that he finds in a more liberal Christianity.

So he attacks all forms of fundamentalism - be it Atheistic or Theistic. Dawkins and Hitchens get short shrift but so do any religious believers who take their faith a bit too seriously. This leaves us with something a bit too vanilla. There is some good sociological analysis about belief reinforcement and the desire for certainty but he doesn't actually answer anything.

For example, let's take the desire for certainty - why is it so popular? Now that is a conversation worth having.

It may well be because I'm a Christian but this chapter was the least satisfying of the book. There is no traction here. We seem to need people and religious ideas to believe in. And? Simply saying 'that a bit of belief is okay just don't take it too seriously' is both intellectually weak and emotionally unsatisfying. If something is true how is it possible to believe it too much?

So called 'fundamentalists' do often bring the gospel into disrepute but the world does not need less passionate followers of Jesus, it needs more passionate ones!

No. 2 - The Desire for 'My Place'

I'm not surprised that this is no. 2 in a book about Australian culture. What may be true for all humanity is especially true for a nation so largely comprised of immigrants.

Where do you come from? Where do you live? Where do you feel most at home?

These are key questions for Aussies.

Hugh is especially insightful in highlighting 'the shed' for guys. I think the aspect most important to 'the shed' is that it is the place where I can be myself. In a society where men are becoming confused about their roles then a 'safe place' will become increasingly important to them.

And while Hugh is right in his description of the car as 'my place' I'm not sure he fully understands why we have so many 'deep' conversations in it. I suspect it is because we have no where else to go. I've had some of my best conversations with people in a car because of the combination of the following factors: 1. No direct eye-contact ... so we can talk for a long time without it feeling too confrontational and awkward. 2. No where else to go - the conversation has to continue for the alternative is just silence ... or the radio!

Space & Morality - it is so true that we behave differently in cyberspace as in real space. The aggressive on-line debates or inappropriate use of FaceBook are just two of many examples. Our geographical locatedness (is that a word?) helps to earth our identity. If it is a very human temptation to wear masks then the internet actively encourages us in our play-acting. Integrity needs real space.

As MacKay recognises there are two sides to our desire for cultural identity. Like many Australians my identity has much to do with where I grew up and what countries my Father and Mother came from. However, this cultural identification can quickly lead to territorialism. It is fascinating talking to Michael Prodigalidad and Ross Ciano about growing up in Sydney as an Australian-Filipino and Australian-Italian. If 'my place' has boundaries (which it must to be 'my' space) then it will tend to exclude others. Passages like Ephesians 2 and Revelation 7 have profound implications for a truly Christian understanding of identity. Somehow heaven is depicted as being a place of diversity and unity, where we maintain our cultural identity but all barriers between us are removed in Christ.

Home Ownership is a big one. And it is an issue we must grapple with at PBC. As house prices escalate in the inner-west it is easy to spot the trend - Flo to house-share, possibly to married unit rent, to family and wanting to buy ... to having to move where we can afford. MacKay challenges the Aussie dream though. The Castle has weak foundations. Who says we have to own? All the research says that a community needs stable housing (i.e. you can stay for as long as you like) but this does not necessarily mean home ownership. Along with Tim Keller I'm happy to promote renting and bringing up a family in the city. As a deliberate choice. A good thing.

Of course the one thing that Hugh MacKay is not able to factor in is that 'my place' is not (ultimately) located in the here and now. From Abraham onwards God's people have been temporary stewards of the land because we know our home is in the new heaven and the new earth. This is not some kind of Greek Gnosticism that says that the physical earth is bad - Christ's kingdom will be physical too - but it does drastically alter out perspective. Like Aboriginals have always thought, we view ourselves more as custodians of the land than owners of it. My place will be where God's people are, where Christ is building his kingdom.

No. 1 - The Desire to be taken Seriously

This is a fantastic chapter. Hugh is very insightful into human nature. I feel as if I could stop and preach a sermon / write an article on every section of the chapter.

As with the book as a whole, so with this chapter, he is much better at diagnosis than treatment.

The desire to be noticed.

The desire to matter.

The desire to be appreciated.

The desire to be understood.

The desire to be valued as a person.

The desire to be accepted.

