Athanasius and the APB

leading church last week i did a spot on Athanasius, a true Hero of the Faith.

i thought it would be good to hand out the old-school green an Australian Prayer Book, so we could actually look at the creed attributed to him *, i.e. the Athanasian creed.

with calls to return in a post-modern way to Morning and evening prayer (see here for one), i thought this would be welcomed.

unfortunately the look on people's faces as they walked in belied my expectations, with an "aaah... does Kurt (our Pastor) know about this???"

in the end, we read through it, and read out the Nicene Creed together instead (which i think was put together at Constantinople in 381, but what's a few decades between friends?), and we could then put them down, to the relief of many!


but a little on Athanasius (c.296 - 373):

exiled 5 times from his bishopric of Alexandria in Egypt, he's most well known for these four things:

1. Monastacism: he spent the first decade as bishop cruising around looking at monks, and most famously wrote a history of Antony
   
   
2. Wrote out in full the canon, which was the final Christian form thereof
   
   
3. He really hammered home the exegetical manner of hermeneutics, freeing the Christian world (for a time) from a-historico-contextual allegorising of scriputre
   
   
4. Actually set orthodoxy against the majority, he said Christ was co-equal in substance with the Father

Hooker wrote of him,

“The whole world against Athanasius, and Athanasius against it; half a hundred of years spent in doubtful trial which of the two in the end should prevail – the side which had all, or else the part which had no friends but God and death – the one a defender of his innocency, the other a finisher of all his troubles.”

* well, more accurately dedicated to him as it is believed to have been written a couple of hundred years later

knowing and doing

the pursuit of knowledge is a good thing...

except when it's not.

it's easy to learn stuff for the sake of learning it, gaining knowledge in order to puff oneself up.

and this is an error to walk away from.

however i think we can fall into the opposite error also; d.h. seeking only application from anything - "what should i do because of this?" "how do i do this badly?" and so on.

which again, isn't bad in and of itself, but it can mean we keep beating ourselves up, that we never gain perspective, that when we read (in this example) the Bible, all we see are lists of "start doing this" and "stop doing that".

i want to remind my legion readers, as i remind myself by writing, that application is the right thing to do, but this is two-fold;
not just what we should or shouldn't do, but also what we should or shouldn't think.

scripture enlargens our appreciation of who God is, how the world works, why Jesus came. we may indeed DO stuff in response to this, but the primary application is knowledge, understanding, grasping the magnificence of our great God.

i think this is what the Bible would call Fear.

fearing God encompasses understanding who he is, such that we can put our faith in him.

and it is only after the Bible is thus applied, that we can understand the dos and don'ts, that we can understand the horrendousness of our sin before God, but at the same time understand the merciful life-giving grace which is so lavishly given us, that we might not be condemned in our sin.

A Dedication

to Britney, Paris, Nicole; all you little Hollywood startlets, as well as anyone who's ever been on Big Brother, plus anyone who thinks wearing a nice frock makes them look good regardless of how smashed they're getting;

Like a gold ring in a pig's snout
is a beautiful woman without discretion.

Proverbs 11:22

fed forum feedback

well, a fun night indeed.
questions were not really answered in plenty, due to the large number of candidates (8), and the moderator seeking responses from all candidates on subjects the 1-issue tickets obviously had no substantive comment on, yet, aspiring pollies they were, felt compelled to waffle on about.

standout performers were Pat Sheil ("Sheil be right" - of SMH column 8 fame) and Pierce Field (an eloquent 18year old) from the Democrats.
thumbs down went to Jon Kelu (Liberty & Democracy Party), primarily because he started off with "you pay too much tax," a statement i totally disagree with (for the record, i love paying tax.)
also a recipient of scorn was George Newhouse, for his non-appearance (nor was a delegate sent in his place). this meant the possibility to see the contrast between the two main parties' candidates, the Liberals (not liberal) and Labor (i can't believe they're not right), was not possible.

it was good to hear Susan Jarnason from the Greens mention Carers of her own volition (the others, when prompted, all waffled on a little). i pray this gave some hope to the Carers Alliance, who are desperate to Send a Carer to Canberra. a worthy cause (among many).

