The Pen And The Pulpit

F. W. Boreham is widely regarded as the preeminent Christian essayist of all time. You can read my Finding Truth Matters article on him to find out why [read]. Boreham inspires me in a way no living preacher does. He was destined to be a man of words from his earliest infancy when a wandering gypsy prophesied that he would be a writer - "place a pen in his hand and he will lack for nothing" was the essence of the message. His loves of books developed in his childhood. His ability to report and comment began in his teens. By his twenties his vast intellect enabled him to graduate from Bible College a year earlier than other students. His first pastoral appointment was an adventure as Mr Spurgeon invited him to go to the fledgling nation of New Zealand. From a church of thousands led by the great Charles Haddon Spurgeon (whom Boreham regarded as being past his preaching prime by the time he heard him) he went to a rural community of around 1,000 people in Mosgiel (south of Dunedin). He pastored a church of less than 200 people for twelve years.

Almost immediately Boreham felt a mixture of frustration and inadequacy. His mentor, John Doke, advised him to read. "Read what?" Boreham replied. "Start with Gibbon" said Doke. And thus began Boreham's quest to buy one new book a week and read a book a week. His sermons became saturated with the most exquisite illustrations as he drew from ancient and modern literature; the classics and the obscure; fiction and non-fiction; and even technical journals read in waiting rooms! He humbly felt the 'waste' of these sermonic masterpieces and sought a wider audience for them. Quite a challenge in the 1890s! He converted his sermons to newspaper articles for Otago Times, the New Zealand Baptist magazine, then sometime later an Australian Christian weekly newspaper. His writing grew in popularity across the Tasman. In years to come, at the urging of many colleagues, he part self-published his first book ("The Luggage of Life") which was a phenomenal success. Boreham, now an Australian, would go on to become the contributing editor of the Hobart Mercury and the Melbourne Age, and become the best-selling Australian author of all time. His books are now highly prized collector's items. On eBay you can pay as much as $US1499 for some of his first edition books.



I have now become a devotee of Boreham. I have acquired about 56 of his 58 books. While I try to read current books, I am always reading a Boreham book. I have come to know F.W. Boreham as a writer without par. But when I preaching at Beaumaris Baptist Church in Melbourne, Victoria, I met people who had heard Boreham! They said to me that he was equally as good a preacher as he was a writer. 

Boreham wrote often about preaching. In his autobiography he talks briefly about the tension he experienced between writing and preaching and in essence said there was no tension for him: preaching and writing were complementary. By reading and writing much, Boreham said, a preacher could formulate his words and learn to select the most apt word to more fully convey the force of an idea, illustration, or concept. In fact, Boreham thought that every preacher should write his sermon out after he had preached it. This is precisely what he did and he felt that the discipline was invaluable to the quality of his preaching.

I have tried to apply Boreham's wisdom and develop my reading, writing and preaching with the common goal of magnifying the immensity and infinity of the eternal God. I hope you find the story of his life and ministry as shown in this DVD series as inspiring as I have.

Andrew Corbett

EXPLANATION, INSTRUCTION, INSPIRATION AND CONVERSION - The Elements of Great Preaching

What makes for "great" preaching? F.W. Boreham said that it was 'great writing' that made for great preaching since writing helped the preacher to collect his thoughts and select the best words with which to express himself. It is noteworthy that the most effective preachers throughout history have also been great writers. The seventeenth century Puritan preacher, Richard Baxter, is considered one of the greatest preachers of all time and he was also a prolific writer. The eighteenth century preacher, Rowland Hill, often preached to over 20,000 people near London and was considered one of the greatest preachers of all time. He too was a prolific writer. And of course the nineteenth century preacher (known as 'the Prince of Preachers'), Charles Haddon Spurgeon preached in the Metropolitan Tabernacle to nearly 18,000 people a weekend and is generally considered the most prolific Christian author of all time. But philology (the love of words) is just one component of great preaching. Augustine of Hippo, who ministered in the fifth century in a Northern African seaside village, said he would much rather upset the grammar experts with the misuse of words in a sermon but be understood by his largely illiterate audience of fishermen and peasants! Yet Augustine's writings are still considered among the most profound of all time.

