We were free after lunch on day two, reconvening at 4.30 pm for a traditional question and answer session with all the main speakers, including Linda Alcock who has been taking the women through Titus in the alternative sessions for them. Many of the questions were directed to Leonardo de Chirico but everyone contributed including John Benton who had not spoken at that point.
He spoke in the evening on the psychology of Samson for leaders. John, who has recently retired from pastoral ministry to work with the John Owen centre helping pastors in ministry, has a new book out (Lion's honey), just a hundred pages long, it is described as follows
"John Benton brings his wide pastoral experience to bear on the realities of Christian leadership as many experience it: “Our own sins always leave scars on us. These can go deep. There are also the bruises that come from being on the wrong end of other peoples’ sins. No one has a perfect past or a perfect upbringing. So Christian leaders can be damaged goods. Furthermore, each of us, no matter how ‘regular’ we may a
I did hear most of what he had to say and found it convicting and yet encouraging. I did not take, notes, as I was busy with my grandson Ezra, who is herewith his mam and dad (Gwilym is with Nain in London).
There are probably better places in Scripture from which to make this point but given that all of Scripture is God breathed and useful then it cannot be without significance that the reason the city of Laish fell to the Danites was not only that it was a long way from Sidon but also that it had no relationship with anyone else (see also verse 7). A people apparently living in safety, like the Sidonians, unsuspecting and secure were easily overcome by the Danites and their land, which lacked nothing and that had made them so prosperous was quickly lost. Those peaceful and unsuspecting people were attacked with the sword and their city burned down (verse 8). A wiser people would have made a treaty with Sidon or with some other city and not failed to foster relationships with at least one other city or other. What is true for cities and, by implication, for larger states, is also true for churches and for individuals. If we are unwilling to have relationships with others, as prosperous and as peaceful as we may be in the short term, we may well find ourselves under attack from one quarter or another and unable to continue as we once did in safety and security. Local churches should be independent, I believe, but not isolated. It is true that we are to carry our own load but a burden shared is a burden halved. Let the story of Laish be a warning to us.