Alumni Resources

[by Alumnus Jonathan Lange]

In our lives, we often perform tasks with many steps that are ultimately mindless. For example, one might prepare a simple breakfast of scrambled eggs on toast with coffee, or set up church in a community center, or advertise across a university campus for a student union event. While there may be an element of creativity in each of these tasks -- shall I put thyme in my eggs? can I decorate the hall in some special way? how shall we brand our event? -- there is a large element of simple work: remember that the teaspoons need to be put out; find the teaspoons; put them on the table with the urn.

Enter the procedure document. It is a time-honored method of helping clever, creative people do multi-step tasks in a way that guarantees a basic level of quality and enables a much higher level of quality by letting those creative, clever people use their minds for things other than remembering to put out the teaspoons. Every good procedure document has a few key elements:

• pre-requisites, things you must be, have or have done before you use it
• outcomes, a checklist of what the world will look like when it's done
• concrete steps for reaching the outcomes

A normal person in your group should be able to pick up a procedure document, do the things on it, reach the outcomes and know that they have done well. Then, when Jake is sick and cannot set up church for the evening, anyone can step in and do an excellent job.

To do this, you must write a document that assumes the reader is rushed, stressed, entirely lacks common sense and does not really know what they are doing.

For example, "Set up the coffee table" is a good start, but not good enough. It is very important to have it there, because otherwise your rushed, stressed reader will forget all about it. However, as a step it needs more information. Where is the coffee table? Where should I put the physical table itself? What should I put on it? Is there an urn? Where is the urn? How do I know when I'm done?

A much better step would be something like:

• Set up the coffee table
• Get a fold-up table from the storage room
• Set it up by the window nearest the kitchen
• Get the clear plastic box marked "Coffee" from the storage room
• Spread the table cloth from the box over the table
• Ask someone to set up the urn

1. Find it in the kitchen
2. Empty it
3. Carry it over
4. Plug it in and turn it on, setting it to "High"
5. Fill it up on jug at a time using the big plastic jug kept under the sink

• Put the tea, coffee and milo containers on the table, labels facing away from the window
• Take one mug and put all of the clean teaspoons in it
• Make a cup of tea now, and put the used teabag & teaspoon in another mug (This is the best way of telling people where to put their dirty teaspoons)

Notice the redundancy is some of the descriptions, e.g. the 'clear plastic box marked "Coffee"'. This is to help the reader be sure that they are doing the right thing. If there is a box marked "Coffee" that's not clear plastic, they will know they are on the wrong track.

Note also that practically every physical action has a step, e.g. "Empty it". This is a good rule-of-thumb for writing a procedure document. When writing procedure documents involving doing things on a computer, you need to find a level of detail that approximates physical actions, e.g. Click 'Submit'; Type 'foo' and press Enter; Double-click on the icon marked 'Trouble'.

It is not in the example, but remember to refer to people by role rather than by name. Instead of saying "Mike", say "the head staff-worker" or whatever is actually appropriate for the document. If you mention a person by name, the reader will want to know why that person and not another, and will not know what to do when that person is unavailable.

In any case, after the step, there should also be something like:

"When you are done, guests should be able to find the coffee table, make a cup of tea without waiting for the urn to boil and put their used teaspoons somewhere without having to ask for help. The coffee table should look elegant, clean and well-presented."

And of course, before the "set up the coffee table" step, there would be a list of pre-requisites:

• Fresh full-cream milk and fresh soy milk for the coffee table (if you cannot find these, ask the MC, who will know who is responsible bringing them)

One of the best ways to write such a document is to do so while actually performing the task in question, or while observing someone perform it. It is very easy to forget things when one is simply sitting at a desk in an office and *imagining* what the procedure is. Once the document is written, whether on-the-spot or later in some imagination-fueled fit of documentation, it is not actually finished until someone has used it to perform the procedure. For this, it is best to have the process performed by a person who has not done the task in question before, supervised by someone who has. The supervisor should have a copy of the document and be updating it as the newbie goes through the steps, asks questions, becomes confused and so forth.

For example, after following the procedure, the supervisor might notice that there is an ugly clear plastic box marked "Coffee" in the middle of the community hall. The supervisor would then add a step saying "Put the box marked 'Coffee' back in the storage room where you found it".

Then, crucially, the document must be put somewhere it can be found. But that's a subject for a different article.

There it is. Now you can go ahead and write procedure documents, thus freeing your mind from worrying about mindless activities.

By Jonathan Lange, CC-BY-SA.

"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. (Mark 9:38-42)

In Mark's gospel the disciples are concerned for their own position and status. This effects they way they see 'rival' ministries. Jesus warns that if anyone tries to keep people out of the kingdom to maintain their own place it will be better for them to be drowned in the sea. Today's church ministers are guilty of all this.

Have you ever found yourself feeling jealous to hear that another ministry is going well? Have you ever tried to reason away the good results someone else is having (“oh that's because they are just...”)? You've just kept people out of the kingdom! You care more about your own patch! If you gave even a cup of water, you would have been rewarded. How much more if you gave your whole life.

