Here in India at the moment and our Cornhill team has done some teaching in both Hindi and Nepali. It's not as easy as you might think (we're talking phrase by phrase translation, rather than simultaneous translation). They've done a good job though. Here are some of my translating tips I gave the team before we started:

• speak in whole but short sentences. I call this Readers Digest preaching. Long sentences, half thoughts, subordinate clauses – these are all hard to translate. You make the translation work much better if you use short, full sentences, even if it doesn't sound like the best BBC news.
• speak with simple words. Both Nepali and Hindi have smaller vocabularies than English. Our rhetoric style makes much of synonyms. That rarely works in translation.
• speak slowly. The translation itself introduces a slower pace to your speaking. But don't be so excited about the next phrase that you leave the last one still being translated.

It strikes me that all these tips have relevance to simple preaching in our mother tongue. It's no bad thing to keep sentences simple and short. Long subordinate clauses that look good on paper are much harder to digest when listened to. It's commendable to avoid complex language. It's good to introduce pause to counter pace. Of course, there is an art to rhetoric in our own language but I've heard enough UK speakers who ought to learn to listen to these tips carefully. They would be a nightmare to translate and that may well mean that they hard to listen to, even in their mother tongue.

I'm a great small groups fan. I think they are a necessary part of church if church is to do all we hope and expect of it (see, for example Hebrews 10.19-25). I think there are certain elements of that kind of Hebrews fellowship that are very, very difficult to make work in a congregation only setting. But here's the thing. I wonder if some of us are wedded to a small group model for the sake of it. It's not because we've thought through what's best to satisfy biblical mandates, but because that's the model we've inherited and is expected of our kind of church. Fresh from attending a small group in India last Friday, here are a few thoughts:

• is an interactive Bible study the best way to learn? For some groups it will be. But I am sure that this method works best in a middle class educated background. We have groups at our home church in East London for whom this is decidedly not the best way to learn, and others for whom it is. I don't think there's one size fits all. 
• I'm preaching on Matthew 21 this weekend and the quote Jesus uses from Psalm 8 to refute the chief priests who object to the children's singing has got me thinking. If the logic of Psalm 8 is pursued, there is an element of singing that is spiritual warfare (Ps 8.2). That needs some teasing out, of course, but is there a reason why you don't sing in your small groups?
• One thing in my Indian experience struck me very sharply: the willingness to be open about struggles and sin and pray for one another along those lines. (Ironically, afterwards, one member said to me that it was shame that they were not more open!). Does your small group make this kind of work possible? I know it's difficult for us repressed Brits, but if there is not building up and gracious challenge, the group idea seems to fall at the first hurdle. How can you encourage that?
• Is your group big enough? Is it small enough? It's hard planning a small group. There will always be weeks when people are away (though we want to encourage people to prioritise this mid week meeting). Too small and it is less likely to be representative of the church. Too large and there is limited opportunity for close fellowship. Do you have an optimum number in mind that you work towards?
• Do you pray enough? Small groups are not just Bible study groups. They are surely for prayer too, perhaps (arguably) more so. How do you structure your time to make this work? How do you keep prayer time from being about people's felt needs all the time (though there is a place for this?). I'm not sure we've got this right. Time for a rethink.

When, as church leaders, we tend to rethink church small groups, we tend to do so on the basis of size, location, membership, leadership – all important, of course. But perhaps we need to stand back and ask, what are small groups for and how does that answer shape our approach?

Lewis Allen has helpfully picked apart my post on sermon titles. For what it's worth, I think there is real wisdom in some of the points he makes. They're certainly worth reflecting on. It just goes to show that, as with many of these subjects, there is always another point of view and it's rare that a different point of view does not also contain much wisdom. If we've got you thinking then perhaps the objective has been fulfilled….

My post is here. Lewis' views are here. Enjoy. 