I love preaching. One day I hope to become good at it. It's one of the reasons why I'm so fascinated by people who are really good at it. I try to analyse their preaching and glean lessons for my own preaching ministry. I find myself searching out the great preachers of history in order to do this. Perhaps history will record that several of the preachers of today deserve similar recognition and status to these other preaching greats, but at the moment most of those designated by the popularity polls as 'great' preachers couldn't really hold a candle to some of these past preaching greats. But I admit it, I'm the odd one out in this opinion. I've attended the meetings of some of these modern, international pop-preachers and observed how most of the throng disagree with me. Apart from being bewildered by this at times, I simply wonder if my standards might be too high?

Some preachers are really teachers who rarely preach. Some preachers try to be teachers who actually demonstrate why they can't teach. Teaching and preaching are different disciplines. Preaching includes an element of instruction and therefore in that sense involves teaching. And if most teachers know what's good for them and their audience they will spice their teaching with a dose of preaching to maintain interest. Perhaps the simplest way to distinguish teaching from preaching is that while teaching 'informs', preaching 'inspires'. Another way of saying the same thing is, teaching 'mends' but preaching 'moves'. Good preaching should 'move' the hearer to action. Great preaching moves hearers greatly.

But move where? The Bible's consistent message is that people should be moved toward God. Great preaching can simultaneously move sinners to the Saviour, desperates to the Deliverer, and the conceited to the Conqueror while driving the saint into the Son. To do this the preacher must explain, instruct, inspire and convert his audience. He will use great words, great simplicity, great drama, great illustrations, with great zeal and fervour for the great cause of a great Christ. This world greatly needs more great preachers.


Andrew Corbett
www.andrewcorbett.net

Going Through The Mill

Just down the River from where my family lives is the proposed site of the world's largest Pulp Mill. Originally I was reasonably disinterested in this proposed development when it was first mooted in 2003. Then in 2006 the Proponent submitted their Integrated Impact Statement. Normally a developer has to submit an Environmental Impact Statement, but perhaps due its significance this proposal had to evaluate not just its environmental impact but its social and economic impacts as well. When this I.I.S. was submitted to the State Government appointed Assessor, the Resource Planning and Development Commission, significant aspects of its proposal had been changed. This left virtually no time for public submissions to comment on this new proposal since most had assumed that the Proponent was going to formally present its original proposal. Even at this stage I was particularly peturbed though. But then more inconsistencies seemed to emerge that led to me being formally invited to comment on this.

I wrote a brief paper on the broad issue of how Christians might respond to environmentalism and in particular: forestry. I then took this Biblical foundation and addressed the ethics and morality of the proposed Gunns Pulp Mill. This went through a fairly rigorous peer review process with several pastors contributing comments and suggestions to its final outcome. It was then distributed to a wider readership of pastors for their comment. Once we collated those comments and polished them into the final draft, approval was given to publish it and distribute it through my email mailing list. Within an hour or so of it being published on the web site (www.findingtruthmatters.org) I was contacted by a State Parliamentarian who requested that it be removed because it was so factually flawed. This then was the beginning of an interesting journey.

Some have suggested that perhaps it was because our weekly radio program is perhaps the most listened to Tasmanian Christian radio program in Tasmania; or, that our weekly audio podcast is one of the most popular Christian podcasts in Tasmania; or, that our websites have some of the highest traffic in Tasmanian for a Christian web ministry; or, that the Christian community is perhaps the single biggest unorganised voting block in our State- (who knows?) but our concerns were certainly treated very seriously. Within 24 hours of publishing the Paper on the findingtruthmatters.org website I was invited to meet with the Pulp Mill Project General Manager. When Sue Neales found this out she rang for an interview and published this in the Mercury Newspaper. From that story breaking I have been interviewed by several national newspapers and most recently, Four Corners ABC Television who came and filmed our church service and me preaching.

