how's YOUR ethics?

h/t to byron for this ethics test

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
   
2. Spinoza (78%)
   
3. Aristotle (70%)
   
4. Aquinas (68%)
   
5. David Hume (65%)
   
6. Jeremy Bentham (59%)
   
7. Nietzsche (58%)
   
8. Ayn Rand (57%)
   
9. Kant (56%)
   
10. Nel Noddings (55%)
    
11. Stoics (54%)
    
12. St. Augustine (51%)
    
13. Thomas Hobbes (46%)
    
14. John Stuart Mill (45%)
    
15. Plato (41%)
    
16. Epicureans (38%)
    
17. Ockham (34%)
    
18. Prescriptivism (34%)
    
19. Cynics (25%)

i think this means that if Sartre were a girl, we'd hook up, and Augustine and I would have had a love-hate relationship. which is probably true (the latter one - i haven't even seen a photo of Sartre, although i plan to read his Dramaten when i find a spare minute)

Terminator Messiah

A few weeks ago i did a thing on Christ-figures in films. Some are more obvious than others, but things to look out for are sacrifice, taking the punishment others deserve, healing, having the initials J.C.; having a beard even seems to cut it in some films.

But for my thing on Heroes on Film, i thought i'd do the Christ-figures in the Terminator films.

firstly, a brief synopsis of the three films (at this time i hadn't seen T3, which filled in a lot of gaps):

• T1 T800 sent to kill Sarah Connor
  Kyle Reese to protect her because of the child she would bear.
  He would be the messiah of the Humans against the machines
  He ends up fathering a son, called John Connors
  Don’t miss the JC initials
  
• T2 T800 now the Cyborg Messiah,
  sent to protect the Human Messiah from the T1000
  
• T3 JC now the messiah he was predestined to be

These films deal with Ontological Paradoxes, that is,
An ontological paradox is a paradox of time travel that questions the existence and creation of information and objects that travel in time. It is very closely related to the predestination paradox and usually occurs at the same time. (definition from wikipedia)

c/f The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov, written way back in 1954 - an amazing read if you can get a hold of it (mine's in a box at my parent's place in Canberra if you want to grab it)


“Critic Richard Corliss has...pointed out that the story parallels that of the New Testament, with a soldier from another world (the archangel Gabriel) visiting a woman (the Virgin Mary) to announce that she is to be mother to a messiah (John Connor has the same initials as Jesus Christ). She flees with him into the desert, where an angel of death becomes a protector/father.”

From Holy Aliens to Cyborg Saviours: Biblical Subtexts in Four Science Fiction Films, Anton Karl Kozlovic

In T2 that is.
The Cyborg Messiah takes over from the Human Messiah, taking the fore-front, and the many Christ-references.
with his wounds in his side, his Bullet Holes that Sarah needs, like Thomas in John 21, to check for herself.
The Terminator is killed by the T1000, but is resurrected, and then redeems humankind.

I guess, tho I haven’t [hadn't - ed.] seen it, that T3 is the next step, where the messiah (human John Connor, JC) takes control, on, of course, Judgement day, where he returns in power to rid the earth of evil once and for all.

For those interested, there is a fourth in the tubes, called Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins, in an odd tribute to science fiction history (in the End of Eternity), although in all probability this has more to do with the predominant US millenialist theology.

Each generation gets the cinema they deserve.


addendum - coming to Australian television screens is Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles, which may or may not be any good. it's a nice idea, despite her dying inbetween the 2nd and 3rd movies, unless they give some explanation, like she had to hide herself so no terminator would be able to use her to track John. i dunno.

now for some Christmas silliness - watch this, v.v. funny h/t to locusts and honey

A Clear and Present Word Part II

The second point of Mark Thompson’s observations on the clarity of scripture is;

2/ Christian Theology is unavoidably Trinitarian.

Again, using Peter Adam’s catchphrase, “God’s Words, to his people, by his Spirit, about his Son,” we see that even the most base study of the scriptures requires the foundation stone of Christian Theology is Theos, God – whom we know as he has revealed himself to us – that is, father, spirit, son.