The desire to be remembered. (p 3)

Hugh is right. The desire to be taken seriously is what drives us all. Both positively and negatively he charts the impact of this desire on Australian culture - ranging from sex to rewarding children - we are driven by the need for personal affirmation. I particularly think he is spot on with his evaluation of the cult of the celebrity. It is not that we necessarily admire these people but we aspire to get the recognition that they do. Indeed reading about their flawed lives encourages us that we are 'just like them' and therefore we could achieve their status too.

In passing it is worth noting his astute observation about religious minorities. When our beliefs are attacked it does create a knee-jerk reaction of strengthening our resolve. Negatively it means Christians can quickly become reactionary and marginalized, but positively even MacKay recognises that it at least means we are being taken seriously. "Religious faith - or any other kind of belief system - is far more likely to erode and wither if it is ignored. Indifference is the real enemy." (p 16) Let us thank God daily for Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens!

But Hugh pulls out just when he is getting to the heart of the matter. On page 15 he observes that human nature is ruled by a Law of Reciprocity. "At its noblest, we call it the Golden Rule. I'll treat others the way I would like them to treat me. But it usually operates less charitably than that: I'll treat others the way they treat me, or perhaps even the way I think they might treat me." He finishes that section with these two sentences - combining a razor-sharp perception with a credulous naiveté ... "History is filled with examples of nations that have reacted violently against the contempt or indifference of others. Eventually, we must learn to accept that if we won't take others seriously, they won't take us seriously either."

Eventually? Eventually? In over 3000 years of well documented human history where is the slightest bit of evidence that we are learning that? Taking the land of my fathers for a moment - South Africa - history shows that the British oppressed the Dutch (Boers) who oppressed the Africans ... who brought in positive discrimination when they got into power. The truth and reconciliation commission was a wonderful glimmer of hope in all that but that brings us to an issue that Hugh MacKay completely ignores. More of that later. For now, "Open the window Hugh!" In the real world we cannot escape the vicious circle of the law of reciprocity - just saying we need to take others seriously makes no difference. How?

So by the time we get to the end of the chapter we are already prepared for the anti-climax. How? 1. Learn to listen to each other. 2. Go to counselling.

That's it.

He's right of course. These things would help Australia. But so would motherhood and apple pie. What's missing is the incentive to make this change. By nature we are selfish and want to be taken seriously by other people. Hugh is correct in saying that we need to treat others that way so that they will, in time, treat others that way too. (I think two guys called Jesus and Paul also said something like this a few years ago.) But how do we change our nature so that we, long term, continuously, learn to put others first?

Philippians 2 would be a good place to start. God has served us first in Christ Jesus as we respond to his self-sacrificing love so we start to treat others the same. The Truth & Reconciliation Committee in SA only works (in my opinion) when you put it in the framework of a sovereign God who will judge injustice and who gave his Son as a sacrifice for us - taking the initiative in forgiving his enemies. Then, and only then, can the vicious circle be broken and the law of reciprocity start working in a positive manner.

So a great first chapter but Hugh needs to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. I think he blinks before taking his excellent observations fully to their logical conclusions.

Why did I do that?

Right, so Hugh's book contains a list of ten desires that shape us as a nation. I'm going to take them one by one and try to comment on them from a biblical perspective.

To begin with let's look at the introduction - Why did I do that?

As Hugh explains, this book is essentially a secular version of Tim Keller's Counterfeit gods. Although, as one would expect, since it is written from a secular perspective there is some divergence. Generally I think Hugh's observation and diagnosis is spot on, but it is his solutions where the gospel really bites.

The book is all about the powerful desires that drive us. Ones so powerful that

'we sometimes do things that we know will bring misery upon ourselves and others.'

These desires sound a lot like the idols that Keller refers to. Especially so when Hugh explains that every desire has a shadow -

"none of the ten desires is inherently good or bad. Each of them has the power to bring out the best in us, and the worst..."

This is just like Paul's explanation of idolatry in Romans 1. Idols are good, but they are not God.

However, Hugh back tracks at the end of his introduction. He says that he has chosen the word 'desires'

"to convey the idea that although these are things we want - sometimes quite passionately - they do not rule us in the same way as our basic bodily needs."

Ummh. They don't rule over us Hugh? Are you sure? I thought you began by talking about desires so powerful that they could make us bring misery to ourselves? Sounds more like an idol to me.

Lazarus Blog entry!

Okay, so it has been a while ... and if John Howard can make NT allusions then so can I.

The PBC blog is going to crank back into life again with a chapter by chapter look at Hugh MacKay's new book - What makes us tick?

(PS I've sent an email to Hugh MacKay recommending Tim Keller's book Counterfeit gods. My guess is that I won't get a reply but that he may be interested enough to read it.)

(PPS I was wrong - I've got a nice reply from his office saying that he is on tour publicizing his book but will be given my email to look at in mid-December when he gets back!)

Real Families

I love the writing of G.K. Chesteron. He was such an astute observer of humanity. I came across this gem from an article he wrote on Families recently. Here he is arguing that families are good thing, not because they are "peaceful, pleasant and at one" but precisely because they are the opposite. A very perceptive commentary on the lengths will go to escape having to get to know other human beings:

If we were to-morrow morning snowed up in the street in which we live, we should step suddenly into a much larger and much wilder world than we have ever known. And it is the whole effort of the typically modern person to escape from the street in which he lives. First he invents modern hygiene and goes to Margate. Then he invents modern culture and goes to Florence. Then he invents modern imperialism and goes to Timbuctoo. He goes to the fantastic borders of the earth. He pretends to shoot tigers. He almost rides on a camel. And in all this he is still essentially fleeing from the street in which he was born; and of this flight he is always ready with his own explanation. He says he is fleeing from his street because it is dull; he is lying. He is really fleeing from his street because it is a great deal too exciting. It is exciting because it is exacting; it is exacting because it is alive. He can visit Venice because to him the Venetians are only Venetians; the people in his own street are men. He can stare at the Chinese because for him the Chinese are a passive thing to be stared at; if he stares at the old lady in the next garden, she becomes active. He is forced to flee, in short, from the too stimulating society of his equals--of free men, perverse, personal, deliberately different from himself. The street in Brixton is too glowing and overpowering. He has to soothe and quiet himself among tigers and vultures, camels and crocodiles. These creatures are indeed very different from himself. But they do not put their shape or colour or custom into a decisive intellectual competition with his own. They do not seek to destroy his principles and assert their own; the stranger monsters of the suburban street do seek to do this.

I think church as family is probably one of the most important NT metaphors needed today. However, that is family as defined by Chesterton. (Remember that he was writing a hundred years ago, what do you think he would say now!)

We need to talk about Kevin

I have to admit that I'm in shock. With all the hype over the World Cup last night I've only just found out that Kevin Rudd is out and that Julia Gillard is the new Prime Minister of Australia.

We need to talk about Kevin is the title of a novel by Lionel Shriver. Without giving too much of the plot away, it is made up of letters from a Mother trying to come to terms with the fact that her son is a sociopathic murderer. I don't want to be melodramatic but I feel a similar need to come to terms with what on earth has happened to Kevin Rudd. Heralded as the conquering hero in 2007, how can he be booted out before even finishing a first term?

Here's some more heralding (from the SMH):

The move against Mr Rudd was sparked by a report in yesterday's Herald that Mr Rudd had used his chief of staff, Alister Jordan, to sound out the backbench over the past month on the level of support for him. This followed a Herald/Nielsen poll which showed the government would lose if an election were held then.

But Mr Rudd's action was regarded as a sign that he did not trust the repeated assurances by Ms Gillard that she would not stand.

"It was offensive and disloyal," said a Gillard supporter

... and apparently absolutely correct! It is quite possible that there is all sorts of stuff behind the scenes that I don't know about, but it seems incredibly harsh on Kevin.

I wonder what this teaches us about leadership in Australia?

What I like about Kevin is that he seems to have convictions. Politics is a tough game for Christians who have convictions because it is entirely based on compromise. I remember the British Tory Cabinet minister, Brian Mawhinney, being interviewed about how his Christian faith impacted cabinet discussions. He replied, "You can only resign once." In other words there are constantly issues raised with which you disagree, but once you have stated your case and the cabinet decision goes against you, then you have to decide whether you resign over it or not. Resignation may give you a self-righteous satisfaction but it also ends your influence in the running of the country.

Kevin clearly had to let some of his ideals go. That's politics. But generally he stuck to his guns and that is why he was fired! It seems the Mines are just to powerful for him.

What concerns me most is I think this represents a prevailing attitude to leadership in Australia. We want results fast and when decisions prove unpopular we cave in with equal speed.