Since the Sue Neales article appeared I don't think a day has gone by without someone ringing, writing, emailing, or dropping in to tell me their story regarding this issue. Added to this have been the many Parliamentarians who have contacted me to express their disappointment with me. But to the credit of the Proponent, they have used this as an opportunity for dialogue. I have now met with the management of Gunns three times, the latest meeting being yesterday, where I have continued to raise community concerns with them. The motivation for doing this is both the pursuit of the truth in the public arena, and a deep care for our Valley. It is my prayer that God's will will be done in regard to this Pulp Mill and the truth will come to light. But ultimately my prayer is that this Valley will come to know Jesus Christ as the God who gives us the earth for our benefit and what we do with it is for His glory.


Andrew Corbett
www.andrewcorbett.net

Life And Sport

Life As Sport

I love tennis. I love playing it. I love watching it. When I grew up nearly everyone I knew played tennis. A trip down to the local Corio tennis club meant that you would have to take your turn on the benches for one of the six courts to become free. During this time it was easy to tell when Wimbledon was being played because people would trot off to work and school bleary-eyed from having stayed up all night to watch it on TV. It was the twilight of Australia's dominance as a tennis nation. Players like Newcombe, Roach, Dent, Alexander were hero worshiped. This meant that young Aussie kids wanted to become like these heroes and it very common for professional tennis coaching to be offered through Government Schools (like the one I went to) to help make this a reality.

I started being coached from the age of 11 and playing in junior tournaments shortly after. I was committed to being a professional tennis player as I grew up. During my early teenage years I travelled Victoria playing most of the major junior tournaments. When I was 16 I bought my first racquet stringing machine to try and alleviate the spiralling costs of restrings. This is a craft I have maintained over the past 27 years and am still a member of the professional racquet stringers association (USRSA). But I also began to learn that my destiny lay not in playing tennis professionally, but in what I am now doing today.

When I arrived in Tasmania in 1995 to take over the pastorate of a small semi-rural church I was reluctant to get involved in tennis here because I wanted to focus on the church without divided loyalties. But as I settled into the pastorate I found that tennis became a healthy distraction. I offered my coaching services in a voluntary capacity to the local club which was soon received with much appreciation and over the years I have coached dozens and dozens of children in the basics of how to play tennis. Most recently I was received by the governing body of tennis in Australia (Tennis Australia) as a registered "Hotshots" coach and made a member of their coaching fraternity. I am now working at recruiting young people to the game of tennis.


Last weekend I was interviewed by two newspaper journalists. In recent weeks I had been doing media interviews about my comments regarding the proposed Gunns Pulp Mill at Longreach (just 20 kilometres or so from where I live). But these most recent interviews were about tennis. I was asked by both journalists why I thought it was important for children to play tennis. I answered that tennis is not only about fun and exercise which counters our growing obesity rates, and it was not only a game that could be played at any age (unlike most contact sports), it was also a game of rules which highlighted that even in the midst of tense of competition we have to keep within certain boundaries- which is a great way to view life. Playing tennis is a great life-skills teacher.

So I was thrilled when I read F.W. Boreham make similar comments about his love for cricket. He loved watching cricket. Whenever the cricket was on at the MCG he would work his pastoral duties in the morning and then take the afternoon off to go and watch the cricket. Boreham admits to being a poor cricket player but a great cricket lover. It seems that sport and spirituality have a lot in common. The apostle Paul uses certain athletic metaphors to encourage the Corinthian believers in their walk with Christ.

For most Australians sport is more important than religion. But I wonder how many Australians realise how many of the principles involved in sport are also the essence of what the Christian life is all about? In cricket there is a bowler trying to get you out much like the enemy of our souls is constantly trying to do. As long as the three stumps stand in unbroken union behind everything the batter does he is safe in much the same way that the Christian is undergirded by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In cricket some balls just have to be left alone and allowed to pass through to the Keeper in much the same way that not every attack of the Enemy is worthy of our response. The game of cricket is played over two innings in much the same way that Christian's life is marked by two innings- before Christ and after- and the Word that guides him is marked also by two divisions- Old and New Testaments. The two teams are comprised of twelve players each, similar to the governments of the Old Testament where twelve patriarchs ruled and the New Testament where twelve apostles ruled. In cricket it is often the case that the fastest balls bowled are the easiest to hit for a six just as life's toughest struggles are often the most maturing. Each game of cricket is overseen by an umpire just as life is also overseen by the Umpire.

Perhaps a similar process could be undertaken for just about any sport. Rules, an umpire, boundaries, struggle, a goal and cooperation with team members are all essential ingredients to successful living, especially successful Christian living. The next time you play tennis (or any other sport) you are not just exercising your body and mind, you are honing your life skills to be able to live more fully for God.

Andrew Corbett
www.andrewcorbett.net

THE NICE THING ABOUT PROPHETS IS THEIR POPULARITY

I'm both fascinated and disturbed by Dr Geoff Pound's assessment of Australia's greatest essayist, F.W. Boreham, that it was his popularity that essentially led to him losing his prophetic voice.

Initially Boreham wrote on issues that affected his immediate readers. This started with his New Zealand period when he wrote on such things as New Zealand's involvement in the Boer War, back in the 1890s. After he moved to Australia, it incorporated issues relating to the First World War, the environmental, and education. But Dr Pound has documented, that as Boreham became increasingly popular and appreciated by both secular and Christian audiences, his prophetic voice waned. Boreham argued that he had to write for a broader audience and therefore wrote on matters eternal, infinite and immense. He aimed for his writing to be "timeless". And they are. Every time I read Boreham I marvel at some gem he shows me. But I am not his original audience. While the world was on the brink of war, Boreham wrote about everyday, even mundane, things. He saw this as a type of healthy distraction for his audience. But was it guised irrelevance?

When Boreham arrived from the sleepy little Kiwi town of Mosgiel- just south of Duneden- he had been longing for a larger local audience. From his church of few dozen in New Zealand he moved to a church of a few hundred in Hobart. It looked like he had his larger local audience. Curiously though, when Boreham was writing his very localised essays from those converted sermons to his New Zealand dozens, it became amazingly obvious as the years went by that were actually being read by millions around the world! Boreham's international appeal was not undermined by his localised relevance but it actually seemed to be enhanced by it.

BEING NICE

What I notice about Biblical prophets is that they are not motivated by being popular. Jeremiah, for example, said that he did not choose to be a prophet, and if he had a choice would have chosen something that was much more popular.

...I have become a laughingstock all the day;
everyone mocks me.
For whenever I speak, I cry out,
I shout, “Violence and destruction!”
For the word of the LORD has become for me
a reproach and derision all day long.
If I say, “I will not mention him,
or speak any more in his name,”
there is in my heart as it were a burning fire
shut up in my bones,
and I am weary with holding it in,
and I cannot.

Jeremiah 20:7b-9 ESV

Jeremiah wanted to be nice. But his message of truth would not allow him to be. God used him to accuse the government of moral corruption, the religious leaders of wickedness, and the other prophets of selling out. I guess Jeremiah could have made himself so busy with speaking engagements that he no longer heard from God and could then have used his God-given charisma to deliver audience-friendly messages that could have helped him to become "nice". But faithful prophets are rarely "nice". They are awkward. They are generally unmanageable. They are therefore not popular.

When the Ultimate Prophet came on the scene, the devil wanted to entice Him with the things that feed popularity: the kingdoms of this world, a demonstration of His power, and the power to produce food. But Christ refused. He often 'dismissed the crowds' to be by Himself (eg. Matthew 14:23). He is contrasted with those religious leaders who were bound by needing popular approval. John says of them that they "loved the praises of men more than God" (John 12:43). Jesus was not trying to be nice so that He could be popular- He was solely trying to honour His Father and give Him glory.