Although questions and debates have come up over time (most importantly with Athanasius’ debates with Arius, and even on this very blog (here!)), the consistent revelation of God, that has shaped and by definition must continue to shape Christian Theology, is at once the unity and distinct personae of the Godhead.

Therefore, when discussing God, when ‘doing theology’, we must deal with him on his terms. It therefore ceases to be Christian Theology when we cease to engage with his special revelation to mankind as it is.

I guess it goes without saying, but the new and captivating debates in what one might even call “secular theology”, seem to revolve around a re-discovery of God, a new reading of Jesus, “the God the Church never wanted you to find”, or similar rot.

It gives people what their itching ears want to hear, but unfortunately a god that is not the God of the Bible, is not the God who gives life, by his Son, as revealed to his people, by his Spirit.

mere informality

seeing as i just received a new hit on my post from way back when on the informal church i thought it was noteworthy to mention;
a german friend, when asked to compare the evangelical churches in germany with the australian ones, was struck by the informality here.
he said that although he in some ways expected australian churches to be informal, for them to be so informal was a real shock.

the quest remains then to retain the helpful, the welcoming, the revering, liturgy; and to remain free from the stilted, the unhelpful, the deterring, the unthinking formulaity that has so plagued us.

i might have to well to discuss with this friend about the reasons for their formality, versus our informality - though of course informality is rarely the true case (song, welcome, announcements, bible, song, supper - sound familiar?), non-liturgical being probably more accurate.

a moment of lapsidaisy

why can i not find the word lapsidaisical in any dictionary, online or otherwise???

what's with this place?

A Clear and Present Word Part I

Reflections, in light of the five key points from Mark Thompson’s new book (A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture), as well as Peter Adam’s talks at this year’s National Training Event (NTE), all about Receiving God’s Word, Written for his People, by his Spirit, about his Son (check out this, or a shorter version here on youtube for the mnemonic).


Christian theology, at its most basic, is talk about God.

One of the things I struggle with, thinking about writing “theologically”, is what it means to do so.
Questions I have, for example, are “Can a Christian book be untheological?” as well as “how far from the central themes of the Bible do you have to stray before you cease to be theological?”
The second question in particular interests me, mainly because I’m easily sidetracked. For example, using your Strong’s concordance, you could trace every occurance of the word Hittite, and then work out what role the Hittites played in Biblical history, what they got up to, whether there were Hittites who converted to the God of Israel, and so on.
And I would probably find it quite interesting.

But at the end of the day, such talk is probably along the lines of what we are warned about in 1 Timothy 1:4, that is, it is fruitless, idle speculation, and of little, if any consequence theologically. Of course, historians, sociologists etc may be fascinated by this.

Christian Theology, however, is most interested in God. What this word study of the Hittites may teach us of God, I can only imagine. But if that is not the aim, then the searching of, and reflecting upon the scriptures is completely missing the point.

I guess there could then be things we think may tell us things about God, that, midway through the process, we need to actually jettison as unfruitful.

I therefore feel very sorry (and very soon probably empathy) for those doing 4th yr theses, as I fear they may have no choice in the matter...

The Golden Compass (some thoughts)

The vitriol surrounding the next installment in the atheistic euangellion (after Dawkins’ books, his series, not to mention Hitchens and Onfray), the Golden Compass, is surely the sweetest thing to hit the producers’ ears since Nicole Kidman signed on to star in the project.

This is the movie version of Philip Pullman’s novel Northern Lights, part of the Dark Materials trilogy.
In the Sydney Morning Herald’s Spectrum from the 1st of December (I’ve been a little busy!), Pullman is quoted as saying, ”My story resolved itself into an account of the necessity of growing up and a refusal to lament the loss of innocence.”

That is, he pictures a world, which, when considered from a Religious point-of-view, is full of naughty people, who have discovered how much fun life is, with the church chasing them around and telling them to stop it. He traces this back, as I take it from his comments, to Adam and Eve in Eden listening to the serpent, who actually knew that God was a big kill-joy.

However, respectfully, I think he may be a little skew-if.
Eating of the tree of knowledge gave us not the choice of knowledge as against innocence, but the choice of doing bad as against good, i.e. what we were able to do with our knowledge.

For God isn’t against pleasure, against life. In fact, we are told “taste, and see that the LORD is good.” (Psalm 34:8)

God wants us to use our knowledge for good.

An obvious example is what we do with radioactivity – we can use it for medicine, to save lives, or alternatively we can bomb the heck out of one another, or at least threaten to, and in the process assemble enough weaponry to destroy the world many times over.


Perhaps Pullman has been hanging out with the Amish?

I say this because it’s logically implausible for the many Christian scientists, authors, futurists to not be condemned as stepping out of the orthodoxy of Ludditism.


I worry Pullman read until the third page of the Bible and never kept going, never saw the problem, the outworking of original sin.
And if that’s the case, then he obviously is unaware of God’s solution to the problem of mankind’s rebellion against him.


So sure, see the film – it sounds sort of interesting – but please know that the paper-doll this film sets up to assasinate, bears no relationship to the God of Wonders who created the universe, sustaining it by his word, and who is worthy of all glory, honour and praise.

noone thinks big of me?

i've been thinking a bit about this ad, especially with all the wet weather we've been having the last few weeks.
(check out the other RTA ads here)

now, these ads are quite clever, and i even heard of a man suing for sexual harassment after getting "the pinkie" (whether or not he was speeding or exhibiting similar hoon-esque behaviour i'm unsure).

i may be in the minority, but when i think getting sideways, doheys, fishtailing, i'm not thinking voyeurism.
rather, it's a little bit of fun, to slip and slide, knowing you're in charge of a vehicle, that you're throwing about like a BMX, but you don't have to pedal really hard, rather just hit the gas.

i realise this is un-pc, and i in no way advocate this type of behaviour in any place where you may put others in danger, or even scare people.
i'm just saying the insinuation that the only reason one might ever feel the urge to behave such is 1/ because they're insecure with their man-hood, and 2/ that they do it to show off, tho perhaps the case in individuals, not the only possible explanation.

religion and politics (with a back-at-ya twist!)

the ruddite's switch over the election campaign, from christian socialist to economic conservative, seems to say a lot about the state of conservative politics and its relationship to religious belief.

it is therefore with interest that i notice one of the republican front-runners in the US presidential race is a devout mormon.

but the headline for the linked news story says, Mormons won't run my White House, that is, he will leave his religion at the door.

i remember what i considered an outrageous comment from Amanda Vanstone, calling on all politicians to essentially do the same. (see this article, for example)


so how should we feel about one the world's self-appointed sheriff potentially being led by a devout adherent to what has in many places been rightfully given "cult" status?

about as uneasy as with their current president and his self-declared God-given right to wage war as he wills?

perhaps controversially, i would like those in politics to not necessarily wear their religion on their sleeve, but still to be genuine about what they believe, and the way it impacts their decisions.
where their religion causes them to care for the disadvantaged, reach out to the needy, i wouldn't mind knowing about it.

it's far better than finding out that it really only matters when the election looms nearer.

h/t to my dad!

smiting or giving over?

we had a talk tonight at Wild Street, entitled "Hotter than Hell - God and Global Warming", which drew upon Genesis 1:26-31, for our mandate to care for creation, as well as 2 Peter 3, reminding us of the Christian expectation, and the way we are to live in the meanwhilst.

my question, particularly regarding global warming, is whether this is a smiting-thing, or a giving-over-thing?

Romans 2:18-32 has the logic of God letting us go, when it comes to sinfulness. that is, he says, "if that's the way you want to live, go for it. see what life looks like without me," the result being death and destruction.

there is of course the examples of God striking down sinful individuals, couples, cities and even the world, which isn't a direct cause-and-effect thing, but a punishment.

so what is global warming? simply the result of our sinfulness? or is there also an element of God smiting us because of our failure to care for his creation?

