Multicultural Ministry Matters

Shout out: Michael Jensen on theological education

2011-07-01T10:58:00.004+10:00

Quick shout out: over at The Blogging Parson, Michael Jensen has some excellent thoughts on why we need theological education, who needs it & what to look for.

Hezekiah's silence

2011-06-30T09:03:00.007+10:00

Why did King Hezekiah remain silent when Rabshakeh, the Assyrian field commander, taunted Hezekiah and insulted the LORD?

Isaiah 36 and 2 Kings 18 record how Sennacherib, king of Assyria, attacked Judah and conquered all the way to Jerusalem. Sennacherib memorialised his conquest of Lachish, Judah's second most important city, in sculpted reliefs in his palace at Ninevah. Those reliefs, and a rock prism boasting of his Judean campaign, can now be seen in the British Museum. I saw them myself last week, when I visited the museum during my UK holiday.

Having conquered Lachish, the Assyrian army besieged Jerusalem. Isaiah and 2 Kings both record the Assyrian field commander taunting Hezekiah and the LORD. "Don't let Hezekiah deceive you," he says to the people of Jerusalem, "the LORD can't save you. None of the gods of the other nations were able to resist us. Come over to us Assyrians - we'll look after you."

In the face of these taunts, Hezekiah's response was: silence. Isaiah 36:21:

But the people remained silent and said nothing in reply, because the king had commanded, “Do not answer him.”

Why did Hezekiah command silence?

Fear or cowardice?

He could have responded with Godly confidence. That’s what his ancestor David did in a similar situation: he responded to Goliath's taunts with Godly defiance - see 1 Samuel 17:41-47. If Hezekiah had that option, then his silence was fear, or even cowardice.

Pearls before swine / do not answer a fool?

Or it could have been Hezekiah's wisdom in not responding to foolish arguments. Proverbs instructs us not to answer a fool according to his folly; Jesus told us not to cast our peals before pigs; and Paul tells us not to be involved in foolish and stupid arguments. If this is the case, then Hezekiah's response was wisdom. Matthew Henry takes this line, as do a couple of current online commentators (David Guzik and Donald F. Ritsman).

Humility?

Or his silence could be a Godly humility. Like the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, Hezekiah could have been resolved to patiently bear the taunts and mockery of unbelievers. In this case, Hezekiah would be a prototype of Jesus, and an example to us.

* * * * *

I don't know which of the three options to go for. They're all plausible. Might there be a way to combine them into something more wholistic?

Thoughts, please.

Some thoughts on returning from holidays

2011-06-28T23:40:00.008+10:00

I'm back from a three-week holiday in the UK. First week in London, with day trips to Oxford & Cambridge; second week in Glasgow, with day trips to Mallaig (Harry Potter country!),Edinburgh & St Andrews (Presbyterian country!); third week in the Cumbria Lakes District, with day trips all over the place.

Some reflections:

Australia sure is a long way away from the UK (*yawn*) (*jet-lag*);
The UK is full of history. Things built in the 1800s are new - like the "new" palace of Westminster and the "New Wing" at Magdalene College, Oxford (where C. S. Lewis had his rooms);
I love the museums. I saw artefacts relevant to Biblical times in the British Museum in London and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. Highly recommend the Imperial War Museum;
Most of the museums & galleries in the UK are free & have cheap audio tours which provide an excellent commentary;
Scotland has, given its small size & population, made a disproportionate impact on world history through its heavy engineering - Glasgow, in the mid 19th century, constructed more than half Britain's shipping and a quarter of all locomotives in the world - and in heavy intellectuals - notably the philosopher David Hume, but also poets like Robert Burns, and scientists like James Watt, whose improvement of the steam engine enabled the industrial revolution; Alexander Graham Bell, who invented the telephone; Lord Kelvin, who created the Kelvin scale down to absolute zero; and Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin;
The major church denominations (Church of England; Church of Scotland) are stuffed. Widespread lack of confidence in the Bible has gutted their ability to proclaim Christ, with the result that more & more church buildings are turning into pizza parlours;
But within the denominations, there's plenty of Evangelical churches valiantly holding the line and preaching Christ. The flagships are St Helen's Bishopsgate in London and St George's Tron in Glasgow - but they're not alone;
The quality of the speeches in parliament at Westminster were far, far above anything I've heard from Canberra;
The Global Financial Crisis has hit the UK and Europe much harder than they have Aust. The whole of Europe is reeling from unemployment and financial and corporate collapses. When I was there, the UK govt was debating a financial bailout for Greece - as in Europe financially assisting the whole country of Greece. This economic hardship might be behind the recent flare-up of sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland;
UK is dog-friendly. Or maybe I should say dog-indulgent. Everyone seems to own a dog. Or two. Or six. Shops put up signs saying "dogs welcome." People work as professional dog walkers - as in taking dogs for walks. The trade-off is a 1,000-pound on-the-spot fine for not cleaning up after your dog;
Sydney winter weather is more pleasant than UK summer weather (*wet*) (*cold*) (*grumble*);
But the benefit of all that rain is that UK fields really are green. I love the rolling hills with ancient stone walls with lambs gambolling and cattle grazing. Aust really is a wide brown land;
Speaking of a wide brown land: I still call Australia home.

Sex as a relational act

2011-06-09T13:08:00.004+10:00

In my previous post, I showed how naturalistic science depersonalises sexuality, turning it into a mere manipulation of bodily functions.

In contrast, the Bible treats our sexuality as a good gift from a personal, Triune God, who is love (1 John 4:16) – who is constituted within himself by his relationships. The logic of the Bible is, unsurprisingly, the opposite to atheistic materialistic naturalism. Humans are fundamentally relational beings. God gave us our bodies – including the sexual nature of our bodies – to express these relationships. The way to care for our bodies is, generally, to attend to our relationships: if we are in healthy relationships, our bodies will flourish; if we are in toxic relationships, they will deteriorate. So, from a Biblical perspective, the way to rightly use our sexuality, which both acknowledges its status as a divine gift, and helps us lead healthy, happy sex lives, is to consider how we are using our sexuality to enhance our relationships.

This perspective is not unique to the Bible or Christianity. Creation itself, being the creation of the Biblical God, embodies within itself principles that are coherent with the Bible. Open-minded, responsible scientific investigation, which seeks to genuinely discern how the physical world operates, will therefore render results that are broadly compatible with the Bible. We therefore expect sexual research to demonstrate that healthy sexuality is intimately connected to healthy relationships.

Recent sexual research demonstrates that our neurological sexual responses show that we're wired for long-term intimacy. I reviewed this research in a paper I presented last year at the Religion In the Public Square conference of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. You can download the conference proceedings here, from Reformers books.

Sexuality and scientific naturalism

2011-06-07T12:06:00.002+10:00

In my previous post I argued that sexual research and therapy were good professions, blessed by God. To deserve such blessing, this research and therapy must be conducted in a manner that acknowledges our sexuality as a divine gift.

Naturalistic science presupposes radical materialism – the natural world of physical matter is ultimate reality. It presupposes that there is no creator God, who made the physical universe for us to enjoy. Instead, physical matter is all that really exists. As mere physical matter, it is in itself inert, passive, and lifeless. It operates according to rules that are complex but predictable. The role of science is to discover these physical rules of operation so that we can manipulate them, enhance the physical objects beyond their ‘natural’ state, and use them to ach achieve whatever we want. Naturalistic science dissects and reconstructs so as to control and dominate.

Applying this to sexual research and therapy: naturalistic science assumes that everything about sexuality can be ultimately boiled down to physics and chemistry, neurology and biology. Humans are, in the end, nothing more than complex biological machines. Love, loyalty, affection – all the personal emotions that accompany relationships, including sexual relationships – are not really real; they are merely outworkings of our biology and neurology.

Therefore, our physical bodies, and the internal operations of our will and emotions – our souls, our psyche – operates according to physical rules that are complex but predictable. Our bodies and souls are infinitely malleable according to the precision and detail of our scientific insight. The role of sexual research and therapy is therefore to dissect, reconstruct, control and dominate: to understand how our bodies and souls respond to sexual stimuli, so that we can manage and redesign our bodies and souls to do whatever we want.

The plastic surgeon and the counsellor represent the priesthood of sexual science. We think they can put us in touch with ultimate reality – the laws that our bodies and souls operate according to – so that we can manage that ultimate reality, and live healthy, happy, fulfilled lives. We end up living in a world of surgically enhanced genitalia and frequent trips to the therapist.

Creation, sexuality, and the good of sexual research and therapy

2011-06-05T12:30:00.003+10:00

Sexuality is a good part of our created nature. God made humanity male and female, and commanded humans to "be fruitful and increase in number..." (Gen 1:27-28). Adam rejoiced over Eve as his own flesh and bone, and they were to be united as one flesh, naked with no shame (Genesis 2:23-25). Therefore, gender and sexuality is part of our humanity - it is part of what it means to be in God's image.

As part of good creation, our sexuality is open to scientific research and medical therapy. Any research and therapy that helps people discover who they truly are, as sexual beings in relationship with God and other people, is a good thing, and God will bless it. Any research and therapy that assists people to conduct their sexual lives in a responsible, healthy manner, before God, their sexual partner, and the world, is a good thing, blessed by God. Sex research and therapy – like any medical research and therapy – is a blessed profession, pleasing to God. All of this helps us recover, in part, God’s good intentions for our bodies and our sexuality, and thus helps us to be truly human.

World Congress for Sexual Health, Glasgow

2011-06-03T11:25:00.005+10:00

I'm preparing to head off to Glasgow, Scotland, to participate in the 20th World Congress for Sexual Health of the World Association for Sexual Health ("WAS"). I'm delivering a 15-min paper on "Biblical Principles for Sexual Research and Therapy" at a Symposium on Religion & Sexual Health. It'll be on Thurs 16 June between 10:30-11:30 Glasgow time = Thursday 16 June 2011 7:30 - 8:30pm Sydney time. It's my first time delivering an academic paper at a secular conference. Prayers appreciated.

Of course I'm also going to have a holiday at the same time: London, Oxford, Cambridge, then Glasgow, Edinburgh, perhaps St Andrew's, then the Lakes District - then home. I'll be travelling with my parents - my mum, Dr. Pat, has various presentations at the conference also. I'm looking forward to visiting St George's Tron Church in Glasgow. So I'll be an Sri-Lankan - Australian Presbyterian in Scotland...

I'm finishing off the paper now. My post a few days ago on relationships, love, sex & marriage is part of an earlier draft. Shall pop up some further thoughts over the next few days. Let's see what happens.

Relationships, love, sex & marriage

2011-05-30T20:31:00.007+10:00

Biblically speaking, relationships are more central to our being than bodily pleasure. We are first of all relational beings. God made humans male and female (Gen 1:27), addressed Adam as a covenant-partner (Gen 2:16-17), and made Eve as a suitable helper for Adam, for whom it was not good to be alone (Gen 2:18). Abraham was to be the channel for God's blessing to flow to all the families of the earth (Gen 12:3). Christ died and rose for his people - the church (Eph 1:22, 2:19-22, etc) who are to mutually encourage each other (Gal 6:2; Heb 10:24-25). We are to use our bodies to enhance relationships. If we are in healthy relationships, our bodies will prosper. If we are in unhealthy relationships, our bodies will deteriorate.

Relationships are built on trust, and trust is built on the reliability of a person’s character, usually expressed in their faithfulness to promises. This is because relationships are essentially other-focused.

In any intimate relationship – family, spouse, BFF – we take the risk of giving ourselves to the other person, and acting for their benefit, without protecting ourselves – that is to say, we love them. We trust our relational partner, that they, recognising and valuing this gift of ourselves, will cherish and protect us – we trust that they will respond to, and value, our love. We also trust that they will return our love with a commensurate gift of themselves – that they will give themselves to us, and act for our benefit, without concern for themselves – that is to say, that they will love us in return.

This is why relationships are both risky and rewarding. In any relationship, we make ourself vulnerable to our relational partner. If they return our love, then we rejoice and flourish, for our self has been affirmed by the one to whom we entrusted it. If they do not return our love, then we are crushed, for we have given our selves to another, and they have not deemed it worthy of response, but have discarded it.

Sexuality fits into this relational framework. Our sexuality is a good bodily function, given to us by God, to enhance our relationships. Sexual activity brings physical bodies and relational love together. Love and sex are mutually reinforcing: when we fall in love with someone, we desire sex with them; having sex with someone reinforces our love for them. In sexual activity, we make our bodies vulnerable, giving them to each other for mutual pleasure. Betrayal by our sexual partner has deep emotional and psychological consequences.

This is why the Bible presents marriage as the proper context for sexual activity. In a marriage, a man and a woman promise to commit to each other for life. Those promises define the relationship between the two of them, and call them both to mutual faithfulness – to have the personal character to be faithful to those promises, whatever difficulties life may throw at them. Having promised faithfulness to each other, they entrust their bodies to each other in sex.

Around the Blogosphere

2011-05-23T10:47:00.004+10:00

A few days ago, British physicist Stephen Hawking said that heaven is a fairy story. That comment was of course picked up by the media - more interested in sensationalism than facts - all over the world, and paired with outraged statements from religious leaders. But, as this review of Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design, says, it's old news. Hawking's absolutely brilliant in theoretical physics. But he never has believed in God or the supernatural world. He's always been a standard, predictable naturalist. Which means he, like other dogmatic atheists, simply doesn't engage with the question of whether God exists, because he "knows" that he doesn't. So when he says heaven is a fairy story, the proper response isn't to argue, but to yawn.

Leadership Journal has an article on the problem of youth groups watering down the gospel and effectively becoming child-minding with pizza: The Red Bull Gospel. The result? The young people are never really converted, and when they grow up, they find more interesting things to do than east pizza. I read the same thesis twenty years ago in No Guts, No Glory: How to build a youth ministry that lasts, by Ken Moser, Ed Vaughan and Al Stewart.

Over at Theology & Culture, Aaron Rathbun has a very good post on how we're amusing ourselves to death.

And at The Bible and Interpretation, Thomas Verenna has an excellent (if lengthy) article criticising the recent media furore over the supposed "lead codices". He's lays out some pretty damning evidence of the "complete lack of journalistic integrity, honest research, and thorough fact-checking".

Love: nature, purpose, commitment and affection

2011-05-21T21:47:00.002+10:00

In a previous post, I blogged about the arguments for same-gender marriage. I received the foll. question:

There’s one other argument used by those in favour of same-sex marriage that you haven’t covered: love.

The basic argument goes - the core reason for marriage is the declaration of your love for, and commitment to, another person. Homosexual couples are just as capable of love and commitment as heterosexual couples, so they should be just as able to express their love for each other as heterosexual couples can by getting married.

The slippery slope with this argument is that it not only opens the door for same-sex marriage, but also polygamous and polyandrous marriages. How would you respond to this argument?

Here's my answer.

There’s at least three meanings to the word ‘love’:

To use something according to its God-given nature and purpose, which can only be fully known through divine revelation, but can be partially known through scientific, empirical examination;
To be committed to the well-being of someone or something – which well-being is defined by aforementioned God-given nature and purpose;
To have feelings of affection for someone or something.

The bible orders our loves as above, 1-2-3. God tells us what things are like and what they are for (1. above). He calls us to be committed to these revealed natures and purposes (2. above). We are to love what God loves – our affections are to follow our God-honouring commitments (3. above).

The world, unsurprisingly, turns this upside-down. We feel affection for someone or something (3. above). No-one has the right to judge these feelings. If I feel nice about someone or something, I ‘commit’ myself to them or to it – until that feeling goes away, that is, then my (so-called) commitment goes away with it (2. above). And I assume that God affirms me in that feelings-based non-commitment, because that’s his job – God is there to validate me and make me feel good about myself.

People can feel affection for - that is, "love" - lots of things: people of the opposite gender, people of the same gender, pets, children, inanimate objects (I love chocolate...). The question is: how are we going to express that affection? How are we going to act on that love?

As I argued in my AFES WebSalt article, same-gender love is a good and healthy thing. The bible says men should have deep feelings of loyalty and affection towards other men - that's how David and Jonathan felt for each other, and Ruth was very loyal to Naomi. But, those relationships were not sexual. Sex belongs in heterosexual marriage because God made human bodies and relational capacities in such a way that sex works best in that marital context. The bible explains it to us by showing the deep connections between sex, marriage, and union with Christ. But we're not dependent upon special revelation: science shows us that our bodies work best, and individuals, families and soceities tend to be happy, when sex is enjoyed within heterosexual marriage.

(Post)modern Western society has sexualised everything. Love = sex; intimacy = sex; joy = sex... everything good = sex! That's why advertising uses so many sexual references. The advertisers know that if they can portray the item in a manner that suggests it enhances your sex life, or gives pleasure equivalent to sexual pleasure, it'll sell.

This rampant sexualisation has happened because (post)modern Western society holds to a reductive materialist ontology: (1) we're nothing more than pleasure-seeking biological organisms; (2) sex is self-evidently the highest pleasure we can experience; (3) therefore, the goal of life is to have the best sex possible. I critiqued this attitude in another one of my AFES WebSalt articles.

We've also lost the ability to have good friends of the opposite gender. Just as we get to know someone of the opposite gender well, we feel like we enter a sexually-charged zone in the relationship, and we either give in and have sex with them, or give up and back off on the friendship and stop getting to know them better. No-one has the courage to stand firm: to defuse the the sexually-charged environment through getting to know the person better, as a person, not just a sex object. For more thoughts on this, see yet another of my AFES WebSalt articles.

So of course we've also lost the ability to have healthy, non-sexual same-gender relationships. If we "love" someone of the same gender, we must have the right to have sex with them if we want to. Or else we've been denied the right to love. But that statement assumes that we have the right to define what it means to "love" that person of the same gender. If God has the right to define what it means to "love" someone, then going against that God-given definition is not actually loving. Regardless of the intention, it's actually abusive. The loving thing to do is actually warn against that abuse.

Inaburra School Teen Health Conference: Our Pornified World

2011-05-18T10:53:00.010+10:00

This Fri & Sat, I'm speaking at Inaburra Christian School's inaugural Teen Health Conference. The conference is looking at everything from alcohol to risk taking to sex to travel to bullying. Thurs night open to students, parents and teachers; Friday for students; Sat for parents & teachers. Dunno if it's full yet - I'm sure they'll welcome late registrations - try the rego page.