Here then is the principle of supporting university ministry: 'whoever wants to save his life' and keep his place of honour will end up losing it, but whoever 'loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it' (8:35). We need to encourage our students to be a part of uni ministries while they are on campus. It's too good an opportunity to miss. It's is a season of life where evangelism, training and teaching them to live well in the world, can all be done in a way that directly applicable to them.

here is enormous potential for kingdom growth if we do. We need to encourage our students to be a part of uni ministries by commissioning them, praying for them and setting them free (from all kinds of ministry within the church). But it takes trust to let them go. It can feel like you are giving up a lot. How do you support uni ministry as a church pastor? Trust in God and give up your life.

This article in Faith and Leadership focuses on Redeemer Presbyterian Church's 'Center for Faith and Work'. I may not agree with the way in which Tim Keller explains the goal of this centre - it feels too optimistic to me - but I think the idea of applying our Christian faith to our work is a great idea.

[Alumnus, Tyson Ware, is a voracious reader. Here he shares some notes on a recent theological work on the book of Judges] This book is written in the format of a symphony with the chapters Sounding, Overture, Variations and Coda.  It is full of literary analysis and kind of academic but it has the air of true understanding and is written with a deep commitment to vindicate the book as a literary whole. The alternative theory of multiple-authorship with redaction of the composition of fragments, may minimize our attitude to Scripture and rob us of some of the teaching to be found in the book of Judges. Barry Webb is a gifted writer and Old Testament theologian of highly reputable character at Moore College in Sydney. I think he succeeds in this book in driving us back into reading the scriptures themselves with refreshed attentiveness and enthusiasm. I would commend you to grab a copy of his book. I have made some notes below of the points that stuck out to me, and then made some attempts to interpret the findings from a Christocentric perspective. Some of the interesting findings:

• The individual Judges throw light upon each other so that the book should be read in an integrated way.  There are recurring similarities, and a structure of Major Judges interspersed by Minors in a 1, 2, 3 pattern. Certain recurring motifs stitch the episodes together and develop irony.
• Yahweh's ways are unpredictable- Ehud the left handed man; surprising weapons- jawbone, oxgoad, tent peg (Samson, Shamgar, Jael); shaming through female accomplices- Deborah, Jael and woman millstone.
• There are similarities between judges- 300 torches- foxes tails tied together and Gideon's men; tentpeg = same word as hairpin (recall Samson).
• Samson is exasperated by Delilah’s relentless nagging to disclose…..Yahweh is exasperated (10:16, same word) by Israel’s misery, which moves him to give Israel salvation again.

Special attention should be given to the 3 Major Judges- Gideon, Jephthah and Samson. These Judges dominate the narrative and throw light on Israel's relationship to Yahweh:

1. Gideon- (Gideon-Abimelech is seen as one episode by Webb) Jerubbaal starts well in casting down idols but his own ephod becomes a snare— one idol is replaced by another…like a dog returning to its vomit….. Gideon protests that he will not rule over Israel, nor his son (8:23). The orthodox logic is that the One who wins the battle deserves to rule over Israel. However, Gideon’s king-like behaviour is betrayed by certain features- many wives, a concubine, 71 sons and summary punishment of the officials at Succoth. Abimelech (“my father is king”) makes the hypocrisy explicit. Gideon- Abimelech turn out to disobey the logic that Yahweh’s victories rightfully make Him Israel’s king.
2. Jephthah- Jephthah is used by Israel in their time of need. He thereby parallels Israel's treatment of Yahweh. Israel is shown to be using Yahweh in their time of need. They have again done evil in the sight of Yahweh (10:6). A third and bitterly tragic dimension of selfish “using” is seen when Jephthah attempts to bribe Yahweh on account of the high stakes he has negotiated into. The “Do to us what seems good to you. Only please deliver us this day” (10:15) is echoed by “Do to me according to what has gone from your mouth…….. only…leave me alone 2 months….” (10:36-7). Israel uses Jephthah. Israel uses Yahweh. Jephthah uses Yahweh.
3. Samson- set apart as a Nazirite - like Israel set apart amongst the nations; and yet he is self-engrossed and disinterested in his calling.  Throughout his career, his acts as a Judge are coincidental rather than deliberate.  Only at the end does there begin to be some overlap between his intentions and Yahweh's- however the impurity of Samson’s motives remains at the denouement when he seeks vengeance for his blindness and achieves more in his death than in his entire life.

Each of the 3 major Judges suffer ironic retributions:

• Abimelech slaughters on a stone and is killed by a millstone.
• The Ephraimites threaten to burn Jephthah’s house down after he has already sacrificed his only child to the flames (for another pun on “house” compare 2Samuel7).
• Samson, who has said earlier "She is right in my eyes," has his eyes put out.
  1. God has won the battle at Calvary- so Jesus is rightfully King over our lives.
  2. God shows mercy because he is appalled by our misery, but he is never used- We are admonished to walk in a manner worthy of our calling Eph 4:1 etc
  3. We are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession that we may proclaim the excellencies of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light! (1Pet 2:9)
  By Tyson Ware
The saving acts that are achieved through these men, and their inclusion in Hebrews 11 should temper our negative estimates. The introductory and concluding segments that sandwich the Judges narratives are also given treatment by Webb. The command to drive out the other nations is surpassed by their zeal against their own brothers as full blown civil war erupts when Sodom is duplicated at Gibeah. The same crime is in principle reduplicated at Shiloh to provide wives for the tribe of Benjamin. What is the Christocentric message/ other legitimate take-home messages of Judges? New Testament correlates to the cluster of motifs that are invoked by the 3 Major Judges segments: