Last week I had the pleasure of being part of the Junior Anglican Evangelical Conference 2014 (JAEC for short).

JAEC began as the idea of minister and writer John Richardson, a man who this last year went on to glory after a sudden brain tumour. A small group of us had first met as a conference back in 2011, with John sensing there was a need for young would-be ministers in the Church of England to benefit from a little more leadership and direction concerning their role in the C of E. His inspiration had been a 1945 C of E report called ‘Towards the Conversion of England’, which outlined a remarkable vision for bringing the good news of Jesus to the whole nation, as well as a “half-converted” Church.

Three years on, this was JAEC’s first year without John, yet his legacy very much lived on. Forty-something of us met together in Northamptonshire, a complete mix of those just beginning the ordination selection process, ordinands, curates, incumbents (i.e. vicars), and a few in lay leadership roles.

One of the highlights was having Bishop Keith Sinclair exposit the opening couple of chapters of 1 Peter, looking at the church’s call to holiness, both corporately and personally. He clearly spoke as one who had himself been nourished by the word of God, which is always a great encouragement when listening to a preacher. He challenged us to see how the word of God leads the people of God into obedience, which must in turn lead into love (1:22-23). But he also unpacked how the context for such love and obedience was a church that is distinct, noting how it can be easy for the Church to forget what it means to be in exile. 

With the conference theme being ‘the effective Anglican’, we also had addresses from Lee Gatiss of Church Society on strategy and three excellent sessions looking at marriage, baptism, and death in the Church of England. These were rich in content, and also offered follow-up seminars that were full of practical dynamite for on-the-ground ministry.

Another excellent element of JAEC 2014, which is a big win in my book, was that it took the traditional meaning of ‘conference’ seriously, i.e. there was plenty of time for conversation. As well as the mix of various sessions (expositions, presentations and seminars), there was ample time to chat things through, ask for advice, and get to know others in similar (or dissimilar) situations. This means one has the fairly unique opportunity of listening, learning and dialoguing with those who are a few steps on from you, as well as encouraging those who are treading where you have already trod. The presence of various constituency leaders from sympathetic organisations strengthens the sense of this too.

Those I came with for whom it was their first JAEC seemed greatly encouraged by the two days. At a time where it feels like much guidance for young Anglican evangelicals is needed, it’s my experience that a forum such as JAEC is really valuable. For that, I give thanks to God for John Richardson’s initiative and heart to make it happen.

Ah, the joys and angsts of Freshers’ Week. Crazily it’ll be ten years this October since I first rocked up at Durham, complete with my Dad’s old duffle coat, my first laptop and some ‘gap yah’ beads. Ok, thankfully I didn’t go as far as the latter.

It’s a time of new opportunities, new friendships, and, in a way, new starts. For me, a defining factor of my time at university was benefiting from, and being involved with, the university’s Christian Union. Whether it be encouraging those already trusting in Jesus Christ, or whether it be giving others the opportunity to consider him for the first time, UCCF Christian Unions can have a huge impact – and that can begin in Freshers’ Week.

Two years ago I put together a short series of posts looking at how university Christian Unions can make the most of the opportunities that Freshers’ Week presents. After five years working with students from a range of different universities, it was an attempt to try and distill some of the advice I’d been given, as well as reflect on what I’d learnt in that time.

With September fast approaching, I figured it might be worth sharing again, in the hope that some of it is an encouragement. So, here are my top 5 thoughts, each linking to another post explaining more. Perhaps you know someone involved with leading a CU for whom these could be a useful springboard for discussion?

1. Keep the main thing the main thing: Christian Unions are mission teams, not wannabe churches or social clubs.

2. Create a CU culture that loves the local church.

3. Be all about the gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than assuming it.

4. As individuals, take the opportunity to evaluate how your own evangelism is going.

5. … well, actually I never got as far as 5, so what would your advice be? Why not leave it in the comments below…

You might also find this guide from UCCF handy.

It’s something I’ve noticed in myself for a while now. I hate it, but I find it occurs all too easily. Maybe you suffer from it too? It’s the question of what comes out first.

Picture the scene: you’re in a conversation, maybe with someone you know well or it could be someone you’ve just met but who you feel is coming from a similar place, and the subject turns to the name of a mutual acquaintance/preacher/theologian/ministry leader. What comes out first?

Thankfulness for their friendship, encouragement or ministry? Celebration of their God-given personality, gifts and contribution?

Maybe. Or perhaps if you’re anything like me, you instead find yourself showing you know the person by choosing to highlight one of their weaknesses or faults.

Perhaps it’s that their personality is a little bit “unorthodox”, or they have their own foibles and fancies which make them stand out a bit. Or there’s that slightly wacky aspect of their theology. Whatever it is, that’s where we go first.

…”Ah, Bob, yes, funny bloke isn’t he. Have you heard what he believes about X?”

And so for some reason, you both end up joining together in identifying the other person by their defects and blemishes. It’s like some distorted form of ‘name-dropping’ with bonus points for knowing someone’s flaws. Sound familiar?

For a start, it shows I’ve got a pretty whack biblical anthropology. I mean, what has happened to my doctrine of sin? Do I suddenly expect everyone to be perfect, to the point where every fault becomes a ‘kiss and tell’ story for me to exploit? And where has my “glorious treasure in jars of clay” understanding of ministry gone? Is no one else apart from me allowed to be a jar of clay?

Thomas Brooks, a Christian pastor from the seventeenth century, put it like this:

“It is sad…that saints should have many eyes to behold one another’s infirmities, and not one eye to see each other’s graces.“

There’s that classic axiom of “Say ten positives, before you say one negative”, and perhaps that’s a good ratio to have in the back of one’s mind. But the problem isn’t fixed by simply doing a numbers check. The real problem is exposed as we consider why we say what we say. Why is it that this comes out first?

This takes us to the ideas CS Lewis explored in his ‘Inner Ring’ essay. By highlighting someone’s faults, I am actually trying to highlight something about myself. I have something to prove, and I do that by disproving someone else. I am letting my conversation partner know that I am well aware of the third person’s flaws, and by implication I am establishing myself as different. I am the clued-up one. I am not the oddity. I am the one who is strong/sorted/normal.

Yet the irony is that as I indulge in laying bare someone else’s faults, it is my own insecurities and my own pride that are bubbling visibly to the service. James speaks of the same mouth being used to both praise God and curse those made in the image of God (3:9-10), before stressing “this should not be”.

After all do I really imagine I am any different to them? Do I really expect, should my name turn up in someone else’s conversation, that no one would have any weaknesses or weirdnesses, faults or failings, to mention concerning me? In reality where would they even start?

Now I’m not saying we all have to pretend everyone’s perfect or that we can never talk about weaknesses. I’m not after some hagiographical Christianity that never evaluates itself or its leaders. I’m just suggesting that, if our tendency is to often identify people by subtly dissing them in some way, then it’s worth us asking what’s going on in our own hearts.