Malcolm Turnbull (the sitting member, having ousted the previous sitting member in the normal corporate way) was his usual suave self, and i appreciate the fact he turned up, despite his only real opposition's absence.

my unanswered question was along the lines of the brain-drain of Australian solar-cell engineers, and the 11 year long sustained reduction in funding to renewables, forcing those trained here to work overseas in more favourable environs (more favourable government environs, not solar, as the amazing possibilities of this country with regards to cleared, sunny land is patently obvious to anyone who put environmental sustainability in their top 100 things to do when in power).

not sure why it didn't get answered...

yay! federal elections!

excited as i am about educating the electors of our nation's parliament, for a change someone else is taking up the mantle: a church fairly-well central to my local seat of Wentworth is hosting an election forum.

invited are:

Hon Malcolm Turnbull, MP, Member for Wentworth, Lib

Mr George Newhouse, ALP

Susan Jarnason, NSW Greens

Pierce Field, Australian Democrats

Andrew Markwell, Family First

Danielle Ecuyer, Independent


hopefully there will be an opportunity to have real questions answered honestly, but owing to the meeting being held in a church, one would also pray that the leaders will be reminded of their standing under God, that their authority is possible only under God's sovereign hand.

anyway, i can't wait to get to fill in all the boxes in the substantial Senate form; it's great being able to encourage the smaller parties by giving them my primary vote, but also knowing where my vote should eventually end up.

and of course, choosing who to put motherless last is always fun too!

cracker nite

i miss the good old days growing up in canberra, where you could duck down to your local service station or corner store (back when they still had them), or even to the guy who sells (depending on the season), fireworks in gunpowder season, peaches in stonefruit season, roses in flower season and so on, and grab the latest and greatest in fireworks.


and whenever there was nothing great on t.v. or you didn't feel like playing 500, then out into the backyard and thar she blows!

hopefully unrelated to my high-school po-ha (a small, simple cracker) misdemeanor, there was a crack-down on out of season fireworks.

which means we see them only on New-Year's Eve (weather permitting), the Queen's (Official) Birthday and particular sporting events.

so what then, i ask, was this about?

last night, leaving the Sydney Opera House, this! for at least five minutes!

i like to think this was simply some left-over fireworks that were approaching their use-by date.

do any Sydneyites know?
what about the conspiracy theorists - speculations?

maybe they were just thanking me for getting out and enjoying this world city. it's good to do from time to time.

the informal church

last month there was a lively discussion over at byron's blog on liturgy.

at wild street @ 5ive we're three weeks into a series on Judges, called (apparently uninventively) Heroes. personally i find the informality helps me as a preacher - you aren't limited by time, convention, expectations. you can talk with people, not at them. you can give a talk that is appropriate to the passage and the preacher and the people, not compromising due to unnecessary formality.

this freedom is something people really appreciate, comments have been great, and the topic of Heroes has been a catalyst for the meeting (gathering) leader to be hip and happening.

so far we've had Apostrophe Man, Butt Man, and Life B(u)oy leading church.

though disturbing to see him in tights, this informality has definitely been helpful, making "church" much more accessible.

HOWEVER (of course there was going to be a however), my question is whether this is an appropriate starting point.
that is to say, for people who did not have bad experiences in really "churchy" churches, this super-relaxed attitude may give them no deep understanding of the sanctity of God, of what it means to meet together as God's people.

sure, the word of God will be preached in a positive atmosphere, relationships may be more genuine, but in that setting, how can you make sure people get that it's not just a party?

do we need to roster people on to go to the 8:30am traditional service? do we need to run a meeting from the prayer book every now and then?

or do we all get it already - i should loosen up and enjoy it, just like everyone else is?

i guess this means if you haven't been to college (i assume this means university) you shouldn't be reading this.

sorry.

the infamous "they" said so...

see-through face

much has already be said on facebook (c/f here).

talking and thinking through the pluses and minuses of the infamous facebook, i think one of the major pros is transparency.

it teaches people to be thoughtful and appropriate in what they "say" to one another, with whatever they say open to the world.

so a definite plus, although the voyeurism should lead to contriteness, i fear the love of the obscene and stirring of pots could lead to increased obscenity, and a complete lack of decorum.

i pray the former will be the case.

Christotypism

i may have already mentioned my sermon series on Lamentations, thankfully the moose is up. it's done, done, done.

i had a squiz at the Perspective website (a resource set up by a bunch of pastors with helpful tips for preachers)

for interest's sake i had a look, and they gave three ways of looking at the OT, and specifically the book of Lamentations;

1/ A Christotelic Approach - Jesus the fulfillment of the OT. OT sets up the problem, Jesus is sent by God as the solution to them.

2/ A Christotypic Approach - the OT provides the shadow, Jesus is the epitome.

3/ An Exemplary Approach - look at the examples of good and bad. learn from it.

(this was from Bryson Smith's outline - not to be confused with Byron Smith)


i think there are places for all three of these approaches.

my previous post refers to a group who may use 3/ a whole heap, i'm not sure of the extent of the other two.

in our church's series on the story of life used 1/ a heap more.

going through Lamentations, a few years ago i would definitely have used 1/ and 3/. but this time around it was 2/ all the way.


it was hard, it felt almost wrong to say that Jerusalem was a "type" of Christ. the language is of Jerusalem being the annointed one, God's holy one, almost messianic. [like the (relatively) new Jewish reading of Isaiah 52-53.]