I'm presenting a session on the effects of our pornified world on today's youth.

Pornography is fantasy sex - it's visual, superficially physical, anti-relational, and commercial. It treats humans as merely pleasure-seeking organisms: as bodies throbbing in constant emotional and sensual climax, with no dangers, no limitations, and no consequences.

That is ridiculously out of step with reality. Real sex is wholistic, embodied, relational, and personal. It involves two people finding out about each other as people - with emotional needs, and bodily limitations. It involves communication, care, and compromise. It doesn't always "work" - it can be awkward & clumsy, the body parts may not operate properly, we may not enjoy it half as much as we think we should.

The problem is: the fantasy world affects us - and especially today's youth - more than reality does. They therefore grow up with attitudes to themselves, other people (including potential sexual partners), and the world, that are out of step with reality, therefore deeply unhealthy.

Our culture is pornified: the characteristics of porn - visual, superficially physical, anti-relational, commercial - are more and more becoming part of ordinary life. That means the whole culture we operate within is getting out of step with reality, and therefore deeply unhealthy. We live in a world gone mad.

All humans have a reciprocal relationship with culture: we are affected by the culture we operate within; we shape the culture we operate within. We are a victim, but not just a victim; we are a leader, but not only a leader. This is especially true of youth. They are heavily impacted by the environment we adults place them in; they will go on to shape the future world. What kind of heritage are we creating for our children and our children's children? What views will they have about sexuality, and their bodies, and their very selves?

None of this is unique to Christianity. But of course, the Bible explains both the problem, and the solution. We are not simply pulsating pleasure-sacs; we are relational beings. We're relational beings because we're made by a God who is relationship in himself - the Holy Trinity. God gave us our bodies as good gifts, to use them to advance our relationships. We are to give our bodies deeply for the other person - just like Jesus gave his body for us, on the cross.

Orright - the challenge for me is to reduce all of that to half-an-hour, clear language with no jargon, including statistics & visuals. Prayers please.

What's the issue with same-gender marriage?

2011-05-16T09:01:00.009+10:00

Up until recently in human history, marriage has been uniquely between a man and a woman, for the purpose of begetting children and raising a family. Recently, that has been challenged by advocates for same-gender marriage.

The logic for same-gender marriage goes like this:

Our sexuality is part of our body;
We, as individuals, have the right to determine what we do with our bodies;
If anyone else tries to tell us what to do with our bodies, including our sexuality, that's the same as doing violence to our bodies - ie, we are "hurt", and we must "scream" and "fight back";
Society must affirm individuals in their search for bodily, sexual self-expression;
If society doesn't affirm us, we have been violated, and can "scream";
Because we, as individuals, have the right to determine our own sexuality, then having sex with someone of the same gender is as valid as sex with someone of the opposite gender;
If anyone disagrees with 6., we have been violated and can scream and fight;
Marriage is the normal societal way of affirming sexual union;
Therefore society must - not may, not can, but must, is morally compelled to - permit same-gender marriage;
If society doesn't, then those who choose to be sexually active with someone of the same gender has been violated, and can scream.

The Biblical view departs from this at point 2.

1. Our sexuality is part of our body - agreed. God made us embodied and sexual, and it was good. Genesis 1:28; 2:23-25; Song of Songs; 1 Tim 4:3; etc.

2. We, as individuals, have the right to determine what we do with our bodies - No. As creatures of a good God, we trust him to tell us what to do with our bodies - sexually, and in everything else - because he knows us better than we know ourselves. Psalm 11:4, 139:13; Prov 20:24.

3. If anyone else tries to tell us what to do with our bodies, including our sexuality, that's the same as doing violence to our bodies - ie, we are "hurt", and we must "scream" and "fight back" - No. When God tells us how to live our lives, he does so for our good. And we are called to speak good words of rebuke and correction to each other, for each other's good. Heb 10:24; 2 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:9.

4. Society must affirm individuals in their search for bodily, sexual self-expression - Not quite.

Christianity is not a secular religion; we do not seek to impose belief on unbelievers through law and coercion. The only way to truly come to God is to be convinced, through the Bible, that Jesus really is God, and that he died to forgive us. Having come to God in Christ, we trust his good direction for our lives - including our sex lives. None of that can be achieved through law and coercion; it is achieved through explanation and persuasion.

So, the secular State should maintain broad freedoms - including freedom of religion, speech, assembly, media - so that people can search for what is "true", including the truth of Biblical Christianity.

That said, the secular State should not affirm anything that is positively damaging. And, as will be argued below, same-gender sexuality is positively damaging. So the State should not affirm it.

5. If society doesn't affirm us, we have been violated, and can "scream" - No. See 3. above. Even if we're not Christians, a mature person is able to transcend their own opinions, listen to others, and consider that they just might be wrong. Radical individualism necessarily leads to ethical narcissism - I do whatever's good for me - which eventually leads to the dissolution of society because no-one's listening to each other, everyone's screaming and fighting everyone else.

6. Because we, as individuals, have the right to determine our own sexuality, then having sex with someone of the same gender is as valid as sex with someone of the opposite gender - No.

Same-gender friendship is very good; same-gender sexuality is very bad. Our bodies are made for sexual expression with someone of the opposite gender, not the same gender. Same-gender sexuality - especially men having sex with men - damages the body by making it do things it wasn't designed to do. For more info, see my article on AFES WebSalt.

7. If anyone disagrees with 6., we have been violated and can scream and fight - No. See 3. & 5. above.

8. Marriage is the normal societal way of affirming sexual union - Yes, historically and Biblically (Gen 2:23-25; Matt 19:4-6; Hebrews 13:4).

Marriage is for sex, and the children that sex begets. As I argued in another AFES WebSalt article, cross-gender friendships are very good. They can and should be truly "loving" and "affectionate" - as in we deeply care about the person, we like to be with them, they make us feel good, we're happy when they're happy and we're sad when they're sad - but these relationships are not sexual, therefore they're not a marriage.

The irony of the same-gender marriage movement is it's coming at a time when sex and marriage have been broken apart. Contraception has broken the link between sex and babies, thus breaking the link between sex and families. Why bother getting married? If you want to have sex with someone, just do it. If you want to live with them while having sex with them, just do it.

9. Therefore society must - not may, not can, but must, is morally compelled to - permit same-gender marriage - No. In fact, because same-gender sexuality is personally destructive, the State is morally compelled to oppose it.

10. If society doesn't, then those who choose to be sexually active with someone of the same gender has been violated, and can scream - No, but they will anyway. If the homosexual lobby succeeds in getting legal recognition for same-gender marriage, they will use it as a tool to persecute the church. They will turn up at churches, demand to be married, and when we say no, they'll publicly mock us or use legal sanctions against us. And because we're to love our enemies, we'll respond with kindness and gentleness - which will itself be used against us, just like Paul's refusal to take money for ministry was used against him (1 Cor 9).

Debate vs dialogue

2011-05-12T10:18:00.004+10:00

When presenting the gospel - in an evangelistic setting, or speaking/preaching, or one-on-one, or whatever - what's the better "posture" to take: a "robust" posture of a debate, or a "friendly" posture of dialogue?

The benefit of a debate is it permits us to make universal claims: "this is reality, take it or leave it." That agrees with the nature of the gospel - Jesus really is Lord of all, whether we like it or not. And it also agrees with the examples of proclamation in the book of Acts.

The problem with a debate is it scares people who are timid or uncertain of their own beliefs - Christian or atheist or whatever - and therefore potentially shuts down true questioning and searching through intimidation rather than conviction. Also, it potentially reinforces a grumpy, doctrinaire preconception of Christianity.

The benefit of a dialogue is it invites people to "walk inside my worldview" without making absolute claims of right/wrong. That agrees with post-modern love of narrative and discussion, and its suspicion of universal truth-claims.

But that's also its detriment: Jesus' Lordship is not actually up for discussion. Also, is it deceptive to not using a method that agrees with the nature of our message? That is, if we don't really think Jesus' Lordship is negotiable, is it deceptive to present it in a way that suggests it is?

Thoughts, anyone...?

An evangelical theodicy? A response to the "problem of evil"

2011-05-10T15:30:00.002+10:00

A ministry colleague sent me a query from someone within his ministry context about the origin of evil, asking me to help him frame a response. Here's an edited version of my response. Anyone got any thoughts? Feedback appreciated.

The classic dilemma goes as follows: how can a good and all-powerful God permit evil and suffering to exist? It either denies his goodness, or his all-powerfulness.

The very simple explanation - classically called the "free will defense" - goes like this: God created humans, and other spiritual creature - like the angel who became the Devil - with a genuine capacity for choice. This genuine capacity for choice is itself a good thing - it gives us dignity, some genuine independence from God, and responsibility. But, while being good, this capacity for choice is fragile. It's natural goodness makes it vulnerable to being used in a bad way - viz, to choose against God, rebel against him, and bring in chaos. Therefore, we should not blame God for giving us the "space" to make choices - to do that is effectively to depersonalise ourselves and say "God, I wish I was a robot." Instead, we should accept our responsibility for using God's good gifts in an evil manner, and thus siding with the Devil and his supernatural forces against God.

Notice this doesn't try to explain why God made us as personal beings. It merely asserts that God made it that way, and appeals to our instinctive preference for relational choice over being an automaton.

From a Christian point of view, God in his kindness provides a solution to get us out of the mess we've put ourselves in. That solution is found in Christ - in his death and resurrection. And the nature of God's solution itself points to the problem - an evangelical, gospel-shaped response to evil.

Jesus always chose for God. He resisted Satan in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11 & parallels). Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus "has been tempted in every way, just as we are - yet was without sin." Therefore, Jesus deserved to be honoured by God, vindicated by him. That happened in Jesus' resurrection. Jesus also takes the punishment we deserve for rejecting God. That happened in his death on the cross, where the punishment we deserve fell on him (Isaiah ch 53; Mark 10:45; Romans 3:21-25; 1 John 4:10; etc...). So we now need not fear God's anger - it was all exhausted on Jesus on the cross.

For those of us who have put our trust in Jesus, God now calls us to choose for him (Deut 30:19-20; Ezek 18:33, 33:11; Acts 2:38, 3:19; 1 Thess 1:9-10... etc) - to exercise our wills, make our decisions, his way, not our own way or the world's way or whatever. This happens as we read the bible, through which we little by little understand God's way of thinking, and his perspective on the world (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Tim 3:16-17; etc). It also comes through the power of his Holy Spirit working invisibly within us to reshape us from the inside (Gal 5:22-25). We're never perfect - that only happens in glory - but we're constantly being reshaped to be more & more like Jesus (Colossians 3:9-10).

This adds some detail to the free will defense. If Jesus is truly human, but didn't sin, then true humanity is choosing for God - joyously obeying him in all of our life, with all that we are. We, in our rejection of God, become sub-human - or, more correctly, brokenly human. Personal choice is an aspect of the good humanity that God created us for.

Did God have to give us choice to make us personal beings? Perhaps not. The persons of the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Spirit - can't help loving each other. So in that sense they don't have the choice to not love. So that means that choice is not necessarily essential to personhood.

On the other hand, we can't simply draw analogies between the persons of the Holy Trinity and our personhood, for the simple reason that the Trinity is uncreated and immortal, and we're created mortals. So we must be careful before drawing connections, in either direction, between the persons of the Trinity and ourselves. All I would say, therefore, is that we cannot say that God had to give us choice to make us fully personal. He could somehow make himself so gloriously proximate to us - as the persons of the Trinity are gloriously proximate to each other - that we could not help but love and obey him.

Anyway, getting back to Jesus (always a good thing...): Jesus shows us that, whatever we think about the necessity of God giving us choice as an aspect of our good created humanity, it is actually possible to choose for God. So bang go all our excuses.

I would contend that the gospel itself - the message about Jesus, and what he's done for us - both puts some detail on the "free will defense", and provides God's solution to evil. And that's an evangelical theodicy - a solution to the problem of evil shaped around Christ and his cross.

Thoughts, anyone...?

G. E. Ladd and Evangelical scholarship

2011-05-09T10:10:00.007+10:00

We see further when we stand on the shoulders of giants.

21st century Evangelicalism has benefited immensely from the labours of mid-20th century evangelical scholars. They were people who, convinced that if the God of the Bible was the creator of all things - as the Bible claims he is - then he is also the creator of the rational mind, with its desire for clear explanation of phenomena. And, if the same God who caused the Bible to be written about himself also created the whole world, then this whole world should fit together the way the Bible says it would. Therefore, they committed themselves to evangelical scholarship - to studying the Bible and the world, not as "objective scholars" - a so-called objectivity which assumes away the supernatural without argument, and is therefore both radically subjective and a cipher for atheistic materialism - but as self-concious believers in the Lordship of the crucified and risen Jesus.

We've had our luminaries here in Australia - D. Broughton Knox of Moore College, and Leon Morris of Ridley College, Melbourne, spring to mind. Graeme Goldsworthy is an unsung (under-sung...?) Aussie theological hero - his three-fold "people, place, rule" outline of the Old Testament has influenced countless church leaders, myself included.

George Eldon Ladd was one of the key shapers of American evangelicalism - and let's face it, America was the global trend-setter for evangelicalism in the 20th century. His Theology of the New Testament remains, to this day, a classic statement of evangelical convictions. I remember devouring slabs of it myself, as a student at Moore College, in preparation for an eschatology essay. He clarified all my bad vibes about currently fashionable eschatology - especially that of Jurgen Moltmann.

John D’Elia has brought out a biography of G. E. Ladd: A Place at the Table: George Eldon Ladd and the Rehabilitation of Evangelical Scholarship in America. Scot McKnight has a good review of it. D'Alia doesn't write a hero tale - he honestly tells of Ladd's struggles with alcohol, his poor family life, and the psychological damage he sustained as he tried to engage with non-evangelical scholarship. Looks like a worthwhile read to get to know the giants upon whose shoulders we stand.

Africa Bible Commentary and South Asia Bible Commentary

2011-05-06T11:34:00.004+10:00

Let me confess to a moment of cynicism. When I first heard of the Africa Bible Commentary project, I thought "oh please - another expression of post-modern reality fragmentation. We already have plenty of Australians, Americans and Europeans ignoring the Bible's own assertions, reading their own situation into it, and then admiring their own reflections and proclaiming it as the word of God - do we have to make the Africans do the same?"

I'm glad to discover how wrong I was.

Conrad Mbewe, a Reformed Baptist from Zambia, has written an excellent review of the Africa Bible Commentary. He commends it as being an excellent example of "conservative evangelical scholarship" where "the commentators allowed the passages they were commenting on to speak for themselves – however uncomfortable that might be – which is an important aspect of conservative evangelicalism." Nevertheless, the commentary is appropriately contextuslised for Africa: "All the books of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, are made to speak to us as Africans", including articles on "HIV and AIDS, funerals, circumcision, street children, inheritance of widows, witchcraft and demons, lobola, tribalism, polygamy, land, debts, etc., [which] will not be found in your average commentary from the West (or the East) but they are all handled in this one volume."

This bolsters my hopes for the still-in-progress South Asia Bible Commentary. I was born in Sri Lanka and still have family and friends there. I hope this lastest project will equip people in the sub-continent, and expats like myself who seek to minister to South Asians who in the West.

Kevin De Young on wealth

2011-05-02T09:19:00.004+10:00

Shout out: Over at the Gospel Coalition blog, Kevin De Young has an excellent post on wealth: Money and Possessions in Proverbs.

On being Thomian

2011-04-29T12:41:00.013+10:00

The school I attended in Sri Lanka is St Thomas’ College. I reckon history has been unkind to St Thomas. Despite the adjective usually attached to his name – “doubting” Thomas – I reckon he’s actually a good model for a believer. That is, if you follow the correct Thomas.

The world is a big place. We can’t possibly travel everywhere & experience everything. So how do we gain reliable information about the world? Through people telling us what it’s like. When they tell us what it’s like, we can share some of their experiences. We can see what they see, hear what they hear, and thereby come to a reliable knowledge of whatever it is they’re telling us about. That works through time – we know history through the records of witnesses – and in contemporary time – people share their experiences with us.

And that’s the same way we can know about Jesus rising from the dead: through the testimony of the eyewitnesses. That’s the challenge Thomas faced.

John 20:24-25 (NIV 1984):

24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

The disciples had seen Jesus – except Thomas; he wasn’t there. So he had a choice. All the other disciples were saying to him: Jesus is alive! We saw him! Thomas had to decide whether to believe them or not. And he decided not to.

And if you think about it – that’s really rude. The other disciples were Thomas’ friends. They’d lived together for three years; ate together; listened to Jesus together – they were family. Why should they lie to him? They’ve got nothing to prove. They’ve got no reason to fake a resurrection – to make up a story – to fool Thomas.

But in not believe them, he judges them. “You guys – you’re all stupid. You’re all imagining things. Or you’re lying to me. I’m the only one who knows the truth.” That’s effectively what he’s saying to them. And that’s really rude, isn’t it? He wasn't just Doubting Thomas. He was Rude, Arrogant Thomas.

When I arrived at my church here in St Mary’s, I visited my church members. Some of them have been here for decades. They told me stories of what it was like in the old days, when there was only one paved road, and there was a Dutch settlement.

Imagine if, when those people told me about the history of St Mary’s, I smiled patronisingly and said “we don’t believe in Dutch people any more.”

“But I am Dutch!”

“No – we’re in Australia now. Dutch people don’t exist. We’re all Australians now.”

That’d be really rude, wouldn’t it? I expect the people would get rather angry, and tell me, in a few choice words, where I could stick my being Australian…

Jesus was kinder than we usually are. He appeared to Thomas, so Thomas himself became an eye-witness. And Thomas could have been a hand-witness if he wanted – he could have felt the wounds. We don’t know if he really did – the bible doesn’t tell us – but he could have.

And then things broaden out to encompass us.

John 20:29-31 (NIV 1984):

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Jesus says “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (v 29b). Oh, great - so faith is a leap in the dark, is it? I can’t prove it – but I want it to be true – so I just believe it, I just have faith. Is that what Jesus wants?

No. He wants us to believe based on the testimony of the books.