I enjoyed reading John Steven's blog post on smacking the other day here. I link to it not so much because of the point he makes (though I do agree with him). Rather, I want to hold it up as containing some excellent examples of working hard to understand the text. Let me pick out a few:

1. John has worked hard to understand some of the Bible verses in their context – both in terms of book (Proverbs) but also (importantly in this case) covenant. That has a significant effect on meaning. He has rightly asked the question, "How does this get changed (if at all) by the cross?"
2. He has also sought to understand the meaning of words. In this particular case, that means getting to the bottom (no pun intended!) of what 'beat' means. 
3. Third, John has compared Scripture with Scripture to understand meaning. Again this is an important principle. Scripture is its own best interpreter and rather than taking one Proverbs verse it needs to be read in the light of other similar injunctions
4. Fourth, implicitly, he has avoided framework. In this particular case the framework is to start with the assumption that smacking is right and proper and commanded. If you start with such assumptions, you generally end up reinforcing them. For what it's worth, this, I think, is the reason some US cousins find it so hard to think differently about the issue; because their cultural framework on this issue is so very strong (and before we throw any stones, I'm sure we carry similar baggage).

 All Exegesis 101. But, as the example shows, stuff that even the most exalted preachers can forget from time to time. Worth a refresher. 

I love working in the PT office. It's a happy, friendly, gospel place where people look out for one another and there is fun and laughter as we support one another in work and in the Christian life.

But it's not real.

I have to keep telling myself this as I minister to others. You may not have the equivalent of a PT office – there's only one! But even if you're a sole practitioner pastor-teacher your working environment is not real. It's not what the majority of your members struggle through Monday to Friday. You need to keep reminding yourself about that as you preach every Sunday.

I worked for 10 years in business rising to the heady heights of middle management in a global pharmaceutical company. I was sworn at regularly, sometimes violently. I was bullied for being a Christian. I was pressured to work long hours without charging clients, sometimes 16 hours a day. I was in a culture where there were few other Christians and sex, sport and drink were the only topics of conversation. I even had to work for Mohamed Al Fayed. 

No pastor faces that. And even if we spend time with non Christians (which I hope you do), you must not kid yourself that those relationships are the same as work relationships. They simply are not. They are more gentle, forgiving and so on.

Of course, the argument goes that even if you work with Christians, you are still working with sinners and so you can identify with people in the pews. That's only true up to a point. Christians are sinners, but they are saved sinners, transformed sinners and sinners being transformed. You wouldn't expect anything from my list above, even if there are tensions.

I mention all of this because I am acutely aware how easy it is to be distant from our people and fail to understand the world they live in. I think it's no bad thing if a few more gospel workers lived in the real world for a time. But whether we have done that or not, our preaching needs to connect with people who have vastly different life experiences from us during the midweek – and we, as faithful preachers, need to bear that in mind. 

I'm posting today from South Asia, considerably warmer than the UK. I'm here with a small team of students because it's our mission week when we send out teams to go and work with churches. I've brought a team over here to sample Christianity in a different culture and also work with 9 students on a year long preaching course modelled very loosely on the Cornhill Training Course. We're going to be studying Ezra which has been my study project for the last 6 months. It's not hugely well served by good commentaries, which is a shame because this is a super book full of exciting stories – a book for our time and one that preachers should definately have on their radar to preach. Here's my pick of the commentaries.

For devotional commentaries (those arising out of sermons or the like), there's nothing to beat Bob Fyall's latest contribution to the written word. He's written the BST guide on Ezra and Haggai and it's simply superb. We've brought out a dozen copies to give away.

For technical commentaries, the best two (in my less than expert opinion) are Charles Breneman in the New American Commentary series and HGM Williamson in the Word Biblical Commentary series. Fensham (NICOT) also deserves a mention. Williamson has also written the entries in IVP's one volume New Bible Commentary. Worthy of note is Old Testament stalwart Gordon McConville who has written both the Daily Study Bible volume and the ESV Study Bible notes.

Our youngest has been learning the musical Oliver as part of a school project. It's good stuff. She's learning and having fun. The music is catchy and clever – a step up from what goes as a musical today. She's particularly fond of Fagin's first number – You've got to pick a pocket or two. The opening lines set the tone for the rest of the song:

In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts

This words take on added poignancy when you know the story of the musical. A desperate Lionel Bart sold all the stage, television and film rights for £300,000 in the early seventies (they would later turn out to be worth millions and millions). Bart (you can read some of his story here) is a tragic figure. His cocaine and cash fuelled parties became notorious, living off the earnings from Cliff Richard's Living Doll. It's not a nice story, though. Here is a man who once had large amounts in the bank and discovered that it didn't count, it didn't count at all.