Römerbrief

meine bücher sind angekommen!
my interest in Barth in particular was reignited after reading this really well thought through article by Ben Myers

considering it's 85yrs old, i thought it would be impossibly hard to read, but the German is refreshingly easy going. so it'll just be really really hard.

any comments or tips about Barth's hermeneutical paradigm would be appreciated

only 1 more sleep

going to vote CDP? (or, as i call it, the lazy-Christian-vote)

please read this helpful article from Sydney Anglicans.

fear-tactics, it seems, can come from all sides


i might add, if you really are lazy, you can fill in a quick survey put together by GetUp! which will even send you an SMS tomorrow morning with how you chould vote depending on your responses (mine was eerily accurate).
the survey is here

fun voting!

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?

the philosophy of politics

i found this fascinating interview from Jon Stewart's Newshour, linked here by way of Swords to Plowshares, which i found via Faith and Theology which i usually look at via Nothing New Under the Sun!

it's a really insightful look at what it means to live life out, if all of life was politics!
for example, do you say what is right, or what will win? the answer, for one who lives life as if it were all politics, is obviously the latter.
it's how to win friends and influence people taken to the extreme.

i guess it might win you friends - but what kind of friends?

new bible translation!

i was trying to find some hints on some specific rendering decisions on Lamentations, for my up-coming sermon series at Wild St

and lo and behold, i came upon a new, post-modern Bible translation project - the International Standard Version!

the idea is, they had a crack at a new translation, got lots of feedback, and instead of just declaring it the final version (despite its name!), they have actually decided to invite feedback.

from their website:

all ISV readers are invited to comment on how specific passages of the current release of the ISV can be rendered clearer and even more insightful in the next version.

they want people to:

Send us a suggestion on improving a specific verse

Report a typo error in the current edition of the ISV text

Ask us a question about why we rendered a specific passage the way we did.

it's good to note that Final decisions on acceptance of textual suggestions will remain with the Committee on Translation so we can maintain scholarly standards set by the ISV Foundation.

you can even get listed as a contributing editor, provided you help out enough (however much that may be)

i believe you can get paper editions, but for a while at least, and particularly until they've finished Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, 1 & 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, if you want to use it you'll have to use either a PDA, or bring your laptop to church with you!

t-shirt talk

been thinking about t-shirts
youth group want some - something about sense of identity
found this one via larknews.com
i don't have many christian t-shirts, mainly coz they're tacky and stupid (i found one at vinnie's once, with "www.jesus.come". yup.

however i do like kurt's "i am not the messiah",
as well as threadless's arminianism v calvinism (h/t to elsie), on the front (as i remember), "i chose this t-shirt", the back with "this t-shirt chose me".

book list

i've had to compile two different book lists in the last week,
1/ for my college application form, listing "at least 5" Christian books that have influenced me, and
2/ for CBS Core, a suggested reading list, as the students start building Christian libraries for themselves

so what are the top 5 Christian books that have influenced you?

mine are:

1. The Myths of Science (ed. by Kirsten Birkett)
   
2. Knowing God (JI Packer)
   
3. Holiness (JC Ryle)
   
4. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (JI Packer)
   
5. Answers in Genesis - (tho this was remarkable for my early Christian growth, i look back now with sorrow as i see how they manage to pigeon-hole the creation v evolution debate)

the sword & the spirit

this morning i preached at St Bede's, Drummoyne.

i imagine the conversation between the archdeacon and my pastor went a little like this:
AD "hi. i need someone to fill in for me this sunday"
P "oh, right"
AD "yeah, so, who's your best man?"
P "sorry, he's preaching"
AD "well, you then?"
P "nah, i really need to be here"
AD "well, who's next on your list?"
P "yeah, he's busy too"
AD "you got anyone who can string two words together?"
P "um... i'll get back to you"

and then i get the phone call.

it was nice to speak to a different group of people, but, just as when i speak to our 8:30am congregation i always feel under-qualified to be speaking to people who've been Christians 2-3x longer than i've been alive!

it's always encouraging, therefore, to chat afterwards, as they share how the Word of God has been opened up anew to their ears.

i heard a great quote that makes sense of this, tho i am unaware who spake it;

the word without the spirit is powerless,
and the spirit without the word is weaponless.

a great encouragement indeed!

wishing for mercy

1/ apologies for absence of posting

2/ what place is there for critiquing the theology of the Bible?
FOR, we get our theology FROM the Bible, so when it says something we don't like, at what point are we able to say, "no, that's not how God is," without

for example, Jonah:
now, i've always read Jonah 2 as a great poem, expressing noble truths about God's character.
UNTIL, that is, i heard it critiqued, saying that Jonah was an arrogant man, presuming upon God, he had NO right to pray as he did, to just ASSUME that God was gonnaget him out of the lurch.