This passage is almost at the end of the Gospel of John. This Gospel – like the others – is the story of Jesus, told to us by one of his followers – a witness of what Jesus did and said, and of his death and resurrection. In this passage, John tells us why he’s bothered to write all this down. “Jesus did lots of amazing stuff,” John says. “I don’t have time to tell you all of it. I’ve written these down for you. So that you would understand who Jesus is, and, through knowing Jesus – the risen Jesus, who has defeated death – that you would have eternal life through him.”

In fact, the whole New Testament tells us about people’s experiences of Jesus. The disciples crowded around Thomas, and said to him: “we’ve seen Jesus – this is what it was like.” Just like that, the authors of the New Testament – Matthew, mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James – they crowd around us, and say to us: “we’ve seen Jesus – this is what it was like.”

The only question for us is – are we going to be polite enough to listen to them? And through him, experience Jesus - the same way we experience & know about most things in life? Or are we going to smile patronisingly, and say “this is Australia – we don’t believe in Jesus any more”?

John wants us to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. “Son of God” could be another way of talking about the Christ – God’s chosen king over the universe (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7, 89:26-27). But in John’s Gospel, it also comes to me that Jesus is divine – the second person of the Trinity, the unique (“only-begotten”, Greek monogenous) Son of the Father. That’s why Thomas called Jesus “my Lord and God” (v28).

The first Thomas was really rude. He wasn't just Doubting Thomas - he was Rude, Arrogant Thomas. Confronted by Jesus, he changed, to become Trusting, Testifying Thomas. Which Thomas are we going to stand with? The rude, arrogant Thomas, who said “I don’t care what you say – I know better”? Or the Thomas who saw the wounds, and cried out “my Lord and God”?

Jesus the temple

2011-04-12T14:45:00.004+10:00

This follows on from my previous post on Jesus, the radical reformer.

John 2:18-22:
18 Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

The risen body of Jesus is the one true temple – the one place where God and man con come together in peace and harmony.

Jesus had taken charge of the temple. He was controlling the place, and dictating what true worship was. The Jewish leaders ask him: what right have you to do that? They want him to perform a miracle, to prove that he has the right to take over the place, and dictate true worship.

He says if they destroy the temple, he’ll rebuild it in three days. That would have been a miracle. The temple was about 450 m (approx 1,500 ft) from N to S, and about 300 m (approx. 950 ft) from E to W.

But he didn’t mean the physical temple; the real miracle was his resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection is the proof of his authority to dictate true worship.

Jesus had to die to take the penalty for all our corrupt worship. Our worship, on its own, stinks. It’s always corrupt. It’s never good enough for God. Think of Jesus’ death as his once for all, eternal cleaning up of the temple; and his resurrection as a once for all, eternal rebuilding of the temple, where God can have acceptable, pure worship, led by the risen Jesus himself.

As people who now, in Christ, worship God acceptably, let’s be like Jesus – zealous for true worship.

We’re too relaxed. We’re too used to mediocrity, to false worship. Every shopping mall is a temple to the god dollar. The football field is the temple for many blokes. Islam says Jesus is a prophet, but refuses to worship him as God. Hinduism worships a pantheon of gods. We’re too comfortable with this. The culture of tolerance has doused our fervour.

Personal godliness, and a passion for evangelism, spring from the same root: zeal for the glory of God, in Christ. Christ was consumed by his zeal for pure worship. He expects nothing less from us.

Jesus the reformer

2011-04-10T14:03:00.004+10:00

John 2:14-16:

14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

When we read the account of Jesus clearing the temple, we instinctively cheer him on. But Jesus’ actions are actually rather strange. Because when we look carefully, we can see that this market was originally set up to help people worship God, not get in the way of it.

The merchants were selling “cattle, sheep and doves” (v14). They are sacrificial animals. God specifically permitted people to purchase sacrificial animals on site:

Deuteronomy 14:24-26

24 But if that place [the central place of worship, where the LORD puts his name] is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.

This makes sense. To transport an animal would have involved walking the animal a long distance. By the time they got to the temple, the animal would be tired and weak, and perhaps sick. What kind of a sacrifice is that? “Here you go, God. Have this weak, sick, animal.” It would be much better to sell the animal when it’s healthy, get a good price for it, and then buy another good, healthy animal from the merchants.

So the merchants are helping people to worship God – just like God commanded in the bible. What’s Jesus’ problem?

And the money changers were helping people worship God, too. A good Jew paid temple tax – that is, money given to the temple to pay the priests and maintain the temple.

Roman money of the time had images of Caesar, the Roman emperor, with proclamations that he was divine. For Jews, this was multiple blaspheme. No way could a human being claim to be God – least of all a pork-stuffed, multiple-God-worshipping, blood-sport-watching Roman Gentile…! And then putting that claim on a coin is idolatry – it’s creating an image of a false god. So there’s no way a good Jew could use that kind of coin to worship God. They had to exchange that blasphemous, idolatrous coin for pure, acceptable temple coin, and use that pure coin to pay the temple tax.

So what’s Jesus’ problem? The money changers are helping people to worship God. Aren't they?

Maybe Jesus got mad because the sales were exploitative. The merchants and the temple priests could have been working together, to rip off the worshippers, and make profit for the priests and merchants. It’s an old problem – Paul warns us to beware of “men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (1 Timothy 6:5).

But I don’t think that’s the particular focus that John’s giving us.

Matthew, Mark & Luke also tell us how Jesus cleared the temple, at the end of Jesus’ ministry, just before the crucifixion. They record Jesus as saying “stop turning God’s house of prayer into a den of robbers”.

John’s different. He shows us Jesus clearing the temple at the beginning of his ministry, and records Jesus says “stop turning my Father’s house into a market”.

That’s slightly different: house of prayer – den of robbers vs Father’s house – market.

John shows us Jesus the reformer. The markets might have been there to help at first. But over time, they became corrupted, and started serving people rather than God. Jesus, consumed with zeal for his Father’s house, was determined to clean the place up, and restore the proper worship of God.

This is perfectly normal. All human worship patterns decline, and become corrupt.

Just like normal life. Our home doesn’t stay magically clean; we have to wash the dishes, sweep the floor, vacuum the carpet, dust the furniture, mow the lawn…

That’s what we have to do to our normal patterns of daily, weekly, monthly and annual worship. We have to keep cleaning them up, getting rid of the rubbish, and constantly getting back to pure worship of God.

And it’s not just formal church practices. Worship is bigger than Sundays. Paul says “present your bodies as living sacrifices” (Rom 12:1). We need to examine our ordinary lives. What are we spending our money on? What are we spending our time on? Would Jesus approve of that TV show? Would he approve of that internet site?

A healthy church can never be comfortable and predictable. A healthy Christian can never be contented. Both are always reforming – constantly evaluating themselves according to the rule of the Bible, and seeking to fix what doesn’t measure up.

Christ was consumed by his zeal for pure worship. He expects nothing less from us.

Jesus makes us flourish

2011-03-20T19:23:00.004+11:00

Human beings flourish in an environment where we’re confident that those who have authority over us care about us, and use their authority for our good.

We’ve all been in situations where someone who had authority over us – a parent, a teacher, a boss – didn’t really care about us. They were distant, withdrawn: “Just get the job done.” “Do your homework. Don’t bother me – I’m watching TV.” Perhaps they even used their power to oppress us – like the boss takes the credit for all the businesses successes, and shifts the blame for all the mistakes.

How demoralising is that…?

Then there are situations where the people in authority over us used their power to care for us, and advance us. Like the teacher who deeply knows the content of what they’re teaching, and also deeply wants the class to know it. Their enthusiasm is infectious.

John 1:1-5:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

As the passage progresses, we see that the Word is Jesus (verse 16). So this passage affirms:

Jesus is himself divine – fully God;
He is from eternity – which is consistent with his full Divinity;
He created all things and is himself uncreated – which also supports the assertion that he is fully God, not a demiurge, an “under-God” (contra the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons);
As God, he gives us life;
As God, he makes sense of existence – he gives us “light”;
This Christ-centred making-sense-ness of the universe is fundamentally moral – ‘darkness’, in John’s Gospel, is not merely lack of knowledge (“I’m in the dark about that…”) but a willed, purposeful, personal rejection of God.

That means Jesus is our creator God. As God, he’s the ultimate power and authority over us. As his creatures, we depend on him.

We depend on Jesus for ‘ordinary’ life. Jesus maintains the biological, neurological and physical processes that maintain everyone’s physical existence – whether they realise it or not, whether they accept it or nor. We are not merely biological machines; we are creatures, made by Jesus, for himself.

And, we depend on Jesus for eternal life. In John’s Gospel, ‘real’ life is more than biological functioning. There’s more to life than running around, eating, working, and having fun. Real life is relationships, primarily relationship with God. John 17:3: “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”

We don’t like to think of ourselves as created, dependent beings, because it threatens our independence and autonomy. (Post)modern Western society takes it for granted that the only way to be truly happy and fulfilled is to cast off all external restraints, and assert yourself. I want what I want, just because I want it. Anything that stops me from doing that I want is bad.

But these verses tell us that that kind of thinking is deeply flawed. We are dependent, not independent, beings. And the healthiest, most reasonable, most rational thing to do is – admit that dependence. And seek to live consistently with it. That is – to come into the light, to trust Jesus, our creator.

As people who rightly depend on our creator, I expect Christians to experience, generally, healthy, wholesome lives – because we’re living in touch with reality, in touch with the God who made us.

But this immediately gives us a problem. We must not come to Jesus primarily to live a happy life. That reduces Jesus as a means to an end – we want a happy life; Jesus gives us a happy life; so I’ll come to Jesus in order to secure a happy life.

Instead, we must come to Jesus because of the glory, not just of him as our creator (glorious as that is), but of him as our redeemer.

John 1:14:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In John’s Gospel, ‘glory’ focuses mainly (but not exclusively) on Jesus death and resurrection (see especially the use of the word in chapter 17). The way we see Jesus’ glory is in his sin-bearing, sacrificial death on the cross, where he opens the way for us to be with him and the Father, and in his resurrection to eternal life, which he now shares with us.

Human beings flourish in an environment where we’re confident that those who have authority over us care about us, and use their authority for our good.

Jesus is God – the highest authority over us, and the whole world. He uses his power and authority, not to oppress us (that would contradict his good, life-giving character); not even to justly punish us for our sin (he could do that – it would be totally consistent with his righteousness and justice), but to forgive us, reconcile us to himself, and freely give us eternal life (which is a free, merciful act, not just undeserved but contrary to just desserts, flowing from the depths of his compassion towards his irrationally rebellious image-bearers).

Living within the grace of Christ’s death and resurrection – that is, trusting Jesus, and living a life that expresses that trust – is the ultimate environment for human flourishing.

It's Important to be Some Body

2011-03-07T07:58:00.004+11:00

To be human is to be embodied, to be a physical, biological creature. Christians view all of physical existence, from the grandeur of the cosmos to the particularity of the human body, as the good creation of a benevolent God. Physical existence is not divine, but it is good by creational intent, and human existence as embodied is an aspect of this good physicality. The goodness of embodiment is also supported by and grounded in two additional key theological themes of traditional Christianity, the doctrines of the incarnation and of the resurrection of the body. Clearly, bodily existence must not be intrinsically evil or incompatible with the perfect good if God can become fully human. Clearly, the teaching that the final state of redeemed humanity will be as persons of resurrected and perfected bodies, and that we will, in that state, enjoy God forever, must deepen our appreciation of embodiment. We are more than bodies - there is a trans-materialistic, spiritual or soulish, aspect of our persons - but we are bodies.

Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, "Anthropology, Sexuality and Sexual Ethics", in Lints, Horton & Talbot (eds.), Personal Identity in Theological Perspective, page 121.

All we've ever wanted

Is to look good naked,

hope that someone can take it.

God, save me rejection

From my reflection;

I want perfection.

Robbie Williams

Luke 24:39:

"Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

Philippians 3:20-21:

20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

1 John 3:2:

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Humans are Verbivores

2011-03-04T20:18:00.005+11:00

[W]ords - and not visible objects - supply us with the horizons between which we actually live. Stop and think, just for a moment, how often you have hungered for some word from some human being. In that and other senses, you and I really are "verbivores" - word-eaters. If we don't get enough words, then we not only fail to achieve a distinctively human orientation on life, but we also lose our very taste for living.

Mark R. Talbot, "Learning from the Ruined Image", in Lints, Horton & Talbot (eds), Personal Identity in Theological Perspective, page 172.

AFES WebSalt: Where is God in natural disasters?

2011-03-01T22:06:00.006+11:00

Just got a piece published in AFES WebSalt: Where is God in natural disasters? It's a reflection on how our rejection of God affects the whole created order. Hope it's useful.

News flash: Christchurch hit with yet another earthquake

2011-02-22T12:02:00.006+11:00

Christchurch, New Zealand, has been hit with yet another earthquake. 6.3 on the Richter scale, hit at 12:51pm NZ time = 10:51am Sydney time, centred 10km southeast of Christchurch, at an estimated depth of 5km. Prayers, please.

Links to news:

Al Mohler on the importance of physical bookstores

2011-02-21T12:44:00.003+11:00

I'm not surprised that Borders books are in financial trouble. They were just too expensive. And all their fancy gimmicks - Gloria Jeans cafes in the store, and staff talking to each other over wireless mics, a bit like Secret Service agents... just didn't make any difference to me. Okay, maybe I'm just a cheapskate... but that's the truth.

That said, as a thoroughgoing bibliophile, I do lament the loss of a bookstore. As Al Mohler notes in a thought-provoking blog post, physical bookstores are not just places to buy books - they're a barometer of the culture, or at least of the cub-culture that the particular bookstore is keying into.

Hmmm - better get down to the nearest Borders and see if I can snap up some cheap culture...

Resources on evangelism

2011-02-19T07:20:00.002+11:00

The Gospel Coalition has an excellent post on church, community and personal evangelism. Church Programs vs. Personal Evangelism

Novel wisdom 2: internals and externals

2011-02-09T21:09:00.003+11:00

More thought-provoking narrative from Christopher Reich:

Judge spent a moment adjusting his tie and combing his hair. He pulled at each cuff, ensuring one inch of cotton protruded beyond the sleeve and no more. He’d be damned if he’s make a lousy impression. Only the Lord could see your heart, he’d been taught. Everyone else judged you by your appearance.

Christopher Reich, The Runner (Headline, 2000), page 29.

Novel wisdom 1: imperialism

2011-02-07T14:00:00.000+11:00

This is how quality fiction can be thought-provoking and character building, not just entertaining.

Everywhere Judge looked in this town he was surrounded by history and all of it had to do with war… He shook his head. War. Empire. Revenge. Scale them down and what did you have? Anger. Avarice. Pride. History was only personal grievance writ large.

Christopher Reich, The Runner (Headline, 2000), page 28.

Dr Pat at the Centre for Public Christianity

2011-02-04T11:33:00.002+11:00

My mum, Dr Pat, senior lecturer at the University of Sydney and sexologist extraordinaire, has done an interview for the Centre for Public Christianity, on - well, sex, of course. She goes through how recent sexological research affirms the healthiness of biblical sexual ethics, and gives some advice on how to keep the spark in your sex life over the long haul.

2011-02-03T08:40:00.001+11:00

Again over at The Gospel Coalition: John Dickson has an excellent article on the historicity of Jesus.

The gospel places its head on the chopping block of public scrutiny and invites anyone who wishes to come and take a swing. The good news is that the more they “swing.” the more robust our message appears.

John Dickson holds a PhD in ancient history, is the co-director of the Centre for Public Christianity, and the senior minister of St Andrew’s Anglican Church, Roseville.

Free resource: Don Carson overview of the Bible

2011-02-01T11:05:00.000+11:00

Prof. Don Carson has provided an excellent overview of the Bible's storyline in this 14-part seminar, The God Who Is There, originally delivered at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. It's an evangelistic resource because it's geared towards "seekers". But it will also teach & encourage Christians by explaining the big picture of the Bible. And the best thing is - it's all free! Just like the gospel. Thanks, Don Carson & the Gospel Coalition.

Malachi 4:1-6 for Christians

2011-01-30T10:51:00.012+11:00

I returned from Katoomba Christian Convention's Next Gen conference a couple of days ago. At that conference, my training group looked at Malachi 4:1-6 and learned how to understand it, through Christ, as New Testament believers. This is an application of the task of Biblical Theology - understanding the whole bible as one consistent story, centred on Christ, especially his death & resurrection.

Here's my notes for a biblical-theological reading of Mal 4:1-6 (Hebrew 3:19-24).

Summary:

Jesus brings in the Day of the Lord, in his death, and his resurrection, and his return;
If we trust Christ, we don't have to fear judgement on that day, but can look forward to being vindicated;
Until that day comes, we need to live Christ-like lives, patiently enduring mockery and persecution, and waiting to be vindicated when we share in Christ's resurrection.

Detailed notes:

John the Baptist is the Elijah who precedes the Day of the Lord. The angel tells Zechariah so (Luke 1:17). John’s clothes of camel hair and leather belt look like Elijah’s (Matt 3:4; Mark 1:6; cf 2 Kings 1:8). He rejects identifying himself as Isaiah to the Pharisees’ ambassadors (John 1:21), but that’s because he only comes as Elijah to those willing to accept him (Matt 11:14). He preaches repentance and tells people to that the one coming after him will baptise in the Holy Spirit and fire – a reference to the judgment, referred to in Malachi 4, which finally demonstrates the difference between the righteous and the wicked, and faithful and the faithless. Jesus comes after John, and brings in this day of the lord that John proclaimed.

We instinctively side with the ‘good guys’ – with the ‘righteous’ – in this passage. This is not correct – we should see ourselves as the wicked who will be trampled down in the judgement (Rom 3:10-12a).

The Day of the Lord came when Jesus hung on the cross. He has taken the punishment we deserve for rejecting God, for siding with the wicked (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). He takes our curse for us (Gal 3:13). So, if we trust him, we do not have to fear being trampled in the judgement. Instead, we can look forward to being vindicated along with him – that is, sharing in his resurrection (Rom 6:5; Php 3:21; Rev 20:6).

The Day of the Lord also came in Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus is the only person who, in himself, deserves to be vindicated by God (Matt 1:11 & parallels; Heb 4:15; 10:5-10). This vindication happened in his resurrection (Acts 2:23-24; 3:15; 4:10; etc). Until that resurrection vindication, he continued to patiently love & care for sinners whom he knew would abandon him at his hour of greatest need (Matt 26:34-35; Mark 14:27-41; Luke 22:34) – that is, he entrusted himself to God’s justice, not human justice (Heb 12:2-3; 1 Peter 2:21-23).

Jesus came to fulfil the Law (Matt 5:17-18). New covenant believers (Christians!) don’t have to keep the Mosaic Law; we follow the law of love (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14). This doesn’t mean we have it easier; in fact, it’s harder for us, because we have to love as Christ loved (Eph 5:1-2), forgive as Christ forgave (Col 3:13), and in this way have a righteousness which surpasses the Pharisees and Lawyers (Matt 5:20).

Most of the time, our Godliness will not be rewarded – just like Jesus wasn’t. People will take us for granted, use & abuse us, use our good deeds to slander us (eg: 1 Cor 9: Paul had to defend himself for not taking money from the Corinthians!) and persecute us (Matt 10:24-25; John 15:18-20; 2 Tim 2:13; etc), while evil people get away with murder (2 Tim 3:13) – just like in Malachi’s day, and just like Jesus. Just like Jesus, we must wait patiently to be vindicated in the final judgment (Rom 12:19; 1 Peter 2:23b; Rev 6:10-11) while praying for those who persecute us (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35; Rom 12:17-21; 1 Peter 2:19-25), just like Jesus did (Luke 23:34).

The Day of the Lord will come when Jesus returns. When Jesus returns, he will bring about the final discernment, the final judgment, between the righteous and the wicked (Rev 19:11-21). Those who are vindicated in that final judgment are not good in themselves; they have trusted Christ and been forgiven, as opposed to those who have ignored him and therefore remain unforgiven (Rev 20:11-15). We need to wait patiently for that day, remembering the gospel of Christ (not the law of Moses any more – the law is fulfilled in the gospel, anyway) (2 Peter 1:12-15) and patiently bearing with the mockery that ungodly unbelievers heap upon us (2 Peter 3:1-13).

Billy Graham's words to the next generation

2011-01-29T08:12:00.003+11:00

Legendary evangelist Billy Graham is now in his nineties, in failing health, and in need of round-the-clock professional care. But, by the looks of his Christianity Today interview, his mind is as sharp as ever, and his passion for Christ and the gospel is as bright as ever:

[T]he most important issue we face today is the same the church has faced in every century: Will we reach our world for Christ? In other words, will we give priority to Christ's command to go into all the world and preach the gospel? Or will we turn increasingly inward, caught up in our own internal affairs or controversies, or simply becoming more and more comfortable with the status quo? Will we become inner-directed or outer-directed? The central issues of our time aren't economic or political or social, important as these are. The central issues of our time are moral and spiritual in nature, and our calling is to declare Christ's forgiveness and hope and transforming power to a world that does not know him or follow him. May we never forget this.

Christianity Today, January (Web-Only) 2011, Vol. 55

Off to Next Gen

2011-01-24T07:46:00.001+11:00

I'm off to Katoomba for KCC's Next Gen conference. I'm leading a group in strand 2 - Biblical Theology - helping them see the overview of the whole Bible, and how it develops as a consistent story from beginning to end.

I was a participant back in the 1990s, when it was located at Katoomba High School, and was still called Katoomba Youth Leadership Convention (KYLC). Given that it was only fifteen days of my life (3 conferences of 5 days each), I reckon this conference has had the biggest marginal impact on my Christian life, and my approach to the Bible. Coz those fifteen days helped crystallise for me an approach to the Bible that listens closely to the Bible itself, rather than imposing our own thoughts upon it.

I hope I can lead the participants into the same understanding. Prayers please.

Why we don't hear about global persecution of Christians

2011-01-18T22:45:00.000+11:00

Quick shout-out: the Christian Broadcasting Network has posted an interesting article about anti-Christian bias among media networks.

How long, O Lord? Some thoughts on sermon density & length

2011-01-17T21:06:00.002+11:00

I recently had an interesting series of comments on my Facebook page re length & density of sermons. I didn't contribute to the debate, I just read my friends' arguments (so they're all still my friends...). Here's my thoughts.

As responsible preachers, we must consider two potentially competing principles:

Accurate communication of what the text is saying - which includes, amongst other things, clarity of language and comprehensiveness in covering the material; and
The congregation's ability to take in info - which will be affected by a variety of factors, mainly outside our ability to control: their educational background, age, health, etc.

A long, detailed sermon will emphasise point (1) at the expense of point (2). A short, snappy sermon, full of illustrations and application, will emphasise point (2), potentially at the expense of point (1). I don't think there's a way around this tension. Part of our role as preachers is to best work that tension in the particular congregational context that we're in.

In some places, the people will tend not to need or want detailed sermons, heavy on explanation and justification. The're not dumb - but they're not analytical, they're more practical.

In such contexts, it'd be pastorally irresponsible to subject them to careful dissection and justification of my exegetical conclusions. That would either get the congregation annoyed ("is this guy just showing off how smart he is?") or bored (*zzzz...*) or depressed ("wow! He's so smart! I could never understand the Bible like he does!"). Instead, we should take a few verses, explain them in simple language, and then give the congregation clear illustrations, and plenty of application to show them how to appropriately respond to the passage. The trade-off is: we're implicitly inviting them to trust us - that we have correctly understood the passage in our personal, private preparation.

In a different demographic context, the opposite will be true. The act of demonstrating that we can understand the Bible in a clear, reasonable, publicly verifiable way (= careful dissection and justification of my exegetical conclusions) will itself be a challenge to arrogant modernists who think naturalistic science comprehensively defines all true knowledge, and to equally arrogant post-modernists who know that all claims to knowledge are veiled power-plays. Indeed, in this context, I think it would be evangelistically and pastorally irresponsible not to do this kind of exegetical demonstration. If we don't demonstrate the Biblical-based rationality of our teaching, we'll reinforce the popular misperception that Christianity is anti-intellectual and authoritarian.

This is not to say that illustration and application is unnecessary; it is to say that taking the time to make this exegetical demonstration will, in this demographic context, be pastorally and evangelistically useful, and worth the cost of a longer, denser sermon.

Thoughts, anyone...?

Self-indulgence, self-control, and being truly human

2011-01-16T12:11:00.001+11:00

In our previous post, we talked about the modern problem of sexual essentialism - that is, making sexual expression essential to being human. So, if I can't have sex, I'm "asexual" and miserable and life is meaningless and I might as well die.

In contrast, we asserted that real humanity comes through being Christian - being forgiven by Christ, by being in relationship with God through him.

Self control is not a-sexuality - it's just controlling those urges, managing them. Self-control is an expression of our humanity - of our dignity and power. We are not slaves to our appetites; we are powerful, intelligent beings, in the image of God himself (Gen 1:26-27).

We know self-control is good and healthy because Jesus did it. Jesus managed his appetites - even when the appetite, in itself, was actually a good one - when he knew that appetite was being used by the devil to try and get him to sin.

In Matthew ch 4, Jesus is combating the devil in the wilderness.

Verse 2: "After fasting for forty days and forty nights, he was hungry." That's a perfectly normal human response. It shows Jesus was fully human - he had an appetite for food. Usually, there'd be nothing wrong with satisfying this appetite - with eating.

Verse 3: "The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." The devil tried to use a normal, healthy human appetite to get Jesus to obey him. That's what the devil does - he uses good things to try and trick us, to suck us into following him.

Verse 4: "Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"" Jesus was more interested in obeying God than filling his appetite - even when the appetite was, in itself, good and normal and healthy.

Sex is good. God created it. But he meant it to be used by one man and one woman, for life. Anything else is the devil, using an appetite that is, in itself, good and normal and healthy, trying to trick us into following him, instead of God.

I've applied this reasoning to sex - but it's much broader than sex.

Think about anger. Let's say we're angry with someone because they've spread lies and gossip about us, and have turned some of our friends against us. That's a good and healthy desire for righteousness, for truth.

But what can we do with that desire? Well, we could plot revenge; we could go scream and yell at them and have a punch-up; we could spread gossip and slander about them... or, we could love our enemies, do good to them and pray for them (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35); we could conciously give up on revenge (Rom 12:19); and thus, in our anger, we would not sin (Psalm 4:4; Eph 4:26).

That's difficult. It takes self-control. But, that's what Jesus did. What did Jesus say on the cross? Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" - he prayed for his enemies. Self-control is an expression of true humanity.

Living for Christ in a super-materialistic, super-sexualised world

2011-01-14T17:50:00.000+11:00

Another email question I recently received was about sexual self-expression. Here's what I said. (Incidentally - I explored this same question some time back in an article on AFES WebSalt.)

*****

Modern Western society is so sexualised, that sexual self-expression, and sexual satisfaction, has become essential for real life, real existence. If we can't have "good sex", we might as well die. One term for this is "sexual essentialism". To be truly human, it's essential to be sexually active and fulfilled. Otherwise, you're not truly human.

In contrast, the Bible says the way to have a full life, both now and for ever, is to trust Jesus. Jesus came to give us life to the full by laying down his life for his sheep (John 10:10-11). Eternal life is to know the one true God, and Jesus Christ (John 17:3). To come to Jesus is to come to God (John 14:6). Jesus gives us more relational and personal fulfilment than the world can ever give, because he gives us personal relationship with God. In Christ, it's possible to be content and happy, even if we're single & celibate - or poor or sick or jobless or homeless or anything else (Philippians 4:11-13).

If we trust Jesus and want to follow him, then he calls us to exercise self-control: Rom 8:6-9; Gal 5:22-25; 1 Thess 4:3-6; Titus 2:11-12; 1 Peter 1:13-16. That is: we're shouldn't do anything just coz we feel life it, but to think about whether it'll bring honour to Jesus, and whether it's good for the other person. Just coz we're angry, we shouldn't abuse someone or plot revenge against them - even if we think they deserve it: in your anger do not sin (Ps 4:4; Ephesians 4:26); love your enemies, do good to them, pray for them (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35); do not take revenge (Rom 12:19a). Similarly, just coz we have sexual thoughts about someone doesn't mean we have to act on them; we need to learn to control those thoughts.

This self-controlled life doesn't have to go on forever. One of the biblical pictures of heaven is that of a wedding (Revelation 19:7; 21:1-4). Heaven is better than sex. If we trust Jesus, we have the sure, divine guarantee of being welcomed into his arms for ever.

Again, in today's culture, this is hard to believe, because our culture is so materialistic and hedonistic. If you can't touch it & feel it, then it's not real. Which of course means love isn't real. You can't touch and feel love; you can only touch someone's body (or your own, for that matter...), and feel arousal. That's why sex is more important than love these days.

But the reality is that personal relationships - which are the basis and channel of love - are more important than physical pleasure. People who are physically weak, sick, or disabled, can be really, really happy, if they're surrounded by people who love them. That love doesn't have to be sexual - it could be parents, friends, or carers.

Relationships are more important than sexual fulfilment. The Bible says that in Christ, especially in his death & resurrection for us, God loves us fully and completely, by giving us relationship with himself (Rom 5:8; 8:37-39; 1 John 4:10, 12, 16). Our challenge is to make this love, this relationship - the love of God in Christ, our relationship with God through Christ - the most important guiding principle in our whole life.

In a super-sexualised, super-materialistic, super-hedonistic society, living for Jesus is super-difficult. Well, Jesus never promised us an easy life. Quite the opposite: he warned us that following him would involve dying to self. The only way we'll pay that cost - in sexual self-control, or anything else - is if we really, truly believe that Jesus is worth it. So - just keep reading the Bible! Keep finding out about Jesus, how wonderful he is, what he's done for us & how excellent it'll be to see him face-to-face in glory.

Trialling an illustration: the salvation water wheel

2011-01-11T07:19:00.002+11:00

I'm going to try an illustration this coming Sunday, to try and show how faith operates in connecting us to Jesus. I'm posting it here for comments because I want to avoid accidental heresy, or confusion.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is this: The Bible says faith is not meritorious in our salvation; but it is instrumental in saving us.

Faith is not meritorious. That is: faith is not a work. We don't deserve salvation because we have faith in Jesus.
But faith connects us with Jesus. Unless we put our trust in Jesus, we are not actually saved. So, faith is the instrument whereby Christ's benefits flow to us.

The illustration I'm trialling is: a water wheel.

The power is in the water. That’s what makes the wheel go round.
The pipe (the "flume") gets the water to the wheel. Without the pipe, the water wouldn't get to the wheel, and the wheel wouldn't work.
But there’s no power in the pipe itself. If there’s no water in the pipe, the wheel won’t turn. The water, not the pipe, makes the wheel go round.

The analogies are:

Jesus is like the water. Jesus - especially in his death and resurrection - is God’s power to save us.
Our faith is like the pipe. When we trust Jesus, we access God’s salvation power. We actually get saved. Without faith – if we don’t trust Jesus – we don’t access Jesus’ saving power.
But our faith, in itself, doesn't actually do anything to save us. The power is in Jesus, not in our faith.
The water wheel is our personal salvation. When we put our trust in Jesus, he makes us to actually be saved - that is, justified, reconciled, at peace with God, adopted by him, part of his beloved people, with a sure hope of glory.

To collocate a few Bible verses: We are justified by Christ alone, through faith alone – not by works (Rom 3:24, 27-30; 5:1; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 2:16).

What do you think? Feedback, please.

The Trinity and our prayers

2011-01-09T16:16:00.004+11:00

I friend of mine emailed me a question about the Trinity and our prayer life. Here's what I replied. Anyone got any feedback?

*****

If I understand you correctly, you're basically asking two related questions:
1. what is the impact of the Trinity on our prayers; and
2. is the recent trend towards praying simplistically to Jesus a symptom of an unhealthy anti-intellectual anti-creedalism?

Re 1: we pray to the Father, through the Son as our intercessor, in the power of the Holy Spirit. The NT pattern seems to be:
* the Father has priority in planning & willing all good things;
* the Son, in incarnate Jesus Christ, is the one who actually puts all the good things into effect - they are all "in Christ"; and
* the Spirit actually enacts the spiritual blessings in us & for us.

So, when we pray, we reflect this pattern. We pray to the Father, as our heavenly Father. We have become his children in and through Christ - by his death and resurrection for us; and by us putting our faith in him; so that we identify with him, and he with us. Ref: John 5:19-17; John 14:13-18 ; Gal 4:6; Eph 1:3-14; Eph 3:14-19; Col 1:3-14; 1 Pet 1:2.

That said, I don't think it's necessarily sinful to pray to Jesus. Stephen does: Acts 7:59-60. I can't think of any bible passage where someone prays to the Holy Spirit; but, seeing as the Spirit is God, again, I don't think it's sinful to pray to him.

But it is better to follow the Biblical pattern as above. That's because the Christian life is not one of minimum requirement - "what's the least I can do to please God?" - but one of maximum heart devotion - be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect; all our heart, soul, mind & strength; our bodies as living sacrifices.

And that brings us to 2. Simplistic praying to Jesus may be a symptom of anti-intellectual anti-creedalism - which, I think, is just laziness. Christianity is not merely an intellectual matter. Granted. But it's not un-intellectual either. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, MIND and strength" (Mark 12:30 & Luke 10:27; Matt 22:37 drops strength but retains mind).

That said, I won't jump on someone & criticise them too harshly for praying to Jesus. The doctrine of the Trinity is a tough one to wrap your mind around. The incarnation is a wonderful truth; Jesus is the one who became human and died for us; so it's easy to feel close to Jesus.

The solution, I suppose, is to emphasise that in Christ, the whole Trinity comes close to us: John 14:6-10, 16, 18, 23. This is why we pray to the Father; because, in Christ, he really is our heavenly Father! Rom 8:15-17; Gal 3:26; 4:6-7. We're part of God's family; we have a sure expectation of living with him in glory forever - it's what makes heaven heavenly. This is an intellectual truth to be understood and assented to - but it's so much more than that: it's a personal, spiritual, theological (in the sense of "God-oriented", not just human-focused) reality, to be enjoyed and rejoiced in.

What do you think? Does that help?

Church: physically gathered and/or spiritual fellowship?

2011-01-07T10:07:00.005+11:00

This continues our discussion on the Knox-Robinson model of church.

In my previous post I talked about fellowship and discipline. My second, more general question is: can we use the term “church” to denote the relationships we have with other Christians, even if we’re not meeting with them? I would say yes.

Luke describes Paul, before his conversion, as ravaging the church (singular) by entering houses (plural) to throw people into prison (Acts 8:3). This could refer to Paul breaking into house churches - but if so, why didn't Luke use the plural, churches? Paul himself similarly laments that he used to persecute the church (singular) of God (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Php. 3:6). This at least indicates that Paul can use "church" to refer collectively to God’s people who lived in Jerusalem. Acts 9:31 refers to the church (singular) throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria - which must be synonymous with a spiritual fellowship.

So, I conclude that it's Biblically valid to speak of "belonging" to an earthly church, in the sense of an invisible fellowship with believers, even if we're not in the act of meeting with them - of "doing church". This is not Platonic - in the sense of having some invisible ideal of which the earthly is only an appoximation - but a reality enacted by the Holy Spirit.

That said, the New Testament certainly puts a priority on the local congregation. This focus on local church is indicated in at least four ways.

The city where it meets being named at least indicates it is not a national or regional church (Acts 8:1, 3; 11:22, 26; 13:1; 15:4; 18:22; 20:17, 28; Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 2:1; 8:1; Gal. 1:2; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:1; Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).
The use of the plural "churches" assumes a multiplicity of localised congregations, not a single universal church (Acts 16:5; Rom. 16:4, 16; 1 Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 14:33, 34; 16:1, 19; 2 Cor. 8:1, 18, 19, 23, 24; 11:28; Gal. 1:2, 22; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 1:4, 11, 20; 2:7, 11, 17, 23, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 22:16).
Personal identification of the patron or matron, whose home the church meets in, focuses on the localised character of the church (Rom. 16:1, 5, 23; Col. 4:15; Phm. 1:2)
The ethical exhortations in the New Testament letters demonstrate that their authors were concerned for relationships within the local gatherings. This comes out strongly in 1 Corinthians, eg: 1 Cor. 6:4; 7:17; 11:18, 22; 14:4, 5, 12, 33-35. An ordered gathering of the church expresses God’s peace (1 Cor. 14:33 – perhaps drawing on Old Testament shalom, wholeness, well-being). This is also the thrust of Eph. 4-6, Col. 3-4, 1 Thess. 4:1-12, and 1 Pet. 2:13ff. The reason elders must manage their own household well is because the church over which they have oversight is the household of God (1 Tim 3:5, 15).

So, I think the Bible affirms the priority of the local fellowship; but that local fellowship is spiritual, not just when we are actually gathered; and, reference my previous post, that fellowship implies accountability and discipline. I guess that makes me a fairly boring, predictable, free-church Presbyterian (*sigh*).

Well, that's my two cents worth. Thoughts, anyone…?

Church, fellowship and discipline

2011-01-05T09:36:00.008+11:00

This continues from our previous post on the Knox-Robinson model of church.

Some people criticise the Knox-Robinson model as being “Platonic”. I think it’s quite the opposite – it prioritises the physical. The traditional model is in danger of being “Platonic” because it posits a this-worldly reality which transcends the physical.

Others criticise it as being based solely on the New Testament word ekklesia, which means "to gather" - hence their priority of physical assembly. That criticism is simply wrong - this ecclesiology is based on a deep understanding of the dynamic of salvation-history throughout the whole Bible.

A related criticism is that the model, in focusing on ekklesia, ignores the other metaphors for church: body, temple, bride etc. These models can be subsumed under the Knox-Robinson model, the question is: what are the limits of the metaphor? When we are getting about our ordinary lives in the world, we are still Christians - thus, members of Christ's body, bearers of his Holy Spirit, and, according to Knox-Robinson, gathered spiritually around Christ. But, should we go further and say we are members of a church? More in our next post.

Others say it leads to a highly independent, isolated, fragmented view of church, bereft of church discipline. If church happens whenever we gather around the word, then Bible study is church; I don't have to go to that boring, stuffy old building on Sunday. And, I can start a church by starting a Bible study or hiring a building & starting preaching - I don't have to inform anyone or ask any permission. This criticism has, I think, some weight - but that depends on the connection between fellowship and discipline.

Broughton Knox had a high view of fellowship - the connections that Christians have with each other even when they're not meeting in church. In his view, a "denomination" is a fellowship of churches - a group of churches with a shared history, perhaps shared ministry personnel (bishops?). But he consciously limited church discipline to Biblical exhortation. A local church may exhort another local church that they are going astray; but they should not impose any sanctions on that other local church, apart from the extreme of cutting off fellowship.

And this pulls the teeth from the denomination. Under a Knox-Robinson ecclesiology, the denomination should not be able to fire a minister, or close a church, or deprive them of their building.

My question is: isn't this a very thin view of fellowship? Can fellowship and discipline be more closely connected? For fellowship to have some muscle, it needs to have accountability, and accountability implies sanctions. Both Jesus (Matt 18:15-19) and Paul (1 Cor 5) expected churches to exercise discipline, with sanctions that had teeth. These two passages refer to local churches. But if healthy local fellowship requires discipline, then why not extend that to broader fellowship?

A response might be that rich fellowship, wherein discipline may genuinely be exercised in love, requires relational proximity. Relational proximity invites trust. When someone you're close to tells you off, you're more likely to listen to them, because you're more likely to believe they mean you well (Prov 27:6). Discipline from a distance feels authoritarian, and you're less likely to trust them. That's why church discipline should be limited to local churches.

I think the principle's correct - but it can be extended beyond local churches, to a broader church fellowship, ie: a denomination. The Presbyterian system of hierarchical church courts, while often cumbersome, creates a forum for physical proximity and potential rich, trust-building fellowship. The health of our churches may be better indicated by the quality of our conversations over supper than the precision of our resolutions.

As you can see, I'm still wrestling with these issues. Feedback welcome.

In our next post, we'll look at the breadth of the term "church".

Knox-Robinson vs traditional ecclesiology

2011-01-03T23:39:00.004+11:00

The "Knox-Robinson ecclesiology" is the doctrine of church framed by the Moore College theologians David Broughton Knox and Donald Robinson. If I can summarise it without too much distortion: a church happens when people gather around Christ, through his Word. We are simultaneously gathered physically around the Bible, and spiritually, in the heavenlies, around Christ. They base this on the Biblical-theological dynamic of God gathering his people to himself: Exodus = gathering; Exile = scattering; Christ and the New Covenant = gathering again.

The idiosyncratic thing about Knox-Robinson ecclesiology is the significance they put on the act of assembly, of gathering. Any gathering around the Bible – Bible study, Sunday church, major conference – is a “church”. But any time people are not gathering, they are not “churching” with regards this world, even though they are still gathered around Christ in the heavenlies.

This is unusual because the word “church” has traditionally used to denote three forms of the believing Christian community, which a believer identifies with and “belongs” to, whether that form of the believing community is actually meeting or not. The three forms are:

the particular, localised believing community which a person has committed him/herself to - “I attend St-Bertha’s-By-the-Freeway”;
the group of churches with a shared history and structure, to which the particular community is associated - the Berthian church, founded by the freeway evangelist Bertha;
the universal “catholic” church, across time and space.

The difference between this traditional use of “church” and Knox-Robinson is that in the traditional use, fellowship is sufficient for the word “church”. Actual gathering is not necessary. St Bertha’s is taken to “exist” as a fellowship of Christians committed to each other, even if they’re not meeting at the time.

In our next post, we'll look at some criticisms of the Knox-Robinson ecclesiology, and I'll put forward some of my own thoughts on it.

The uniqueness and power of the Gospel

2011-01-02T07:28:00.001+11:00

The gospel is about Christ’s person and work, as testified by the apostles, who are the eyewitnesses and authorised spokespeople of his person and work. The content of their testimony – their gospel – is that Christ is God, expressing his character in redemptive action. A person who entrusts him/herself to that gospel – and in that gospel, to that apostolically-proclaimed Christ, and in Christ, to God – will inevitably be motivated to spread that gospel. A church founded on that apostolic gospel will inevitably express its evangelical (gospel-founded) character in redemptive proclamation (evangelism). The apostolic gospel is autodunamis – self-powered, self-propelled.

Christ engages is redemptive action; we engage in redemptive proclamation. Christ’s death and resurrection are unique events in actually reconciling people to God. Our actions of love and service are not on the same level. They express the reconciliation that we have with God and each other; they provide a “plausibility framework” that may help convince people of the truth of the gospel; but they do not in themselves reconcile anyone to God. People are right with God only when they entrust themselves to the crucified and risen Christ, as proclaimed by the apostles. The redemptive efficacy of the apostolic gospel is unique to itself. (I tried to think of a fancy word beginning with “auto” to express this, but can’t yet. Anyone…?)

How to make 2011 the best new year ever

2011-01-01T08:14:00.012+11:00

This is the end of the first decade of the 21st century – that is, of the 3rd millennium. We had high hopes for the new millennium, because it dawned with real potential for world peace. We could write the history of the 20th century as the history of three wars: WW1; WW2; and the Cold War. But the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 – the cold war was over! Maybe we would have a century of peace & goodwill!

Then there was 9/11. The 21st century opened with the War on Terror – which is still going on.

We had hoped the new millennium would bring something new, something better. Instead, it’s more of the same old thing. What wars will write the history of the 21st century? Of the 3rd millennium?

For some of us personally, 2011 will be very new, because we’ve finished school or university or just been married or something else life-changing. But for many of us – let’s be honest – it’s just the same old thing, isn’t it? Same old family fights & boring job or annoying study & same old stupid boss who won’t give us the credit you’re due.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the whole world changed – if someone could do something, to change the whole cosmos, the whole fabric of reality – so that things were better? Wouldn't that make 2011 the best new year ever?

In Jeremiah 31:31-34, God promises a new covenant with his people, Israel and Judah:

31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

A covenant is a formalised, personal relationship. It’s like a contract, because it involved mutual binding obligations. But it’s more than a contract, because a covenant assumes that you care about the other person. That’s why God calls his relationship with his people a marriage covenant. He loved them, like a husband loves his wife. And, like any normal husband, he wanted his people to love them back.

Under the old covenant, the people kept running off with other men. They were not loyal to God, but worshiped idols – false gods. That breaks the ten commandments: the first command is “you shall have no other Gods before me”, and the second is “you shall not create an idol.” But, more importantly: worshiping a different god is spiritual adultery. It’s like taking your husband’s wedding presents, and giving them to your secret lover.

The amazing thing is – instead of divorcing his people and destroying them – which he had every right to do – God makes a way for them to be forgiven, once and for all. The last line of the passage promises “I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Verse 34b)

This is why we need Jesus. In the upper room, “after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20), which, adds Matthew, is “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). If we have been unfaithful to our spouse, even though we deserve to be rejected by them, our spouse may, because they love us, and because they are kind and merciful, forgive us, and restore us to themselves. In Christ, God does exactly this. He deals with his own wrath against us, so that we can be restored to fellowship with him. “For this reason, Christ is the mediator of a new covenant” (Hebrews 9:15). And because we’ve been forgiven, we can truly be God's people (Jer 31:33b), know God personally (Jer 31:34a), and live God's way – not because we have to, but because we want to, from the heart (Jer 31:33). In the new testament, this last point is effected by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:13-26).

We get stressed and frustrated when people who are important to us, or have power over us, don’t treat us how we deserve. We get frustrated when the spouse, the kids, the parents, the boss, the workmates – all those people – don’t give us the love, the respect, the attention, that we want, and that we think we deserve.

God is the most important person in the universe. In Christ, he forgives us everything we have done against him; makes us to be his people; and gives us his Holy Spirit, that we would truly obey him.

That means, for those of us who have entrusted ourselves to God’s new covenant, the world changes for the better. The fabric of reality has shifted, because God – the centre of the universe, the most important person in the cosmos – is our friend, our Father; he is on our side; he loves us, and is for us, come what may. Things can’t get better than that.

The only question for us is: have we given ourselves to God, according to his new covenant? which basically means – have we given ourselves to Jesus Christ? If we haven’t, let’s do it right here, right now. That’s how we can make 2011 the best new year ever.

Come and worship Christ the King

2010-12-25T14:16:00.002+11:00

Angels from the realms of glory,

Wing your flight o’er all the earth;

You who sang creation’s story,

Now proclaim Messiah’s birth.

Come and worship, come and worship,
Worship Christ, the newborn King!

Shepherds, in the field abiding,

Watching o’er your flocks by night,

God with us is now residing;

See: there shines the infant light:

Come and worship, come and worship,
Worship Christ, the newborn King!

Sages, leave your contemplations,

Brighter visions beam afar;

Seek the great Desire of nations;

You have seen His natal star.

Come and worship, come and worship,
Worship Christ, the newborn King!

Sinners, wrung with true repentance,

Doomed for guilt to endless pains,

Justice now revokes the sentence,

Mercy says: come, break your chains.

Come and worship, come and worship,
Worship Christ, the newborn King!

Though an Infant now we view Him,

He shall fill His Father’s throne,

Gather all the nations to Him;

Every knee shall then bow down:

Come and worship, come and worship,

Worship Christ, the newborn King!

Peace & goodwill this Christmas

2010-12-24T15:14:00.006+11:00

Christmas is a fun time for most of us, because everyone’s happy and nice to each other. We meet our family – sometimes people we haven’t seen for years. And we give each other gifts and reminisce about old times and share our hopes and dreams. And it’s all fun and lovely.

But then we hear things like this:

Each year police and support services prepare themselves for a spike in domestic assault cases over the Christmas to New Years’ eve period. A combination of financial strain, families spending more time together, and increased alcohol consumption contribute to the rise in figures.

Nina Funnell, ‘For many women, ‘tis the season of fear, not joy’, National Times December 21, 2010

The prophet Isaiah spoke to people who were oppressed and afraid, because they were under threat from their enemies.

Isaiah 9:1-2:
1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honour Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan. 2 The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.

Isaiah’s talking about real, historical places. Zebulun, Naphtali, Galilee and the Jordan River. They’re in the north of Israel – in the area that was the first to be attacked by enemies. That’s why they lived in darkness, and the shadow of death - they were always under threat by their enemies.

Think of North and South Korea. There’s only a few hundred kilometres between the two capital cities, Pyongyang and Seoul. The two nations are technically still at war with each other – so they’re always afraid, always ready for war. Death could come to them any time – they live in the shadow of death.

We too live in the shadow of death. We’re not at war with another country. But we don’t have peace in our lives. Some of us really do live in the shadow of death – we’re battling cancer, or some other life-threatening disease. We all have some tension in our families – someone who won’t talk to someone else, and that makes Christmas lunch kind of awkward because they’re in the room together but everyone knows they won’t even look at each other, let alone talk to each other…

Isaiah explains the root cause of this breakdown, this tension, this war we experience. It’s simple, but profound: it’s because we have rejected God.

The prophet Isaiah says some really harsh things against his own people. He tells them that all their religious rituals are useless. In fact, they’re worse than useless – they actually make God mad. He compares his own people to Sodom and Gomorrah – the worst, most disgusting cities in the Bible.

And it’s all because they rejected God.

Isaiah 1:2-3:
2 Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me. 3 The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.”

The people were worse than animals. Pets know where their food comes from. They respect their owners. The people of God don’t even know that much. They bite the hand that feeds them.

We’ve done exactly the same thing. God has been very kind to us. He gives us everything we have: families, friends, homes, jobs. But we reject him, we tell him to get out of our lives.

We don’t do it directly. We just ignore him.

Imagine going to someone’s place for Christmas lunch, and then barging in, talking to all the other guests, and merrily helping ourselves to the food – but completely ignoring the host. We don’t even say thank you. In fact, when the host comes to us to say hello, we deliberately turn our back and ignore them.

That’s how we treat God. We live in God’s world, and enjoy all the good things God gives us; and then ignore him.

That’s why God gets angry with us. How would you feel if you were the host at Christmas lunch, and your guests ignored you like that? First you’d be surprised; then you might be sad; but eventually, you’d get furious!

The amazing thing is – even though we reject God, and even though he’s angry with us, God still loves us enough to offer us peace through Jesus .

Isaiah 9:3-5:
3 You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder. 4 For as in the day of Midian’s defeat, you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor. 5 Every warrior’s boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire.

The people have gone from sorrow to joy. They were in darkness and gloom and distress. Now they’re partying – like at harvest time, or like when the last English wicket fell in the third Ashes test match, levelling the ashes at one all, and the whole of Australia rejoiced…

They’re happy because God has got rid of their enemy. The defeat of Midian refers back to an episode in Israel’s history. It’s recorded in Judges chapters 6-7. The people of Midian had conquered God’s people, and were ruling over them. God raised up a leader, Gideon, who defeated the Midianites, and released God’s people from their oppression.

God can defeat the people's enemies. He’s done it before; he’ll do it again. Only this time, it’ll be better than Midian. There’ll be world peace; no-one will need any weapons any more, they can all be burned in the fire.

And the way God will defeat the people's enemies is – through a baby.

Isaiah 9:6-7:
6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and for ever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Children don’t normally win wars. You don’t put a baby in front of a tank. But this isn't any ordinary baby.

He’s a ‘wonderful counsellor’: he’s going to know how to do the right thing, and teach wisely - with a wisdom greater than Solomon;
He’ll be an ‘everlasting father’: He’s going to look after the people like a father cares for a family; and, he’s going to be everlasting: he’s going to be from eternity, to eternity;
He’ll be the ‘prince of peace’: we've already talked about how the baby will bring world peace - only Jesus can really do that, because only Jesus fixes our rebellion against God;
And he’ll be ‘mighty God’ [Hebrew El-Gibbor, also used in Isaiah 10:21] - God would become a baby! Only Jesus can fulfil that!

And this child will fulfil God’s promises to David. Again, this refers to what God had done in Israel’s past. King David had defeated the enemies, and brought peace and security to God’s people. God promised David that one of his descendants would rule the world for ever – see 2 Samuel ch 7. This descendent from David will destroy God’s enemies, and bring peace, forever.

But it won’t be just this child doing it. The last phrase of the passage says “The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.” God himself will act, in and through this promised child. That’s why we know it’ll work. When we try to do things, it doesn't work – because we’re weak and ignorant. When God does stuff, it works; because he’s wise and powerful, so he knows how to do things so that they last, forever.

Only Jesus could be this promised peace child.

Jesus really is divine - it’s not an exaggeration; he is himself mighty God;
That’s why he’s everlasting - he’s from eternity, to eternity;
Jesus really is God acting in the world - so the peace that he gives is for everyone, and goes on for ever, because he gives us peace with God;
Jesus is descended from David; he is David’s greatest son;
And he really does rule for ever - with him, it’s not an exaggeration, it’s real – because he rose from the dead, and lives for ever.

This is why Jesus can fix our main problem: our rebellion against God. When Jesus died on the cross, he wasn't just dying physically; he was taking all the punishment we deserve for rejecting God. So he fixes up what’s really wrong with the world: our rebellion against God. And because he’s fixed up our rebellion against God, he can rescue us from the evil powers that really oppress us: the powers of sin, death, and the devil.

So the question for all of us is – do we have peace this Christmas? Not just peace with our family & friends. Not just peace with ourselves – our sickness & worries. Peace with God!

Have you accepted Jesus as who he really is? God in the flesh; God’s chosen king; everlasting father; mighty God? Have you accepted the freedom from sin, death and the devil that he has won for us?

May the Lord bless you all, this Christmas and always.

The best Christmas gift is ourselves

2010-12-17T15:46:00.007+11:00

It’s the last week before Christmas. Many of us are probably stressing about last-minute Christmas gifts.

But really - why worry so much? The best Christmas gift isn't stuff. Most of us have more things than we know what to do with anyway.

The best Christmas gift is – yourself. Christmas is a time when we can meet family members and friends, and catch up and chat and joke and laugh and share our lives with them.

And that makes sense because on that first Christmas day, God gave us a gift. Not a thing; not a toy. God gave us – himself.

The Apostle John says, at the beginning of his gospel:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14a The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Jesus is God. And in giving us Jesus, God gives us – himself. On that first Christmas, he came to live with us. Not just visit - to live, to make his "dwelling", his "home" with us.

It’s the difference between tourism and immigration. When we go somewhere as a tourist, we just look at things, take photographs and souvenirs - and leave. We don't form any lasting relationships.

But if we immigrate, then we're here to stay. We have to find a house, and a job, and a school for the kids, and everything else.

God didn’t come to earth as a tourist. He immigrated.

But even that isn’t enough. Not only did he come as a human. Not only did he live with us. He gave himself, as a human, to death for us.

We worry about the cost of our Christmas presents. Is it too much? Is it too little? If it's too much, we'll embarrass the person we're giving it to. If it's too little, we'll insult them.

Jesus didn’t think about the cost. He paid the ultimate price, to give us the ultimate gift. He gave his own life, on the cross, so that we could have eternal life.

You can't love anyone more than dying for them. You can't give yourself more completely to someone than dying for them. So, seeing as Jesus is God, we have, in the cross of Christ, God giving himself - absolutely, completely, without holding anything back - to us.

And it wasn’t just any death. It was death for our sins. Because we rebel against God, reject him, tell him to get out of our lives.

The Apostle John says:

John 1:10-11: He was in the world, and though the world was made
through him, the world did not recognise him. He came to that which was his own,
but his own did not receive him.

Jesus made us. But we don’t receive him. We lock him out of our lives.

Imagine visiting someone for Christmas lunch. And the host goes outside for a moment. While they’re outside, we lock them out. Then we keep partying inside: eating their food, unwrapping their presents, while our host is outside, banging on the door, saying “what do you think you’re doing?”

This is what we do to God. We insult him, lock him out, and cut ourselves off from life with him. That's what the Bible calls 'sin'.

But even in the face of this, God still gives himself to us.

John continues:

John 1:12-13: Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Jesus died so that we could be God’s children; part of God’s family. He died so we could come into God’s presence with that same confidence and acceptance that we have when we visit our parents for Christmas lunch - or that our children have when they come round to us. Jesus made a home on earth, so that we could have a home in heaven.

It’s the last week before Christmas. Time to be thinking about last-minute Christmas gifts.

First, let’s think about the gift God gave us on that first Christmas. God gave us himself, in Jesus. Jesus gave himself to death on the cross. So that we could be at home with God.

Then, having considered that, let’s think – what gift are we going to give – to God?

Jesus told us to ‘love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength’. He said, if we wanted to be his disciple, we must deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow him.

God doesn’t want our time. He doesn’t want our money. He wants us. Our selves. Heart, soul, mind and strength. Because, on Christmas day, that’s what he gave to us.

The famous 17th century composer J. S. Bach got it right:

Beside thy cradle hear I stand,
O thou who ever livest,
And bring thee, with a willing hand,
The very gifts thou givest.
Accept me: 'tis my mind and heart,
My soul, my strength, my every part,
That thou from me requirest.

Free Church of Scotland permits hymns and musical instruments

2010-11-27T23:43:00.002+11:00

News flash: the Free Church of Scotland, one of the most significant Presbyterian denominations which split in the 1800s from the Church of Scotland, has permitted hymns and musical instruments in its churches. To be precise, they have given "liberty to its congregations to sing hymns and use instruments, if individual Kirk Sessions [Church Elder's Committee] so choose".

Yes I know that sounds really lame, but bear with me while I explain why it's important.

The Free Church is theologically conservative, but has also been historically energetic. They set up New College at the University of Edinburgh, which now hosts the School of Divinity - that is, the university's theological faculty. They sent missionaries to Africa, India (Calcutta, Bombay, Poona and Madras), Canada, Australia (!) and the Middle East. Their theology was probably the closest to the Old Princeton Presbyterianism of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield.

A lot (most? all?) of this energy has come from the Free Church's theological strength - their focus on the Bible, allied with a thoroughgoing Westminster Calvinism. An aspect of that theological strength has been a conservative view on the Regulative Principle - the view that Sunday church worship (and all of life) must be regulated by the Bible. If it's not permitted in scripture, it's not permitted in church. That's why this church historically hasn't used musical instruments, or sung anything beyond Psalms - which of course are inscripturated songs therefore permissible.

But now, as noted above, they've permitted musical instruments and songs beyond the Psalms.

I think this is a step forward, in that I don't subscribe to such a biblically prescriptive view of the regulative principle as noted above. I think the Bible gives us principles which regulate our response to God - our "worship" - in any and every situation. But I also think God gives us the responsibility of thinking deeply about how to apply those principles in any particular historical and cultural context.

So, let's speak to and teach and admonish one another through psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). God breathed out the Holy Scriptures for our teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). So if we meditate deeply upon the Bible, and express Biblical teaching in songs that are carefully crafted so that they're easy to sing, memorable, and with tunes which fit the mood of the words, then we'll be achieving what Paul means in these verses. I think this step by the Free Church will lead to more evangelism, and more authentic worship - worship which is simultaneously biblically faithful, culturally engaged, and deeply personally satisfying.

But of course I could be wrong. This could be a step backwards - a compromising with culture, a loss of biblical and theological clarity, the beginning of the end. We'll have to wait another 50 or so years and see.

Tom Schreiner's responses to Thielman and Wright

2010-11-26T17:39:00.005+11:00

Patrick Schreiner, Tom Schreiner's son, has posted his dad's responses to N. T. Wright and Frank Thielman.

Kingdom and Eternal Life in the Gospel of John

2010-11-22T18:22:00.004+11:00

John Dickson, director of the Centre for Public Christianity, is at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. He posted the following summary of an exciting paper by German NT scholar Jorg Frey, in which, John says, "with one simple insight, he resolved a major 'problem' concerning the differences between John and the three other Gospels." He kindly let me re-post it:

* * * * *

Scholars have long pointed out that the central theme of Jesus' preaching, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, was 'the kingdom of God'. It is everywhere in those Gospels. John virtually ignores that theme, preferring to speak of a nebulous 'eternal life' instead. This was seen as one serious against John's reliability. It does look like a serious problem.

Prof Frey, after outlining the problem, pointed out that in John 3 in the Nicodemus story we find the first and only references (two of them) to 'kingdom of God' AND the first references to 'eternal life'. In fact, if you read carefully - especially in Greek - they are parallel expressions. After this point, John drops 'kingdom of God' and has Jesus speaking consistently of 'eternal life' instead.

So, what's going on? Simple, said Frey. John has flagged for readers that 'eternal life' will now be the synonym for 'kingdom of God' in the rest of his Gospel. Frey explained that the sensitive context of John's social situation may have made 'kingdom' language sound subversive against the Roman empire, and so he dropped it, not in a wholesale way, but by giving us a more acceptable equivalent expression.

Moreover, if we ask: But how could John have felt permission to do this? The answer is provided by Daniel 7 and 12, Old Testament texts which were very influential in early Christianity. There we discover a huge reference to 'kingdom of God'. But we also find references to God's people reigning 'forever and ever; yes, forever and ever', expressions very suggestive of 'eternal life'. In fact, in Dan 12 we find the exact expression 'eternal life'.

In other words, John hasn't perverted Jesus' 'kingdom of God' preaching'. He has transposed it into biblically appropriate and sociologically acceptable language.

That's the gist.

Schreiner, Thielman & Wright on Justification

2010-11-20T20:50:00.007+11:00

N. T. (Tom) Wright is famous (or infamous) for his view on justification, which many (myself included) take to be closer to a Catholic, synergistic view than the classic Protestant view - which we insist is the Biblical view.

To simplify the debate (without, hopefully, distorting it too much): Wright says "justification" refers to the church - God accepts those who identify with Christ as the mediator of the covenant. The "Lutheran" or "traditional" response is that such a view makes our act of identification with Christ meritorious - it waters down the idea that justification is an entirely gracious act of God, springing entirely from his willed generosity. The "Lutheran" view of justification is that it is a judicial declaration which sets the sinner in a perfectly right relationship with God. God is therefore the active agent in justification; humans are merely passive recipients. Wright replies that the Holy Spirit is active in empowering the believer to trust and obey. This achieves the same result as the "Lutheran" view - God is still the active agent in justification - but, Wright contends, his view is theologically and anthropologically richer, in engaging the whole Trinity in justification, and seeing faith and obedience as a whole-person response.

Both sides of course claim to be Biblical and publish books and blog posts and beat each other round the head with Bible verses (*sigh*).

Anyway... the Evangelical Theological Society just hosted a debate between Wright and two of his critics: Tom Schreiner, professor of New Testament at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Frank Thielman, Presbyterian professor of divinity at Beeson Divinity School. Unsurprisingly, the blogosphere has promptly gone ballistic. The foll. ppl have posted summaries & comments:

Collin Hansen summarises the whole debate on The Gospel Coalition Blog;
Mike Wittmer comments on the interaction between Wright and Schreiner;
Marc Cortez has a long post summarising Wright on Scientia et Sapientia;
Justin Taylor posts a summary of Schreiner's critique of Wright;
Phillip Long posts summaries of Schriener and Thielman.

Enjoy!

In the future, our sexuality will be fulfilled and transcended

2010-11-19T10:23:00.005+11:00

In our previous post, we saw that Christ restores our sexuality in the present, by reaffirming heterosexual marriage, and modelling contentment and self-control. In the future, our sexuality will be transcended in God’s new creation.

The restoration of our sexuality, while real, will always be incomplete in the present - as will be all aspects of our human restoration. The Bible looks forward to a new creation, a new universe, where everything that is corrupt and painful will pass away, and we will only ever enjoy life and peace and safety. Only in this new creation will the effects of sin – of our willed rejection of God – be finally dealt with, and our human wholeness completely restored.

In this new creation, our sexuality will not just be restored, it will be transcended. The bible talks about God’s relationship with his people as a bride and bridegroom. In one of the final chapters of the bible, the Apostle John sees this vision - Revelation 21:2, 3:

2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.”

The image is of God taking his people home, to live with him, like a husband taking his wife to their love nest. The new creation is like an eternal honeymoon. The joys, pleasures and fulfilments of sexuality will be fulfilled, and transcended, in the eternal joys, pleasures and fulfilment of relationship with God.

This future hope empowers present contentment and self control. People with a regular sexual partner can enjoy sex, without demanding it be ‘perfect’. Single people can affirm their sexuality, without expressing it, because it will be fulfilled and transcended in the new creation. We can control our desires now because the pleasure of seeing God face-to-face will be, literally, better than sex.

Healthy sexuality in the present

2010-11-17T20:18:00.003+11:00

In our last post, we saw that Christ restores our sexuality - but we yet await a final restoration. In the present, sexual restoration involves three things: (1) the normativity of heterosexual marriage; (2) contentment; and (3) self control.

We have already seen Jesus validate marriage in Matt 19. Committed heterosexual marriage remains the context wherein to enjoy sex. If sexual partners are committed to each other for life, then sex is part of that shared life together. It is not just a one-night stand. We can encourage them to conduct their sexuality in such a way as to serve each other, and give each other the best possible sexual experience, over their whole life.

The normativity of sex within marriage calls for sexual contentment, both within and outside marriage.

Life with a regular sexual partner, married or not, still involves unmet sexual desires. Constant sexual satisfaction is a myth – it only happens in the movies. So, within marriage, we are called to contentment – to be grateful for what our partner can give us, not constantly demanding more. If we are content and grateful like this, then sex becomes an act that draws the sexual partners together in genuine mutual joy. Lack of contentment turns sex into a weapon – something to be used to get what you want.

Because sexuality is intrinsic to being human, single people can still view themselves as sexual beings, even if they don’t express their sexuality actively. Singles are to be content – that is, genuinely comfortable with themselves, happy, fulfilled – until they get married, or even with a lifetime of celibacy. Jesus was single and celibate. It is possible to be a fulfilled, happy virgin.

This contentment is allied with self control. Sexual desire is, prima facie, good. But we are called to manage those desires. The bible assumes that we are not merely victims of our passions, but that we can use our minds and will to control those passions, and channel them into useful, healthy, constructive pursuits.

And this contentment and self-control is also fuelled by a future hope of a fulfilled, transcended sexuality - which will be the subject of our final post.

Christ restores us to wholeness - in hope of final restoration

2010-11-16T13:16:00.004+11:00

In our last post, we saw how our rejection of God - sin - affects us all, including our sexuality.

Because we’re all broken people, we need someone to fix us from the outside.

Jesus forgives us for rejecting God. And, he restores us to human wholeness. This is what he achieved in his cross and resurrection. Think of Jesus’ death on the cross as the ultimate sickness – sickness to death. And think of his resurrection as the ultimate healing – so healthy that he can never die again. He takes the consequences we deserve, so we can enjoy the life God always planned for us.

So, Christians are always hopeful. It doesn’t matter how bad a situation is, how much someone’s failed themselves, or failed anyone else – they can be restored by Jesus. We can always say to anyone: hang in there; don’t give up; there is hope.

This restoration is real, but in this life, partial. We'll explore this more over the next few posts.

Our rejection of God damages our sexuality

2010-11-15T08:12:00.007+11:00

In our previous post, we noted God's pattern for healthy sexuality is heterosexual monogamy.

We've already seen that sex is not the original sin. Sexuality is implicated within our sin - but it's a victim of sin, not the perpetrator of it. The Bible presents sin as damaging our sexuality, along with the rest of our humanity. In Genesis 3, sin is presented as a willed rejection of God’s rule over our lives. It’s an attitude: “I don’t want you, God, to be in charge of my life; I want to be in charge of my life.” This active rejection of God affects our whole being – including our sexuality.

In Genesis 3:16, God lays out one of the consequences of rejecting him:

To the woman he [God] said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

This turns the previous blessings of sexuality, in Genesis 1 and 2, upside down. In Genesis 1, man and woman were commanded to have babies – “be fruitful, and increase in number”. Now, childbearing is painful. In Genesis 2, man and woman were madly in love with each other. Now they’re going to fight each other.

So I take it that sexual problems are a normal abnormality. They’re normal in the sense that everyone will have some problems in the area of sexuality – from unrealistic expectations of amazing sex (how come it's always so perfect in the movies…?), to unmatched desire ("not tonight dear, I've got a headache"), to acute gender dysphoria. Everyone is going to have some struggle somewhere, because we all reject God; we’re all broken people.

They’re abnormal in that we know it shouldn’t be like this. We long for that joy, honesty and fulfilment which was there at the beginning. And that longing is true – because that’s how God meant it to be.

How can we escape from this body of death? Next post...

God’s pattern for sexuality: Heterosexual monogamy

2010-11-13T20:53:00.004+11:00

In our previous post, we saw how sexuality is a good gift, from God, for our pleasure and for procreation of life.

Sex is so good, that God gives us a pattern within which to enjoy it. It’s like driving a car. A car is a good machine, useful for getting from place to place. But if we don’t control the car – if we deliberately break the rules, or if we just let it go wild – it’s dangerous. It can kill people.

Similarly, sex is good. But it needs to be managed and controlled, or else it can be dangerous.

Both Gen 1 & 2 present sexuality between a man and a woman, in the context of a committed relationship.

It's heterosexual. Genesis 1:27 says “male and female he created them”. In Genesis 1:28, the command to “be fruitful and increase in number” presupposes child-bearing sexual activity, which, until very recently, was heterosexual. In Genesis 2, God creates a woman, Eve, as a companion – to stand beside the man.

And it's a committed, lifelong relationship, ie: marriage. Genesis 2:24 says “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” That one-flesh union indicates a lifelong, intimate sharing. Jesus himself confirms this in the New Testament. Matthew 19:4-6 records Jesus as saying:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

But we mustn’t just assert this pattern, as if everyone who conforms to it is a good, clean-living Christian. When we contemplate God’s pattern for our lives, it becomes clear how we all fall short of it. More on this in our next post.

Sex as a good gift from God

2010-11-12T08:48:00.004+11:00

In our previous post, we thought about the implications if sex were intrisically sinful.

In contrast, the Bible tells us sex existed before sin. The first two chapters of Genesis have the stories of how God made the world. Sin only comes in chapter 3. So chapters 1 & 2 are about pure humanity – humanity before sin.

Genesis 1:27-28a:

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth…”

To be in God’s image is to be like God, while not being God. One of the first aspects of being like God is having babies - which would, for us humans, involve sex.

Having children images God because God gives life, and loves life. God is Father - and fathers have children. God is not sexual in himself; but our sexuality is an irreducible element in our imaging of God's life-giving nature.

So, our sexual nature is tied to being in God’s image – which means it’s tied to our basic humanity.

Then in Genesis chapter 2 we have the story of Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:23-25 records Adam's response when he first met Eve:

23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Notice how physical and visual this is. The man and woman are ‘bone of bone’ and ‘flesh of flesh’ – it’s very carnal, very physical. And they were naked before each other – it’s very visual. So, the physical pleasure of sexuality is good. And the visual stimulation of sexuality is good. God made it that way.

In fact, it's so good that God gave us instructions on how to best enjoy it. We'll explore God's good pattern for sexuality in our next post.

God, self and - er - sex...

2010-11-10T18:37:00.007+11:00

Back to everyone's favourite topic: sex!

These posts are adapted from my presentation a couple of weeks ago at the 'sexuality and religion' panel at the annual conference of the Australian Soceity of Sex Educators, Researchers and Therpists (ASSERT). It represents my continuing efforts to arrive at a comprehensive, Biblical view of sexuality, with a view to helping all people - Christian or not - to live healthily with this very important aspect of human life.

*****

Some people think Christians believe that sex is the original sin. That is, God considers all sexual activity to be intrinsically and irredeemably wicked and offensive. To have sex is to offend God.

If this were true, it would have two effects.

First, it would give us a warped view of God. God becomes the cosmic killjoy. Because the one activity that gives us greatest human pleasure is deemed to be the one activity that most offends God.

Secondly, it gives us a warped view of ourselves. If we believe in God, we don’t want to sin; we want to please God instead. So sex becomes an activity full of guilt and shame, instead of joy and happiness. And to be saved – to have a full relationship with God, to “go to heaven” – means to become asexual. The more holy you are, the less sexual you can be.

In contrast, the Biblical view is that sex is immensely good, because God created sex, and created us as sexual beings. More in the next post.

Shout outs: kids staying Christian; Stuart Townend on Corporate Worship

2010-11-09T12:25:00.000+11:00

Couple of excellent posts out in the blogosphere:

Eternity news says the best way to keep kids Christian is not to preach at them in specific religious classes or chapel, but to give them an all-encompassing world-view.
Mike Gilbart-Smith has posted some notes from Stuart Townend's seminar on Corporate Worship, delivered at Oak Hill College. The "A.R.T. of Corporate worship"

What is it about late winter - early spring?

2010-11-08T14:10:00.004+11:00

September is a flat month for me. And has been for the last coupla years. As in I find myself running on empty, not really motivated to do anything. The results are lagged - witness my lack of blog posts in October.

I suspect it's just mid-year exhaustion. Especially with a hectic winter - MYC, SweatCon and Religion in the Public Square conferences.

I'm not too worried coz I'm not alone. When commented on this to an older minister, he nodded and said "[school] term three is death term." Even Erik Raymond of Irish Calvinist says he's been suffering from blog coma... although when I scroll down his blog he's been posting every day for the last coupla weeks... oh dear... (*intimidated*).

Anyway... I'm back in the blogosphere now. More posts on the way.

2010-09-26T16:45:00.002+10:00

Over at Irish Calvinist, Erik Raymond has an excellent post on pastors dealing with the resistance - "pushback" - that sin creates in congregations. Pastors need to take and land punches.

Newbigin on Government, the Cross, and the Kingdom of God

2010-09-19T23:05:00.002+10:00

Lesslie Newbigin on government. Shades of Oliver O'Donovan. This'll be my last Newbigin post for now.

Kingship in the human sense - the authority to rule over a people - is, according to Scripture, something authorized by God and also something constantly corrupted by human sin... Jesus did not set out to destroy the rule exercised by the Roman and Jewish establishment. By manifesting and exercising the true kingship of God, he exposed their corruption and thereby... disarmed them, robbed them of their pretensions to absolute authority. He exercised his kingship by bearing witness to the truth - to the one great reality against which all claims to reality have to be tested (John 18:37). All kingship from Calvary onward is tested and judged by the standard of the true kingship established there...

[The church] has the duty to address the governing authority of the civil community with the word of God... the church reminds them of the fact that - whether they know him or not - Christ is the judge before whom they must stand in the end to give account of their stewardship of the power he gave them. With that responsibility comes, necessarily, the duty of regular and public prayer for the governing authorities.

Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Eerdmans, 1986): 126, 129.

Newbigin on Justice, Freedom & Equality

2010-09-17T14:38:00.002+10:00

Lesslie Newbigin has a fascinating take on freedom & justice as mutual relatedness based on inner-Trinitarian relatedness. Is this from Barth?

... the Bible is informed by a vision of human nature for which neither freedom nor equality is fundamental; what is fundamental is relatedness. Man - male and female - is made for God in such a way that being in the image of God involves being bound together in this most profound of mutual relations. God binds himself in a covenant relationship with men and women to which he remains faithful at whatever cost and however unfaithful his covenant partner is. And people and nations are called to live in binding covenant relations of brotherhood. Human beings reach their true end in such relatedness, in bonds of mutual love and obedience that reflect the mutual relatedness in love that is the being of the Triune God himself...

True freedom is not found by seeking to develop the powers of the self without limit, for the human person is not made for autonomy but for true relatedness in love and obedience... Nor will the quest for equality create real justice, for justice - the giving to each of what is proper - can only be realized in a mutual relatedness in which each gives to the other the love and obedience that enable all to be truly human. Apart from this, the quest for justice become self-destructive, since it is of the very essence of fallen human nature that each of us overestimates what is due to the self and underestimates what is due to the other.

Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Eerdmans, 1986): 118-9.

Newbigin on Capitalism

2010-09-15T22:12:00.003+10:00

Some of Lesslie Newbigin's most caustic insights relate to Capitalist economics.

Traditional Christian ethics had attacked covetousness as a deadly sin... [but] the eighteenth century, by a remarkable inversion, found in covetousness not only a law of nature but the engine of progress by which the purpose of nature and nature's God was to be carried out... In the economic realm the basic law is that the free operation of rational self-interest will alone secure general well-being... Each person must be free to better his condition as far as he can, and he alone is the judge of what is better. There can be no imposed or even generally accepted norm of what is good...

The driving power of capitalism... is the desire of the individual to better his material condition... The name the New Testament gives to [this] force is covetousness. The capitalist system is powered by the unremitting stimulation of covetousness...

The result is that increased production has become an end in itself... Growth is for the sake of growth and is not determined by any overarching social purpose [beyond the temporary satisfaction of unlimited desires to consume - which Newbigin takes as internal to the model]. And that, of course, is an exact account of the phenomenon which, when it occurs in the human body, is called cancer.

Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Eerdmans, 1986): 109, 111, 113-4.

Newbigin on Augustine on Government

2010-09-14T09:59:00.005+10:00

The church father Augustine famously argued that love is [should be...?] the foundation of all human government - not just Christian. Here's Lesslie Newbigin's summary of Augustine's argument:

[Augustine] insists that love is the basis of [all human] society; even in their wars men are in fact seeking peace. But peace is only possible where there is order, and order depends on proper government; but government in which one is subordinated to another is only right is the one who is called to govern does so for the sake of those he governs - as their servant. The motive power of order is therefore love... Love, not natural justice, is what holds even the earthly commonwealth together... love creates order first in the family and among neighbours and then, by extension, in the city and the nation... Faith working through love is the foundation of justice, and without justice there is no commonwealth.

Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Eerdmans, 1986): 103-4.

Lesslie Newbigin

2010-09-12T21:39:00.004+10:00

Lesslie Newbigin (1909-1998) is my nemesis. Okay, maybe not exactly that - but he is my opposite. I'm a Subcontinental who moved to a Western nation and moved from Anglicanism to Presbyterianism; he was an English Presbyterian who went to South India as a missionary and eventually became an Anglican Bishop.

Newbigin was heavily involved in ecumenical movements. He was instrumental in creating the Church of South India - the Indian equivalent of Australia's Uniting Church. He was also significant in the World Council of Churches. His work on a missionary encounter between the Gospel and Western culture helped spawn the missional church movement.

From my perspective, Newbigin isn't strong enough of the Bible itself as revelation, and (consequently...?) too optimistic of the Church as bearing God's revelation. But, his analysis of Western culture is, I think, spot on. I'm gonna post some quotes over the next few days.

Where morality comes from...?

2010-09-05T18:09:00.000+10:00

Totally random - I came across this when searching for visual aids for a Bible talk & promptly fell off my chair laughing.

From Discover Fun - http://discoverfun.com/

Self-centered so-called Christianity

2010-09-03T22:27:00.000+10:00

Interesting article from CNN on how some teenagers see Christianity as nothing more than therapeutic self-esteem-building. More teens becoming 'fake' Christians. It's based on research by Kenda Creasy Dean, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. See also Ms. Dean's book, Almost Christian.

I came across this with Tom Harrick's challenge about the danger of false gospels still ringing in my ears. This is the result of theological syncretism: it's what happens when we accommodate the gospel to the post-modern desire for self improvement. It's another gospel - which is really no gospel at all. David F. Wells of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary has been warning of this for years. See especially his No Place for Truth (1993), God in the Wasteland (1995) and Above All Earthly Pow’rs (2004) (all Eerdmans).

An ordination song

2010-09-02T08:50:00.001+10:00

I didn't have this song this at my ordination - but I should have.

Lord of creation, to you be all praise!
Most mighty your working, most wondrous your ways!
You reign in a glory beyond us to tell;
And yet in the heart of the humble you dwell.

Lord of all power, I give you my will,
in joyful obedience your tasks to fulfill.
Your bondage is freedom, your service is song;
and, held in your keeping, my weakness is strong.

Lord of all wisdom, I give you my mind,
rich truth that surpasses our knowledge to find.
What eye has not seen, and what ear never heard,
is taught by your Spirit, and shines from your Word.

Lord of all bounty, I give you my heart;
I praise and adore you for all you impart;
your love to inflame me, your counsel to guide,
Your presence to shield me whate'er may betide.

Lord of all being, I give you my all;
if ever I disown you, I stumble and fall;
but sworn in glad service your word to obey,
I walk in your freedom the rest of the way.

Jack C. Winslow (1964)

Tom Harrick's sermon at my ordination

2010-08-30T22:12:00.002+10:00

At my ordination last Friday, Tom Harricks, one of my colleagues from Moore College, preached the sermon. He's on the pastoral team of St John's Anglican Church in Parramatta - which happens to be the church my parents attend.

Tom spoke on Galatians 1:1-5 & ch 6. His main point was: all that's necessary for false gospels to triumph is for servants of the true gospel (ministers and others) to do nothing. His sub-points were:

The true gospel is the Apostolic one, given by God through the Apostles, including Paul;
We need wisdom to recognise and resist false gospels;
Ministers of the true gospel have the kind of character Paul describes in Gal 6: caring for others; being wary of temptation; walking by the Spirit, not the flesh; etc.

A very encouraging word, not only to me, but to the church congregation, and the dozen ministers & elders from Hawkesbury Presbytery who were there for the ordination.

Ordination Charge

2010-08-29T22:03:00.001+10:00

At the end of my ordination last Friday, Keith Walker, the Moderator of Hawkesbury Presbytery, read me this charge:

You, Kamal, have been called by Almighty God in his fatherly love to the ministry of the Word and Sacraments and ordained by the Church and have now been appointed to the Pastoral Charge of St Mary's, I charge you anew in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to walk worthy of the vocation to which you are called, with all humility, with long suffering, forbearance and peaceful behaviour, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the upbuilding of the body of Christ.

Take heed to yourself and to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseer. Love Christ and feed his flock, taking the oversight of it, not as one who lords it over the people committed to you but being an example to all in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, and in purity.

Give attention to reading, to exhortation and to teaching. Do the work of an evangelist. Do not neglect the gift which is in you. Endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. Pray always, watching with all perseverance. Thus shall you save both yourself and those who hear you; and in that day when the Chief Shepherd shall appear you shall receive a crown of glory which will never fade away.

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that Good Shepherd of the sheep, make you perfect in every good work to do his will working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

You can find the Presbyterian ministerial ordination service, including vows, at the Public Worship & Aids to Devotion website.

Ordination

2010-08-28T09:51:00.004+10:00

Yesterday, Fri 27 August, I was ordained a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. This was the culmination of eight years formal preparation:

2002-03: ministry training at Multicultural Bible Ministry, Rooty Hill;
2004-07: full time study at Moore Theological College;
2008-09: part-time study at the Presbyterian Theological Centre, while also being interim minister at Strathfield Presbyterian (2008), then part-time assistant minister at Merrylands East Presbyterian (2009).

So I've finally arrived. I've worked hard for that "Rev" title. Now I can get the position & recognition I deserve.

Right?

Ummm... except...

John 13:13-14: Jesus said:

13 You call me'Teacher' and'Lord', and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.

1 Peter 5:2-3

2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Ajith Fernando on service & suffering

2010-08-20T22:05:00.002+10:00

Ajith Fernando is the national director of Youth for Christ in Sri Lanka. He's written a challenging article in the Lausanne Global Conversations about lifestyle expectations in ministry. To Serve Is to Suffer.

The Global Conversations are 12 key issues that will be discussed at the Cape Town conference on world evangelisation in October this year.

Religion in the Public Square CD & downloads

2010-08-18T20:57:00.006+10:00

Reformers Books has put together a CD of the presentations from the Religion In the Public Square conference. Includes papers on Reformed public theology, religious freedom, euthanasia, abortion, commerce, economics, business ethics, and sexuality. Includes my paper on The Best Sex For Life - the one that got reported in the Melbourne Age, and led to my follow-up article in the National Times.

Also, you can download the conference papers for free. 25 presentations, 12.8 MB, nearly 300 pages. Enjoy!

More Bryan Chapell on ministry founded & fashioned on grace

2010-08-14T09:10:00.004+10:00

As I mentioned in my previous post, Bryan Chapell's approach to ministry is going to have a major multiplier effect. Here's more:

God's provision of saving, sustaining, and glorifying grace is the golden thread uniting all Christian Scripture and enabling all Christian faithfulness [...] all world honoring God [...] find proper motivation and enablement in love for Christ. The wonder and joy of these truths for those preparing for church leadership comes with the understanding that God is not calling them to ministries of guilt-manipulation, arm twisting and doctrinal haranguing.

As Christ's ministers emphasize grace, they are not compromising holiness but rather are promoting the power of the gospel for all endeavour that is truly Christian. [...] We learn to see ourselves as he [God] sees us in Christ. We learn to treat others as he [God] has treated us through Christ. As a consequence, the joy that is our strength floods into our lives to drive us to greater levels of Christian humility, love, and commitment. Thus, presenting the doctrines of grace in a warm and winsome way is not the converse of holy boldness; rather, courageous compassion is the compulsion of humbled and grateful hearts that have bowed before the wonders of God's sovereign mercy and now yearn to extend the blessings of his everlasting covenant to all he loves from every tribe, language, people, and nation.

Bryan Chapell, ‘Here We Stand: Rooted in Grace for Reformation and Transformation’, in All For Jesus: A Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Covenant Theological Seminary, Ed. Robert A. Peterson & Sean Michael Lucas, Mentor, 2006. Pages 16-17.

Bryan Chapell on ministry founded & fashioned on grace

2010-08-12T21:10:00.006+10:00

Bryan Chapell is president ("principal") of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Covenant is the official national training training college of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which is one of the major Evangelical Reformed denominations in the USA. Best-selling author Tim Keller, of Redeemer Presbyterian Church New York, is probably the PCA's best-known minister.

So, Bryan Chapell's the guy in charge of the training college of one of the major Evangelical Reformed denominations of the largest Christian nation in the world. That means his personal impact will be multiplied all over the world, for a significant period of time - just because of who he is & where he happens to be.

Well, here's a sample of what he says about ministry.

Alarm over the encroachments of secularism, while understandable, has led some too quickly to equate biblical spirituality with legalistic observance of Christian disciplines, cultural conservatism, or creedal compulsion. At the same time, concerns to boost the gospel’s impact have too often led to an unreflective promotion of worldly satisfaction or success as evidence of God’s blessing (demonstrated in churches promoting themselves through consumer strategies indistinguishable from secular appeals).

As contrary as these legalistic and consumer approaches to faith may seem, they actually spring from the same source – the error of attempting to establish one’s standing before God on the basis of human achievement or acceptance. […] [T]he corrective for such deviations […] [is] a return to the heart centre of our historic faith – the message of sola gratia [grace alone]. By reminding ourselves and others that grace alone is the source and sustenance of our salvation, we turn the heart to Christ for initial justification, continued sanctification, and ultimate glorification. Self-serving and performance-driven spiritualities die when we preach the gospel to ourselves each day.

Bryan Chapell, ‘Here We Stand: Rooted in Grace for Reformation and Transformation’, in All For Jesus: A Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Covenant Theological Seminary, Ed. Robert A. Peterson & Sean Michael Lucas, Mentor, 2006. Pages 14-15

Thiselton on hermeneutics

2010-08-10T19:33:00.005+10:00

Christian theists seek transforming engagement with the active word of God. To this end we not only seek to listen to the biblical text with openness and expectancy, but we also seek to understand at ever deeper levels what it is to interpret Scripture, to reflect both upon Scripture and on our own processes of engaging with it, and to be transformed by the formative impact of Scripture in thought, life and identity.

Anthony Thiselton, in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation, Ed. Craig Bartholomew, Joel B. Green and Anthony C. Thiselton, Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, Volume 6, Zondervan 2007. Italics in original.

Oliver O'Donovan on the book of Job

2010-08-07T16:01:00.004+10:00

Prof. Oliver O'Donovan's book The Desire Of the Nations is a masterpiece of political exegesis. He goes through nearly the whole Bible, examining the implications of the various parts of the Bible for our understanding of society, community, and political authority. Alex Abecina summarises the book here.

O'Donovan takes the time to explain his understanding of the Bible. I was particularly impacted by his understanding of the book of Job. Here's a summary.

Job is the archetypal unjustly-suffering individual. The purpose of the book of Job is to probe the question: why does unjust suffering make the sufferer so angry? And how can someone who suffers unjustly be reconciled to the goodness of God, the world, society, and himself?

Job's comforters don't accuse Job; Job accuses them of taunting him and bringing out the hostility he feels. Elihu shows that the three friends have failed to overcome Job's self-righteous pathos because they share his anthropocentric perspective - it's all about Job, what he's done or failed to do.

The solution is in Job's encounter with God. God's accusation humbles Job. But this humbling does not destroy Job, but restores him to a right relationship with God, society (the three friends), the world, and himself. Job sees that the world is full of divine purposes which he cannot see or explain, and therefore cannot judge.

Protest and complaint, therefore, are real - but cannot be an end in themselves, but must be a moment in a "dynamic spiritual process. The grievance the express is taken seriously, but not as an end in itself; the aim in expressing it is to bring the complainant and his adversary together before the throne of God." (Desire Of the Nations, page 75)

Thoughts, anyone...?

Love your neighbour as yourself

2010-08-04T21:31:00.003+10:00

Jesus summarised the human aspect of the law as “love your neighbour as yourself” (Matt 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). Paul (Rom 13:9-10; Gal 5:14) and James (James 2:8) use it similarly – as a summary of the law. Its widespread use (Gospels, Paul, James) indicates it must have been broadly accepted in the early church as a summary of what it meant to act in a godly manner to all people.

The question, of course, is: what does it mean?

I’ve heard it said “well I don’t have to love people more than I love myself – only as myself”. So it becomes a statement of neat reciprocal justice.

But that doesn’t fit with the cross. In the cross, Christ gave himself totally, for undeserving people. You can’t give yourself more completely for someone than dying for them. You can’t get less deserving than sinners who spurn the holy and loving God. The cross has nothing to do with reciprocal justice; it’s complete self-giving love.

Perhaps we’re thinking too individualistically about it. Perhaps it doesn’t mean “treat your neighbour the same as you want to be treated”, but it means “care for others with the same instinctive protection as you would care for yourself.”

When our bodies hurt, we instinctively protect ourselves. When our bodies are in need (hungry, thirsty, hot, cold…) we instinctively nurture ourselves. That’s normal and healthy. If people don’t look after themselves, they have some mental or physical problem, and need external help.