Jesus came as Jerusalem, was punished as Jerusalem.

and thinking through the atonement after having read Lamentations in a Christotypic way made it a whole lot clearer.

and i pray this was also true for the fellow-travellers.

active listening

i was challenged yesterday by my (non-Christian) flatmate about Christians' inability to discuss.
he said that whenever Christians talk to him, there's never the sense of equal footing, that there is give and take, that they may be willing to concede their shortcomings in understanding and reasoning.

this really stumped me.

how do you discuss with someone you are convinced is wrong in a way that is open, without compromising yourself?

we want to say, "yeah, we listen, we're good listeners," but my flatmate just says, "no you're not, you're crap. you don't listen, you just want to convince me the whole time. and that's no discussion."

and at a certain point i have agree. there are things i won't compromise on. there are things that are so central to who i am as a person, that to compromise would negate who i am as a person; if i'm going to give ground on those things, there must be a pretty sound argument to do so.

but this still doesn't make for the 'open dialogue' my flatmate believes he will never get from a Christian.

Hillsong loves a cheerful tither

on my day off yesterday, before auditioning for ready steady cook, i was watching whatever the channel 7 morning show is (the one with larry), and they were interviewing some Hillsongers

having several people in my faculty at uni from hillsong, and other denominations i'm not 100% on the same page as, i've often tried to pin down why i'm uncomfortable with a lot of what they say.

there are many areas of agreement, but it's not good enough to say "i like some of your stuff, but not this," as there must be an underlying thing behind it.

and i think larry's question on tithing might have triggered the answer.

the atheist society at UNSW had a sign up saying, "Hillsong: God's ATM Machine (sic.)"

larry's question was along these lines, and the answer was, "tithing is a biblical principal. I give 10%."

and i think i've got it
it's all about biblical theology.
the way they read the bible, beginning to end, is fundamentally different. questions i have from Hillsong members, and other AOG* churches, betray a lack of understanding in the cohesiveness of the whole bible. a superficiality of understanding, of Jesus' fulfillment of the Law.

so Paul's exhortation to give generously, with a joyful heart, supplying others' need out of your riches; has been summed up in the Law - give 10%, as opposed to the other way around, where 10% was a number, due to the hardness of people's hearts.

i hope this is the sympathetic reading i've been searching for.

* Assemblies of God, the bigger denomination Hillsong comes under

bullies and facebook

pop quiz:
should i be facebook "friends" with a guy who unrepentantly used to beat the crap out of me at school for most of highschool?

and to top it all off, he asked me!

maybe i should link up with him at hatebook?

sabre-tooths and memes

me and my self-psycho-analysing ways have come up with a new hypothesis regarding men, women and singleness

anecdotally, it seems women can get along well with, and are supported well by, their female friends
perhaps an evolutionary sociologist would work this out along "meme" theory, where the men were more likely to die in battle, or by being ravaged by a sabre-toothed tiger; the women would support one another in a widows' fellowship
it seems this as a default position, whilst not preferable, may at least be tolerated

men, however are by their nature more solitary, or with 1-2 close friends. when one, and then both of these friends get hooked up, or move, or meet with the menacing Smilodon, the default mode is not to join a men's support network, but to become solitary. the loss of their few confidants is pretty much the end of it for them

the evolutionary sociologist, again, might leap into gear again, this meme being part of the "leader-of-the-pack" ideology, where it's lonely up the top. (tho, again, my hypothesis is that this is due more to necessity than desire)

men, therefore, need that female companionship in some ways more than do the women., as their default position will not be to seek male companionship, but solitude.

perhaps this helps explain why some women can find commitment to a bloke tough - the default position isn't so bad, and this compared with the perceived uncertainty of marriage, the default is immensely more preferable.


the maniacal ramblings of a jilted man, or a profound philosophical treatise. i'll be the judge, thanks.

the cordial of judgement

this week's sermon title will be "Lamentations :: Judgement and Lament"

however, i realised this morning that judgement is perhaps one of those "churchy" words, that are confusing to the non-churched, and glossed over by the churched

so i'm trying to come up with an analogy, and i'm currently like the dog doing its circles over its bed before it sits down, with cordial

(was this too obtuse a way to say i've almost come to a definitive decision?)


so if you say "i'm going to make a glass of cordial," the assumption is, you're going to pick the cordial flavour (red or yellow - yes, they are flavours), then you're going to put the the liquid in a glass, add water (never the other way around, unless you're COMPLETELY insane), and then drink the darn thing

likewise for judgement:
God evaluates the situation, makes his decision, and then completes the appropriate action, be this blessing or cursing

judgement isn't just weighing up, it's not just handing down a verdict, but all of these, along with the execution

how many thumbs up does this get - or is it redundant, do people already widely get the idea of God's Judgement?