POPULARITY

Of course the equation: GOD'S WORD+MESSENGER=NO POPULAR ACCEPTANCE , is not always true - just as a lack of populariity is no measure of God's approval or otherwise. Neither is it a fair equation to say that because a preacher is not "nice" he must be 'prophetic'. It might simply be that he isn't nice! But when the preacher decides to seek God's mind about into issues facing his local audience he must be prepared to forfeit popularity and enter into the world that the past prophets walked: one where they will be maligned, misunderstood, controversial, and persecuted. Not everyone will be called by God to such a ministry. In fact, you should pray that God wouldn't call you to such a ministry. But if God does and He gifts you with the medium of writing, and you find that your localised writing ends up having broader (and perhaps even global) appeal, consider heeding Dr Pound's lament of Boreham and by implication take his advice to maintain your prophetic voice rather than succumbing to being nice. There is little that is really nice about a popular prophet.

Andrew Corbett
www.andrewcorbett.net

THE PEN IS MIGHTIER

Will the day come when we no longer use pens?

Pens tell me a lot about their owners. When they travel in quartets in the top shirt pocket of their owner they tell me something. When they have a piece of star-shaped white ivory on one end they discreetly tell me that their owner has taste. When they are clear and disposable they tell me their owner is fairly easy-going. Pens are, however, no indication of their owner's intelligence- afterall the world's smartest detective, Lieutenant Colombo, didn't even own one (he used pencils usually borrowed from the murderer at the crime scene)!

My late father-in-law was a world-class environmental engineer. His professional drawings were all done by hand rather than computer. For this he used very expensive pencils and ink. He rarely ever wrote notes, yet he determined in the months leading up to the day he was to retire he would buy an executive pen (worth $400 at the time). On my first trip to South East Asia I bought one of these same pens for $8 (which continued to work almost the whole time I was on that trip).

I rarely use a pen these days, yet, I am writing more than I have ever written. I say "rarely" rather than "never" because I deliberately choose to take up a pen and commit some things to ink on paper. I use no particular pen for this discipline, although I do generally prefer blue ink. Despite my growing lack of pen usage, I loathe leaving my home without at least one pen in my pocket. This is strange because I use a Palm PDA to jot things down rather than a pen and paper. Even today when I was pastoring a young leader during a lunch session, rather than do what I've done for years: draw my illustrations on the back of a paper napkin, I simply pulled out my Palm PDA and used that instead. Will we still use pens in the future?

Pen therapy

When I read some of the personal comments that FW Boreham wrote in his many books about his method of writing, I am struck that he used a pen. He hand-wrote the manuscripts for his books. He did this by choice despite the availability of type-writers. He even wrote about the therapeutic nature of his writing. For Boreham, taking up the pen and hand-writing his essays was a spiritual exercise that only a pen could achieve. He encouraged younger ministers to do the same and predicted that they would be spiritually stronger for doing so.

I had intuitively taken up FW Boreham's advice before ever reading it. In keeping a prayer journal by taking up a pen and hand-writing, I must choose my words carefully as I never cross my hand-written words out (and there is no delete or undo buttons on my pen). When I look back over my prayer journals I can see by the neatness of my hand-writing some indication of my state of mind. This is virtually impossible if I am just looking at a screen full of text. Thus, I have grown to agree with my postumous mentor, that the pen is quite therapuetic. It is why I encourage those battling with depression to take up their pen and daily write their prayers to God.

While email has revolutionised communications, and I appreciate the many encouraging emails I get from strangers around the world for something I've said or written, it doesn't really compare to the rare occasions when I get a hand-written note. These types of hand-written notes have arrived in several forms particularly over the past few weeks. Today I received a hand-written card from a young girl. Yesterday I received a hand-written note from someone encouraged by something I had recently preached. A few weeks ago I received a hand-written letter from a federal parliamentarian. It seems that the pen may still be mightier.