As a starter for discussion, here are some possible lessons for churches:

1. Let's give our leaders time. It takes years to grow a tree, cress seeds sprout in days. Churches are supposed to have the perspective of eternity - you don't get much longer-term planning than that.

2. Let's support our leaders when unpopular decisions are made. That's not to say that we shouldn't be able to criticise bad decisions; just that we should expect change to be hard work and not give up too easily.

Do atheists care less?

A recent study in Canada shows that church goers are more generous with their time and their money - they give more to charity and they volunteer more willingly: Do atheists care less?

This is not news. Studies have shown this in the past.

What interests me is the impact this will have on the proposed Ethics classes as an alternative to SRE in schools here in Australia. Where are they going to get all the volunteers from? Here at PBC we have great and committed teachers and we need a team of at least four just for Petersham Public School. All studies show that church goers volunteer much more regularly for this sort of thing.

There is a groundswell of public support for the idea of 'religion free ethics' but (ISTM) no one has thought through how to provide such a thing. My prediction is that there will be a flurry when it all starts but it won't take long until most schools find that they cannot find enough parents willing to come in (during working hours) to teach their kids every week during term time.

Teaching is hard work. Give it a few years and the government will find it has a stark choice: either pay teachers to teach Ethics (but what abut SRE?) or accept that only about 10% of schools can actually carry this off on a regular basis.

SRE & Ethics

I wrote this letter to the SMH today. Let's see if it gets published!

Joan Bielski (letters April 21st) may have stumbled onto a key issue in the debate over SRE lessons. When she cavalierly dismisses many Christian SRE lessons as ‘amateurish’ she is simply stating a fact – the teachers are amateurs. One wonders if the government is going to pay for the training of Ethics teachers or if they are going to ask current School teachers to do this job – not really fair either way. However, if they ask parents and other volunteers to join in (as for SRE) then after the launch hype has died down (in a year or two) I can hardly imagine kindies skipping home gleefully on a Friday arvo saying, “Yeah, we drew a picture of an ethic again today.”

John Smuts, Lewisham

Handel's Bible Overview

We headed in to St. Andrew's last night for Handel's Messiah. It was a great performance and the girls seemed to genuinely engage with it ... although were a bit bored by the end!

Two things that struck me:

1. The libretto (I didn't know what that meant either) is basically the Bible set to music. And most of it is from the OT - a little 1 Corinthians and Revelation at the end, a smattering of gospels, but most of it is from Isaiah, Malachi and the Psalms . He changes the odd pronoun here and there but essentially he just puts the OT down on paper and it is obvious (at least to him) how it all points to Jesus. So many Christians today are either scared or bored of the OT, and yet (according to Jesus himself) it is all about the Christ (Luke 24: 27).

We took some neighbours along and Emily helped them (and Sophie) follow in the Bible as Handel took us through the message of the whole Bible. I suppose it is a musical Bible Overview.

2. I didn't know that the audience is supposed to stand during the Hallelujah Chorus. Some research this morning tells me that it might have been started by King George II. But I didn't know that last night. Then I was just another Philistine made to feel an outsider from the club. I guess that is often how non-Christians feel at church.

Did you know Easter was a Christian festival?

Tomorrow our girls celebrate Easter at school with a 'hat parade'. The ubiquitous images of Easter in the shops are bunnies (?) and Eggs (which point to re-birth more than resurrection).

Now the usual response to all this from Christians is an Easter version of 'bah humbug'. So, how can we redeem Easter as a festival without becoming merely anti-culture?

One thought is to try to redeem some of the imagery...

For example, if we use hollow chocolate eggs as symbols of an empty tomb then we are combating secularism with the gospel and following in centuries of Christian tradition.

Anyone got any better ideas?

Eat Chocolate for Jesus?

The story behind the story

After recently circumnavigating Gulliver's Travels, Anne of Green Gables, The Hobbit, and Treasure Island, I'm now reading Little Women with my own little women.

Having never read it before (it doesn't have a single 'kapow' in the whole book) I was surprised by the content of the first chapter. The girls' favourite game (in the book) is playing 'Pilgrim's Progress'. Likewise they are each given a copy (of Pilgrim's Progress) for Christmas and promise their mother (their father is off fighting in the war) that they will try to emulate Christian's journey.