3/ so then, what do we say when reading, for example Lamentations (c/f many Psalms), which wishes atrocities upon atrocities, upon their enemies and neighbours for their nonintervention?

i would like to say, "that's wrong, you should be wishing them mercy, just as you desire mercy from God," because this attitude isn't so much redeemed in Jesus as refuted.

indeed, neither does Paul agree with this view, in Romans 14:10-12;

Why do you pass judgment on your brother?
Or you, why do you despise your brother?
For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
for it is written,
As I live, says the Lord,
every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

it all seems very log-in-the-eye to me.

greenies or goodies

with the australian federal election ever closer (despite howard refusing to officially call it - maybe he will, maybe he won't - what fun he must be having), i just thought i'd re-open the ole can-o-worms, Christians and the Greens.

i picked up a handy little "policy snapshots" brochure (from June 2007), and out of the 131 different policy agendas, there were only TWO that i thought were outright wrong. morally, i would have to disagree with those two points.

but, my friends, that leaves 129 points, where i am at a level of agreement, between 6-10 out of 10.

why am i saying this?
am i spruiking for the greens now? No.
am i going to vote for them in both houses? Couldn't say.

then why?
because i am sick and tired of uninformed self-appointed representatives of some imaginary "Christian community" writing off every single policy, again, 129/131 of which i think are quite reasonable, because of fear.

thankfully, that is not the way democracy works - the mainstream policies, especially for a minority party such as the greens, are the ones where they may gain any ground.

AND the policies i object to are not the ones they push. they are not the ones in the one page summary.
the things in the summary are crazy things such as,

no nuclear power in australia (they want to invest in green energy, the very thing the federal government has removed funding to in quantities that just aren't funny any more),

no new coal mines,

cutting carbon emissions by a substantial (not tokenistic) amount,

conservation of old-growth forests,

public dental care,

bridging the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous australians.


the list goes on. with more of the same outrageous statements.

perhaps were it not for the climate of fear, australia would not be in the state it is today.

keep praying for our politicians. and one another.

seriously, john

i found this pic at crikey.com.au and was a little underwhelmed.

for, while the sentiments are true, honour, where honour is due, should always be the call of the day.
so, attending the anti-APEC rally on saturday, my friend dave's sign expressed our sentiments exactly:

"Howard, you're pathetic."

a roman emperor, let alone great senator of the republic, howard is not.
nor will he be remembered as such.

for those interested, i just wore my usual THE GOV'T LIES. t-shirt (which i've worn at my uni graduation, as well as once, completely by accident, whilst praying particularly for the government at church!).

my sincerest apologies

now truly in the dizzying heights of blog-stardom, i've been tagged by Byron to participate in a meme, started off by a site called Christians Confess. The directions are as follows:

Apologize for three things that Christians have often got wrong. Your apologies should be directed towards those who don’t view themselves as part of the Christian community. Alternatively, apologize for things you personally have done wrong towards those outside of the church.

Post a comment at the originating post so others can keep track of the apologies.

Tag five people to participate in the meme.

If desired, send an email with the link to your blog post at the Christians Confess site, giving permission for your apologies to be added to the website.

here goes (deep breath):

1. I'm sorry that Christians are at once too different, yet at the same time not different enough
   
   
2. I'm sorry for disunity upon schism upon rift upon anathema upon persecution, among earthly representatives of Christ's Church
   
   
3. I'm sorry, when it comes to the things that matter, that Christians are overwhelming the world with timidity, and deafening it with silence.
   

i tag Sam, Kurt, Elsie, Hayley and Mark (get back on the horse buddy!)

buffy and friends and friends

i'm supposed to be writing a talk this week on angels and demons.