Andrew Corbett
www.andrewcorbett.net

HIERARCHY OF WONDER

We are created to wonder and wonder about the created. Consider the ant, the Scriptural Sage advised. Consider the heavens, reflected the Psalmist of Psalm 8. Consider. Ponder. Wonder. The Bible gives us much to ponder and encourages us to ponder much.

There are different ways to ponder but it generally involves asking questions. The Philosopher asks why. The Historian asks when. The Scientist asks how. The Textual Critic asks what. The Geographer asks where. The Theologian asks who.

When it comes to pondering Scripture, its important to know which questions are being answered first. Certain passages are very locational and invite the Geographer's question. Other passages are mysterious and invite the Textual Critic to ask his question before we can begin to ask the questions of others. Some passages, like Genesis 1 and 2, on the surface appear to be the domain of the scientist when in fact they are the Theologian's foundational answers to his lingering question.

The Theologian's question of Genesis 1 and 2 appears to be what the text is answering. "Who" is creating everything? The Theologian answers this question with minimal effort. Genesis 1 and 2 immediately disappoints the Scientist though. It doesn't mention "how" the Creator created in terms other than theological- "Then God said...". The Textual Critic is given the day off when it comes to this passage because the text is plain: God created everything. The Geographer is left clueless because he is not told where God first created. We are told that God brought Adam to Eden, but from where? the Geographer asks- but the text is silent- therefore it doesn't want us to know. The Philosopher is less disappointed. He hears the text answer his question- the Creator created for His pleasure. The Historian assumes that since "Genesis" means 'Beginnings' his question will be answered first. But he is quickly lost in the absence of any geographical reference.

Creation is wonderful. We can wonder endlessly about the Biblical account of the Creation event unless we recognise that there appears to be a hierarchy of wonder that the text invites. Even though He is never named in the Text, the passage begins with "In the beginning God" leaving us in no doubt that it is about to answer the "Who?" question rather than the "When?" question. It continues to refer to this God over and over again. "Then God said", "And God saw", answer the Theologian's question not the Historian's.

To ponder the wonder of the Creation Event it appears that the Sacred Text invites us to ask these questions in this order-
1. Who?
2. Why?
3. What?
4. When?
5. Where?
6. How?

Before we argue with another wonderer of this event about the "How?" and the "When?" it might be advisable to answer the more pressing questions first: Who is this God? Why did He create (and particularly, Why did He create me)? What is it that the Text plainly says about Him in this event? Yet, many people are prepared to make the last three questions the top three questions and thereby completely miss what the Text answers. The challenge for this wonderer is to persist in the midst of the pressure from How-Where-When-ers who seem bent on reversing the hierarchy of wonder and convincing everyone else that their questions are the test of faith. But I seem to recall that Jesus placed the Who? question as the first question to be answered: Who do you say I am?

When we read Scripture, including Genesis 1 and 2, it seems that the Who? question always needs to be answered first. Who is this God? Why is He doing what He is doing? What does this Text tell me about Him? Answering these questions helps us to wonder about the One who is called Wonderful in whose image we have been wonderfully made.



Andrew Corbett
www.andrewcorbett.net

Fear Is Worship

The expression, "The fear of the Lord" has puzzled theologians and believers for millennia. Fear is almost universally treated as an undesirable characteristic. The Bible seems to reinforce this impression when it commands- "Fear not!" The unvirtuous side of fear is reinforced by social currency when we generally deride those who experience fear as "scaredy cats", "chickens", "yella bellied" or "wimps". The Bible commands us not to fear. Society condemns us if we do. Why then would God choose such a negative and forbidden emotion and command that people express (and experience) it toward Him?


AN AUTOPSY OF FEAR

Fear is a form of respect. It is an acknowledgement of the unknown, the unpredictable, the potential for harm. Fear grips our attention. It doesn't merely demand it. Fear can be a surrender to the superior. Whether it's an angry dog or an irrate wife, fear betrays our respect, indicates our attention, and reveals our submission.