I mention this because this is the culture we are preaching to. Most of our members have some kind of delusion that if only they had more cash, things would be altogether better. Many will do the lottery. And those who don't, dream of doing it. It's only their conscience that prevents them. Our preaching has to tackle the prevailing culture and this is it. 

But there's a deeper issue at stake for preachers which is that many of us suffer from the same kind of delusion. If only we had the extra cash for a youth worker. If only we could reorder (that seems to be the in-word) our main building. If only we could buy an extra property to house staff. It's tempting to think that large amounts in the bank would solve any number of our church crises. But Lionel Bart proves that to a false hope which we must not only fight against in our people but in our own hearts.

To paraphrase the words of Fagin later on in the musical, "I think you'd better think it out again."

In all the furore over marriage here in the UK, here is an old episode of Q&A from Australia (the equivalent of Question Time) where Archbishop Peter Jensen contributes wisely, graciously and carefully. He doesn't get riled by ridiculous accusations and even takes quite outrageous insults on the chin. I'm sure this as measured and gracious a presentation as I've seen. We've lot to learn from his approach and content. Worth your time.

Robin Weekes finishes his time on the teaching staff of PT Cornhill last Friday. At Easter 2010 Robin had to leave his church leadership role in Delhi at very short notice for health reasons. This was a hard time for him and his wife Ursula, being unexpectedly torn away from their church family, and a testing time for the South Delhi congregation of Delhi Bible Fellowship, which Robin led.

After the family returned to the UK, Robin agreed to my request to come and teach at Cornhill for two or three years, or until a suitable position came up in church leadership in the UK. So Robin joined the PT Cornhill team in September 2010. After two and a half years with PT, Robin has been appointed as senior minister of Emmanuel Church in Wimbledon, where he starts on Easter Sunday, just three years after leaving Delhi Bible Fellowship.

All of us at Proclamation Trust are grateful to God for all that Robin has contributed to the ministry during his time with us. He has brought a high quality to his teaching that has strengthened the team, a pastoral sensitivity to his small group leading that has been warmly appreciated by the students, and a warm mentoring engagement with the students whom he has tutored. The rest of us at PT have learned much from Robin’s godliness and gained much from the exercise of his gifts. Robin has consistently stressed to us all the importance of godliness in bible teachers and preachers, and the significance of preaching, not only to the mind, but to the heart and the affections.

These emphases have increasingly become part of the Cornhill ethos and I hope will remain so after Robin leaves. Personally, I owe Robin a great debt of gratitude. For just over a year he and I were the only teaching members of staff; and then he was Acting Director of Cornhill during my sabbatical. In all this, Robin carried significant extra burdens with cheerfulness and zest. We wish him and Ursula well as they begin at Emmanuel and thank God for these past two and a half years of fellowship in the gospel of the Lord Jesus.

Some churches love to publish sermon titles. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this practice. It can be a great way to give order and structure to a preaching series. But I have to admit that I dislike them. Here's why:

• they are restrictive in terms of passage. It sometimes happens that you have to break into a series. Perhaps a young guy dies in the church. Perhaps a game-changing vote happens in Parliament. Both occurred this week as it happens. Or what happens when, after careful study, you realise that your unit of Scripture must be two preaching units to do justice to it. What do you do with your series then? Now, I realise that this depends on the nature of the church you are in. If you are sharing a preaching ministry with a team and you are preaching occasionally, it's harder to be flexible about this – but most of us are not in that kind of rarified ministry. Publish your titles and you're in danger of publishing a straightjacket.
• more importantly perhaps, unless you've really studied the book hard, there is a real danger you'll get the titles unhelpfully wrong. I'm preaching Matthew 21.12-17 in 10 days time and my title is a given, "A house of prayer" – only, after studying, I've come to realise that this is not what the passage is about. My theme sentence, for what it is worth, is "Jesus as Messiah, exercises kingly authority in his temple house." Prayer is incidental here (please don't take that the wrong way!). No doubt the title was given in good faith. But I will have to do some backtracking when I come to preach it.

That's why I avoid publishing sermon titles.