So Pilgrim's Progress is the story behind the story. I wonder how many Little Women readers know what that story is all about?

It made me think two thoughts:

1. The Christian gospel has greatly shaped (Western) English literature. Another argument for Christian SRE in schools - learn the gospel and pass English HSC!

2. The OT is essential to understanding the NT. It is the story behind the story.

Happiness

A popular evangelistic fad at the moment is to piggy-back on the current research into happiness. Since everyone is obsessed with being happy the general idea is that we show them how faith in Christ actually promotes happiness.


1. I like the idea of a soft apologetic, starting with a desire for personal happiness in popular culture and gently trying to turn that towards God. It is absolutely essential that Christians engage with contemporary social attitudes and research.


2. However, I've got questions about the fundamental premise of this approach. Usually it begins with a definition of happiness, with attempts to 'correct' society's defintion. Nevertheless the basic assumption is that the goal of humanity is to be happy and that Christianity is an aid to that goal.

I'm not sure about that. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that the blessed are those who mourn. Paul talks about godly sorrow that leads to repentance in 2 Cor. 7. In other words sometimes being sad is a good thing, indeed sometimes what God wants for us.

Therefore I assume that you'd need to end up by challenging the overall assumption that God wants us to be happy all the time. (NB I'm NOT saying that God wants us to be sad all the time!) Hence instead of pointing everyone to Christ this strategy might, however unintentionally, encourage some to pursue happiness as their goal in life. Instead the gospel teaches us that true contentment and satisfaction in life is found when we pursue Christ as our goal in life.

Introverted Church?

Here is a blog post that has been drawn to my attention about how introverts react to church.

It is a timely reminder on how our personalities affect the way we process what happens when we meet together. I particularly liked one of the comments which pointed out that extroverts tend to be good at enaging with a lot of people (but rather superficially) and introverts often are good at developing deeper relationships with a very small number of people.

This perspective is helpful because ...

1. It stops us comparing personality types. Extroverts are not more godly per se than introverts.

2. It doesn't allow personality type to become an excuse for un-Christlike behaviour. (e.g. trampling over other people's feelings or ignoring visitors.)

3. It reminds us that, in Christ's body, we need all types to function well.

Test of Maturity

Went to a great MTS training day today with Tim and Gus.

Worth the entry fee alone was this from Marcus Reeves, "a maturing person is easily edified... if you've reached the stage when you'll only listen to Driscoll at his best, then you're already in deep trouble."

Ouch.

Even at the end of a long and humid day that hit me right between the eyes.

How to wreck your church in three weeks

The thing about blogging I've noticed is that everybody copies everybody else's stuff. So I came across this great post today. I read it on someone's blog but noticed that he had got it from someone else's and finally that he had taken it from a third party. So let's just go for the source! It's originally from Christ Is Deeper Still.

How to wreck your church in three weeks

Week One: Walk into church today and think about how long you’ve been a member, how much you’ve sacrificed, how under-appreciated you are. Take note of every way you’re dissatisfied with your church now. Take note of every person who displeases you.

Meet for coffee this week with another member and “share your heart.” Discuss how your church is changing, how you are being left out. Ask your friend who else in the church has “concerns.” Agree together that you must “pray about it.”

Week Two: Send an email to a few other “concerned” members. Inform them that a groundswell of grievance is surfacing in your church. Problems have gone unaddressed for too long. Ask them to keep the matter to themselves “for the sake of the body.”

As complaints come in, form them into a petition to demand an accounting from the leaders of the church. Circulate the petition quietly. Gathering support will be easy. Even happy members can be used if you appeal to their sense of fairness – that your side deserves a hearing. Be sure to proceed in a way that conforms to your church constitution, so that your petition is procedurally correct.

Week Three: When the growing moral fervour, ill-defined but powerful, reaches critical mass, confront the elders with your demands. Inform them of all the woundedness in the church, which leaves you with no choice but to put your petition forward. Inform them that, for the sake of reconciliation, the concerns of the body must be satisfied.

Whatever happens from this point on, you have won. You have changed the subject in your church from gospel advance to your own grievances. To some degree, you will get your way. Your church will need three or four years for recovery. But at any future time, you can do it all again. It only takes three weeks.