COMPARISONS TO WORSHIP

Respect, attention, submission. These are symbiotic integers that when added up equal: worship. The Bible doesn't command us not to fear, generally. It commands us not to fear anything other than God. When we are more fearful of something other than God, we are being disrespectful to God. Therefore, when the Scriptures want to instruct us as to how we should worship, the first thing- the "beginning" of worship is: to fear the Lord. He alone is worthy of our ultimate respect, attention and submission.

Last night, I incorporated a children's talk into my Sunday evening sermon. I was dealing with a very delicate topic: Evil, Hell and the Devil. My goal was to contrast these things with God and show how infinitely superior God is to these objects of fear. And this goes right to the heart of our misplaced fears. When we worship a mere facsimile of God, where we have substituted his true identity for some opinion that considers him simply as great rather than the greatest, we are prone to "fear man" (Prov. 29:25), "fear death" (Heb. 2:15), and "fear our enemies" (Deut. 20:3). When we overcome our fears in these areas by accepting the revelation of God's true identity as the All-Sovereign-Almighty-God, we live a life of worship for this God.

Jesus said,"Fear? I'll tell you who to really fear!" (Luke 12:5) And He was referring to His Heavenly Father. The One who He knew as All-Loving, All-Compassionate, and All-Merciful, yet exclusively worthy of fear. In this sense we need to be careful what we fear, because it may be a statement of what we are really worshiping.


Andrew Corbett
www.andrewcorbett.net

The Discipline of Art

What is the source of creativity? There can be little doubt that inspiration plays a key component in the production of good art. As a student of art since my teens I have only just recently noticed though, that most of the world's best art was produced more out of persperation than inspiration alone. I recently heard a commissioned poet interviewed who said that his world-acclaimed poetry was very hard to produce. In fact, he would sometimes be up to the early hours of the morning of the day his commission was due, to finish it off. This is despite him having up to 12 months to produce it! The interviewer was a little stunned and said that after thirty years of doing this he would have thought that it would have got easier, not harder.

My literary hero, F.W. Boreham, wrote in his autobiography that he began the habit of daily and weekly reading in order to fill his mind with source for his essays. He would go down to his study each morning at 8AM to write for one hour. He said that sometimes it was easy, but most of the time it was just hard work. He wrote some 58 books, published over 3000 articles and was the weekly editor of the Melbourne Age (Argus) and the Hobart Mercury for 36 years. The public has not seen all that he wrote. Boreham was realistic about what was worthy of public attention and what wasn't. He knew that despite his giftedness with the pen, he still needed to be highly disciplined to produce his art.

The same can be said of painters. Da Vinci drew daily and painted regularly. Yet the world has only ever seen a very small amount of what he produced. Da Vinci's art is described as some of the most inspirational work ever produced, yet he would probably tell us that at the time it took more persperation than inspiration to produce. This is borne out by the Xrays and ultra-sounds of many of his paintings where researchers have discovered the multiple layers of completely different subject matters lying beneath what the world has only ever seen.

One of the earliest pieces of advice I was given as a writer was: "There is no such thing as good writing only good rewriting." For someone committed to writing for the public, this demands disciplined efforts. It also involves the scrutiny and critique of others, which is also an aspect of discipline. I am discovering what the great art masters learned- that good art requires a creativity that is honed by regular discipline to fine tune it. When I think of God and how He created all there is I see the same pattern. He didn't haphazardly create. He created in sequential stages. He created in a way that each stage built on the previous stage. Many believing scientists argue that creation was more an artistic exercise than a clinical one. It seems that God the Master Artisan was extremely disciplined in His creativity. He fine-tuned the world to be ready for the creation of mankind. And it is in the image of this Artist that we are created to be creative. And it seems that this creativity is best drawn out of us by the discipline of deadlines and regular exercise of our creative gifts.

Andrew Corbett
www.andrewcorbett.net