Perhaps Jesus meant we should care for, protect, and nurture the others around us in that same instinctive protection as we normally accord ourselves. So when someone around us is hurt, we automatically protect them. If they’re in need, we give what we have to fill that need.

This interpretation fits with the OT origin of the phrase. It comes from Leviticus 19:18, where it closes off a list of commands about caring for weak people (Lev 19:9-18). It fits with the story of the good Samaritan (Luke 10), who used his own oil and wine, donkey and money to care for someone who should be his enemy. It fits with the context of Rom 13, Gal 5, and the numerous injunctions to practical good in James and 1 John. It's also consistent with what Paul says about the members of the body caring for each other: "If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honoured, every part rejoices with it" (1 Cor 12:26).

The only thing with this interpretation is – it’s really inconvenient. Because it means I can’t think of anything that’s ‘mine’ as being purely ‘mine’ for my own benefit without considering ‘you’. And if you are in need, then what’s mine is yours. I'm not renouncing private property - this isn't some sort of communism - it's just that Godliness demands that I dispose of my resources not for myself, but for others. Just like Jesus did. But that can be really inconvenient for someone as greedy & selfish as I am.

Thoughts, anyone...?

Jesus' cross makes us radically equal

2010-08-02T08:53:00.006+10:00

Romans 5:6:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.

Jesus died for sinners. That is a deeply egalitarian statement. Because it makes all humanity equal before God: equally condemned by our rejection of him; equally loved in him offering Jesus to us all; equally able to be saved if we accept him.

Jesus died for powerless people. Romans 1:18 – 3:20 show how we are all helplessly under the power of sin, and helplessly under God’s rightful judgment. We’re like prisoners in a police van, being taken to sentencing. The prisoner is helpless & trapped – but it’s just & rightful to be trapped like that, because they’ve done something to break the law. That’s why they’re a prisoner, not a hostage. But Jesus, as it were, swings open the door of the police van, and says “don’t worry. I’ve taken the penalty for what you’ve done against God. You’re free to go.”

And Jesus died for ungodly people. This is even more amazing, because Romans 1:18 says:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness [= “ungodliness”] and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…

Romans 1 is about the ‘bad’ people in the world. The word translated "godless" in Rom 1:18 is the same word as translated "ungodly" in Rom 5:6 - the Greek word asebia. Romans 1 goes on to talk about how the world gets messed up because we kick God out of our lives. Chapter 2 shows how it’s a universal problem – everyone does it.

This means Jesus died for wicked, godless people. For thieves and murderers and rapists, who deserve to rot in jail because they’ve destroyed people’s lives for ever. For militant atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who spend so much time and money desperately trying to prove God doesn’t exist. No-one is too wicked to be forgiven.

It also means Jesus died for nice, godless people. For people who politely acknowledge his existence by being ‘religious’ – like going to church. And who are very upright and moral and nice to their neighbours. But who equally politely reject God’s right to rule their lives, and live their own way. No-one is too nice to need forgiveness.

Jesus died for sinners – which is a very good thing, ‘coz we’re all sinners, in need of Christ’s forgiveness. All humanity stands radically equal before the cross of Christ.

iGod

2010-07-31T11:11:00.001+10:00

Okay, time for a break from heaps intense, serious, scholarly discussions of... er... sex...

David Burke, currently minister at Orchard Road Presbyterian Church, Singapore, and soon to be on the faculty of the Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney, reviews a heaps cool new app: iGod!

And now in the National Times

2010-07-28T09:06:00.003+10:00

The National Times asked me to write a follow-up article on Barney Zwartz's report on our conference presentation. The good book's guide to great sex. It's a deliberately feisty article, to provoke comment. So please add your comments.

Front Page Article in Melbourne's "The Age" newspaper!

2010-07-26T08:25:00.007+10:00

I'm back in Sydney after the Religion in the Public Square Colloquium - but looks like I'm still making waves in Melbourne.

Barney Zwartz is the religion editor for Melbourne's newspaper The Age. He was at the conference. He liked our paper so much he's written it up in today's news. Sex: the Bible says go for it.

Apparently it's on the front page (I'm reading it online). As I write this post, the Age website tells me 116 people are reading it, and it's the second most popular article of today's newspaper.

Is virtuous self-interest possible?

2010-07-22T17:48:00.005+10:00

I'm in Melbourne, at the Religion in the Public Square colloquium. Just finished our first day. Dr. Scott Rae from Biola University is the keynote speaker. He's speaking on business ethics.

One thing that provoked my interest today is: is virtuous self-interest possible?

Virtuous self-interest permits Christian business ethics. The purpose of business is profit - that is, self-interest. The point of going into business is to make more return (money!) than expenses. If you don't have a profit motive, you're not in business; you're a charity.

The justification for virtuous self-interest goes like this: Self-interest is not the same as greed. Greed is the insatiable desire for more. Self-interest is the desire to improve yourself.

You can be greedily self-interested - you can want to improve yourself, in an uncontrolled, unlimited way. If you are greedily self-interested, you will use and abuse people to get what you want, with no care for them.

Or, you can be virtuously self-interested: your desire to improve yourself is controlled, guided and limited by principles like honesty, truthfulness, fairness, respect, and so on. If you care virtuously self-interested, you won't use and abuse people to get what you want. On the contrary, you'll look after them. You'll make sure you give them a fair return (a "fair price") for whatever they've given you; you'll keep your promises to them, even if you don't have to; and so on.

You can see how virtuous self-interest permits Christian business ethics. If virtuous self-interest exists, then a Christian should demonstrate Christian character in their business, while also making profit.

My question is: is this possible? Does it make sense? Or is it just playing with words, so as to baptise greed under the phrase "virtuous self-interest"?

Thoughts, please.

A prayer based on Ephesians 3:14-21

2010-07-16T23:29:00.000+10:00

In our prayer workshop at Mid Year Conference, workshop participants wrote some prayers based on significant Biblical prayers. Here’s a prayer based on Ephesians 3:14-21. This is my final post in this prayer series.

Our father in heaven, thank you for gathering us here at MYC to lean about the cross of Christ. Thank you for your sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for us, so that we could draw near to you and call you Father. Thank you that we have been saved by your abundant love and mercy. We ask that your Holy Spirit will continue to strengthen our relationship with you, so that we can understand more of your world. And we pray that we would be united in your love for the glory of Christ for ever. Amen.

A prayer based on Philippians 1:3-11

2010-07-15T22:23:00.000+10:00

In our prayer workshop at Mid Year Conference, workshop participants wrote some prayers based on significant Biblical prayers. Here’s a prayer based on Philippians 1:3-11.

Dear God, thank you for the partnership we have between Evangelical Christian Union at Wollongong, Evangelical Christian Union Cumberland, Campus Bible Ministries at UWS, UTS Kuring-Gai Christian Students, and Christians in the Media, in and by the cross of Jesus Christ, our saviour and Lord. We ask that we may abound with the grace of God this week, and as we return to our places of witness in the world. Help us, Lord, to bear each other up in prayer as a sign of our partnership in the cross. Amen.

A prayer based on Matthew 6:5-15, the Lord’s Prayer

2010-07-14T21:23:00.003+10:00

In our prayer workshop at Mid Year Conference, the workshop participants wrote some prayers based on significant Biblical prayers. Here’s a prayer based on Matthew 6:5-15, the Lord’s Prayer.

* * * * * *

Our father in heaven, we praise your awesome name. we pray that we would honour you at MYC. We thank you that we can come together and encourage one another. We long for your kingdom to come, and pray that we will cling less to the things of this world. You know what is best for us, and we pray that what you want will happen, both in our lives and in the world.

We thank you for the gifts you give us, and pray that you will continue to provide for us.

We know we are sinful and deserve your wrath. Thank you for our mercy, and we pray that we will show this mercy to others. help us when we are tempted, and protect us from evil.

Amen.

* * * * *

Random shout-out: Jenny Dao sez hi.

Crucifying our prayers: being thankful, not whinging & demanding

2010-07-13T20:19:00.003+10:00

This continues my series on the cross of Christ and prayer. The cross of Christ gives us access to God in prayer. Praying cross-shaped prayers means we will pray for others over ourselves, and for the glory of God over our our own comfort.

Finally, the cross shows us that in our prayers we need to be thankful, not whinge or demand. Three things will help us do that.

First, remember Christ crucified and risen. God’s love for us does not depend on our visible, palpable human circumstances. “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). The empty cross motivates us to always thank God, despite our circumstances.

Second, we must expect hardship and suffering. If we’re ready for it, we won’t be surprised when it happens, and we’ll be less likely to become bitter and resentful.

Suffering comes to us two ways. In a sin-stained world, life is going to be difficult (Gen 3:14-19; Rom 8:19-22). We’re going to get sick; people will let us down; unfair things will happen. As Christians, we’re not exempt from this ordinary suffering of life.

What’s more, as Christians, we should expect persecution. People will mock us & gossip about us; we won’t get the recognition we deserve; it’ll all be totally unfair & irrational. That’s just part of ordinary Christian discipleship – which is to take up our cross & follow Jesus (Matt 16:24-28 & parallels). “Everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:12). See also Luke 6:22-23; John 15:18-25; Rom 12:14, 17, 19-21; 1 Pet 2:12, 15, 19-25; 3:9-, 14-17, and numerous other passages.

Thirdly, we must remember that God uses these hardships for our good. God does not pamper and indulge us. He disciplines us, to grow Christ-like character within us (Rom 8:28-30; Heb 12:3-11). Non-Christians demand the good life now. They run around stuffing their faces with as much of the good things of this world that they can (Matt 6:31-32), and ignoring the God who gave it to them. If they do believe in a god, they want a god who will pamper and indulge them – who will serve their needs and give them everything they want – which isn’t really a god, it’s just a genie from a magic lamp. That is not the God of the cross.

If we keep these in mind, our prayers will not be self-pitying and resentful. Rather, we will thank God for all our circumstances – pleasing and painful – and ask him to use these circumstances to grow Christ-like character in us. And we will ask the same for others.

*****

That's the end of my notes on prayer and the cross of Christ. In our prayer workshop at Mid Year Conference, the workshop participants wrote some prayers based on significant Biblical prayers. I'll post some of them in the days to come.

2010-07-13T12:57:00.005+10:00

A quick shout-out: over at Theological Theology, Mark Thompson has some reflections on what Peter Hitchens, brother of celebrated 'new atheist' Christopher Hitchens, has to say about God and power. Basically, Peter Hitchens argues that the concept of God is necessary to ground truth and limit power in such a way as to protect the weak. Very interesting.

Back to prayer tomorrow.

PS: Dewey Griffin sez hi.

Crucifying our prayers: praying for God’s will and glory over our own comfort

2010-07-12T19:18:00.002+10:00

This continues my series on the cross of Christ and prayer. I previously posted on how the cross of Christ gives us access to God in prayer, and how the cross shapes our prayers in praying for other over ourselves.

It’s not necessarily wrong to pray about worldly concerns. Paul says not to be anxious about anything, but to pray about everything (Php 4:6) – including “ordinary” things like illness, exams, and work hassles. We pray to the sovereign Lord of the universe (Is 40:12-31), who feeds the birds and clothes the grass, who knows what we need (Matt 6:25-34); who created, owns and controls all the resources of the world (Ps 50:10-12; Haggai 2:8); and who governs everything for the good of those who love him (Rom 8:28-30).

But, we must be careful not to be self-obsessed and self-pitying in these prayers. Jesus went to the cross in obedience to the Father, at great personal cost (Is 52:13-53:12; Matt 26:36-46 & parallels [Gethsemane]; Php 2:5-11). He didn’t receive his reward in this world; he only received it in his glorious resurrection, which prefigures the new creation (Php 2:5-11).

Similarly, we must be focused first on God, not ourselves. The first three declarations in the Lord’s Prayer are directed towards God (Matt 6:9-10). Only after that do we turn to our own needs (Matt 6:11-13).

Crucifying our prayers: praying for others over ourselves

2010-07-11T18:30:00.004+10:00

This continues my series on the cross of Christ and prayer. I previously posted on how the cross of Christ gives us access to God in prayer. Now I’ll post some reflections on what it means for the cross of Christ to shape our prayers.

There’s nothing wrong in praying for ourselves. Jesus did, in Gethsemane. The believers prayed together for boldness to resist persecution (Acts 4:24-30). Paul commands us not to be anxious about anything, but to pray about everything (Php 4:6).

However, we mustn’t only pray for ourselves. Jesus prayed for others (Luke 22:31-32). In fact, his whole incarnate life in this world was for others. He was a living sacrifice (Mark 10:45; Php 2:5-11). And now, as our risen high priest, he still prays for us (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:24-25). The NT is full of examples of people praying for others (Acts 12:5; Php 1:3-5; etc), and requests for mutual prayer (Col 4:2-4; Heb 13:18-19; etc).

So, one aspect of letting the cross shape our prayers is simply praying for others. It shows we aren't just obsessed with ourselves, but are concerned for others – which is exactly the attitude that sent Jesus to the cross.

Jesus’ cross gives us access to God in prayer

2010-07-10T18:14:00.001+10:00

This begins my series on the cross of Christ and prayer.

Prayer is more than asking God for things; it’s praising God, for who he is and what he’s done for us. God, the universal creator & ruler of the universe, deserves to be thanked and praised (Ps 24:1-6; Ps 100; 148; 149; 150; Rev 4:8-11).

Sin is, in part, refusing to honour and praise God in this way. This shows itself in two ways. Self-reliance makes us prayer-less; we depend on ourselves and praise ourselves for our achievements, instead of God (Gen 11:4; Dan 4:30; Rev 18). Or, in our desire for a safe, tameable, controllable god, we create idols, and pray to them instead of the one, true, powerful, creator God (Rom 1:18-23).

Rejecting God means he rejects us. If we ignore God, he will ignore us. Most people assume God will look after them because he’s a ‘loving’ God – by which they mean he’s an amoral source of goodies, who’ll give them whatever they want, whenever they want it. That’s not God – that’s Santa Claus. If we live our lives merrily ignoring God and relying on our own resources, then, when our resources fail us, we run to God as a last resort, crying out “oh God, help me!” – why should he? Is 1:11-15a; Jer 7:9-11, 16; 11:9-11, 13-14; 14:10-12.

Yes, God is a loving God, and he doesn’t hold our sin against us. But we must let him demonstrate his love his own way – not in a way we find comfortable. The cross of Christ is God’s love dealing with his own holiness and wrath against our rejection of him.

Because of the cross, we can be confident God is not angry with us, but is pleased with us. If we trust Jesus, we can talk to God, any time, any place, and know that he is glad to hear us. The cross of Christ gives us confidence to pray to God (Heb 4:15-16; 10:19-22; 1 John 3:19-24).

Prayer is a deeply Triune event. The Holy Spirit draws us to trust Jesus (Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Pet 1:2). Jesus makes us right with the Father and gives us access to him (Matt 11:27; John 14:6). When we trust Jesus through the Spirit, God adopts us as his sons – we have the status of Sons of God and the right to address God as Father (Matt 6:9; 7:9-11; Rom 8:14-15; Gal 3:26-27; 4:6). Prayer is a normal and natural outworking of our new relationship with God – as normal and natural as having a chat with our folks.

Prayer and the Cross of Christ

2010-07-09T23:51:00.000+10:00

I’m just back from the Mid Year Conference (MYC) of University of Western Sydney (UWS) Campus Bible Ministries (CBM) (acronym city…). As part of the conference, I led a workshop on the cross of Christ and prayer.

I underestimated how popular the workshop would be so I ran out of handouts with prayer resources (*embarrassed*). I promised people I would post it – so here it is, below.

I’ll post my notes over the next few days. Feedback is welcome. As part of the workshop, participants wrote prayers based on significant Biblical prayers. Some of them were really good – they really captured the spirit of the prayer, and contextualised it to our week together. I’ll post them too.

Books & articles on prayer:

Baddeley, Jennie, ‘What Prayer Means: a Rediscovery of Biblical Prayer’, online at AFES WebSalt, http://www.afes.org.au/_magazine/
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3 chapter 20: ‘Of Prayer — a Perpetual Exercise of Faith; the Daily Benefits Derived From It’ - Extracted as a chapter in The Essence of the Reformation, 2nd ed., ed. Kirsten Birkett, Matthias Media 2009 - Free online from Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL): www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/prayer.titlepage.html
Carson, Donald A., A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and his Prayers, InterVarsity Press, 1992
Chester, Tim, The Message of Prayer, Bible Speaks Today series, InterVarsity Press, 2003
Goldsworthy, Graeme, Prayer and the knowledge of God, InterVarsity Press, 2003
Moore, David, ‘Lord, What Am I Praying For? An Overview of the Lord’s Prayer’, online at AFES WebSalt, www.afes.org.au/_magazine/

Resources for pro-forma prayers ("liturgy"):

Presbyterian Church of Australia: Public Worship and Aids to Devotion: http://www.pwad.presbyterian.org.au/
Sydney Anglican Diocese: ‘Sunday Services’: http://www.sundayservices.anglican.asn.au/

Resources to pray for others

AFES PrayerNet: Sign up at http://www.afes.org.au/
Church Missionary Society (CMS) prayer updates: www.cms.org.au/news
International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES): http://www.ifesworld.org/resources/prayer.php
Operation World: http://www.operationworld.org/
Overseas Missionary Fellowship (OMF) prayer updates: www.omf.org/omf/australia/support_omf/pray
Persecuted church: http://www.persecution.com/
Pioneers prayer updates: http://www.pioneers.org/Pray/PioneeringPrayer.aspx
Serving In Mission (SIM) prayer updates: http://www.sim.org.au/prayer.shtml

We look forward to eternal perfected worship

2010-07-09T16:51:00.003+10:00

This completes my posts on a biblical theology of worship.

While in this created order, this renewed worship, while genuine, is partial (Gal 5:17; Eph 6:10-20; 1 Pet 5:8-9). Perfected worship occurs in glory.

In the new creation, our resurrected bodies will transcend the limitations imposed upon them, both the inherent limitations of this age, and the additional frustrations of sin (1 Cor 15:35-49). Only then will we be able to worship God as we know we should, and as we long to (Rev 22:3-4).