Just one question. Even if you are being wronged, “Why not rather suffer wrong?” (1 Corinthians 6:7)


I've only got one other question to add - how come it takes a full three weeks? I'm sure it would be easy to get it down to two!?

Joseph's Son on Podcast?

On Sunday morning we were looking at Luke 4 and I was struck by these few verses in particular:

“All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips.” "Isn't this Joseph's son?" they asked.” Jesus said to them, "Surely you will quote this proverb to me: 'Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum. "I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown.'" (Luke 4: 22-24)

One applications springs to mind about internet sermons. Everbody thought Jesus' sermons were great, apart from his own hometown. They did at first, but then it began to sink in who was speaking - Joseph's son, you know, the carpenter's boy.

I listen to podcast sermons all the time (I'm listening to one by Alister Begg at the moment!?) so I think they can be a really useful resource. However, the reaction Jesus gets in Luke 4 shows why they are becoming so popular.

Here's some thoughts from Luke 4:

1. This is all about Jesus right? Perhaps I'm just jealous that people only google 'smuts' for all the wrong reasons.

2. There is distance involved. In Nazareth they loved what Jesus had said all over Galilee. So too it is great to listen to Matt Chandler (or whoever) giving to the Village Church (or wherever) right between the eyes. Scripture is testimony itself to the fact that we can be challenged by overhearing God's messenger speaking to someone else. Nevertheless in listening to a sermon via the internet extra distance has been placed between speaker and hearer. It is so much easier to listen to X preaching to them, than to listen to my Pastor preaching to me.

3. It is less personal. It is easier to take a challenge from someone you don't know and will never meet. For a start it tends to stay in the abstract. Secondly, I'm totally in charge in how I apply the sermon to my life. The speaker has no come back to me. He can't point out that I've completely ignored the main theme of the passage. It is one thing when Mark Driscoll looks all of Seattle in the eye and gives a clear call to commitment and service. It is quite another when your Pastor asks you to teach in Kids' church.

4. It can encourage a cult of celebrity. This can happen in large churches as well as with the internet. I noticed this a bit in Scotland where roughly a thousand people would turn up on a Sunday morning. Even in Cheltenham I discovered that some wouldn't bother coming when I wasn't preaching ... or was that when I was preaching? When the sheer size of the number of people listening produces too much distance between preacher and listener it is very easy to put the preacher on a pedestal.

However, in a small or medium sized local church the preacher is close enough to touch - you get to know him week in and week out. All his faults and weaknesses. He's just like you really. Suddenly he's not so impressive. Why bother listening to him? He's just Joseph's son.


That's not to say that those things must happen when you listen on line. Just things to be watch out for.

Making the most of Holidays

Here's something that we thought about on Sunday morning ...

Everyone looks forwards to their holidays – but have you ever thought about how to get the most out of them? God has made us physical, emotional and spiritual beings and so we need physical, emotional and spiritual refreshment. Clearly the balance will look different if you go alone and will also vary depending on who goes with you, but the principles remain the same.

It is tempting to view holidays as the time to let all routine slip - we think we owe ourselves time to be lazy? I even remember one Baptist Minister telling me that he left his bible at home when he went on holiday! I don't get this approach - we manage to factor in time to eat and sleep on holiday, why don't we plan the rest of our time with the same care? I'm not talking about some kind of facist regime timetable that runs in bondage to the clock. Of course there is room for spontaneity and flexibility. Nevertheless you will get so much more rest and refreshment from your hols if you spend time planning them beforehand.

Here are some suggestions of things to take / preparations to make:

- Swimmers / walking shoes (to exercise your body)

- a good book to read (to exercise your mind)

- THE good book to read (a different Bible reading scheme?) As a Dad I think it is especially important to encourage my family to grow spiritually. Holidays are not a rest from Christian discipleship.

- Some sermons on CD / MP3 for the journey

- details of church services where you are going. A holiday is not a break from church (imagine what that would communicate to your children or friends about how important church is to you.) Instead holiday is a great opportunity to encourage another Christian fellowship and also to be stimulated by a different congregation. The internet is great for this. In a matter of minutes you can find out the time and location of a good church near to where you are staying.

- details of what’s on in the area … we try to do a mixture of things - e.g. beach / museums / walks etc. so that everyone gets to do something they like and are stimulated by.

- rest for the cook? If one person usually cooks the meals how can we give them a holiday from that too?

Any other ideas / comments?