C.S. Lewis writes in 1941:

“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”

(C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Barbour and Company, Inc., 1990)

i believe the same can be said regarding angels.

although i did read on a site discussing the theology of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that several people working on the show did become Christians, in no small part due to the constant discussion of heaven and hell, angels and demons.

if only my youth group kids were old enough to have watched the show, i could justify doing a talk all about how dodgy the Buffy theology is!

O'Donovan and Boney M

when Henry Schaefer did the New College lectures a few years ago, i was trying hard to concentrate. when i read the transcript of his talk, i was riveted!

therefore, let me say how much i am looking forward to reading Oliver O'Donovan's three talks for this year's NC lectures, Morally Awake.

for a clear recollection of the talks, please look at Byron's excellent blog.
when the transcripts are up at the NC website, i do of course hope to read them and comment on them.

possibly, missing the first two talks, as well as the poor acoustics, and being out of the line of sight also contributed to my poor attention on the night.

however, one of the times my ears really pricked up was, after his castigation of Aristoteleans for their unthinking spontanaeity, he mentioned the shift found in Psalm 137 (the one made famous by Boney M).

i can hear you singing along now, "by the rivers of Bablylon..."
but it really is a horrific psalm. after the 6 verses of moving lament, the psalter gets angry. really angry. of the Babylonians, they say (i really could not imagine this ever being sung),

Blessed shall be he who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock.

now, whether he was unwilling to quote this, or just assumed we knew of it, it really is shocking.
yet understandable.
that the people of the exile, who were being tormented with song-requests by their captors, lamenting the loss of their land, their temple, and possibly their God, seemingly lose their resolve, and wish the harshest of punishments, on God's vessels of his punishment for Israel's idolatry.

but such shifts, i guess, are what makes me question people's resolve. to what extent are we responsible when we see such spontaneous shifts in our characters?
to what extent should we hold others responsible for their own such shifts?

please don't take this as an accurate reconstruction of the talk! the two things may've been completely unconnected in the talk, and the further reflections on the psalm are mine alone. as i said, when the transcripts are up, i can get the context to his mentioning of the psalm! stay tuned...

un-sane

With all the discussion about the philosophical reasons for Christianity, i thought i'd share these afore-alluded-to thoughts from Arthur C. Clarke (i basically re-read the book and couldn't find it, till i realised it was in a post-script!).

for the ignorami, Clarke is the author of 2001 A Space Odyssey, 2010, 2061, 3001, as well as countless short stories, science-fact as well as fiction novels. a very thoughtful guy.

but anyway, here is the quote, his final word, as it were, finishing off the odyssey series:

Finally, I would like to assure my many Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim friends that I am sincerely happy that the religion which Chance has given you has contributed to your peace of mind (and often, as Western medical science now reluctantly admist, to your physical well-being).
Perhaps it is better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is best of all to be sane and happy.
Whether our descendants can achieve that goal will be the greatest challenge of the future. Indeed, it may well decide whether we have any future.
Arthur C. Clarke
Colombo, Sri Lanka
19 September 1996

From the Valediction in his 3001 The Final Odyssey

the question remains for those who may be un-sane (ie a religious believer of any shape or form) and un-healthy - why?

i still like his books tho...

... and still a Christian

the sequel to the prequel, ie the second of Greg's talks discussing Christianity and Atheism was again very helpful in understanding why, in the light of present (and past) debates around atheism and agnosticism, how a thinking person could remain a Christian. let alone a theist!

another talk, another list; this time, the reasons for still being a Christian:

1. it shapes you, but it's not a straight-jacket
   sure, you don't want to discount the influence your upbringing has had on shaping you, but even Dawkins has to admit that he's been able to break free of his memes (even though he's claimed the only reason anyone is a theist is because we're unable to break free of our history, see here for what seems to me to be a contradiction)
   everyone has to have a time when they're able to forge their own path, choosing not to blindly go where many have gone before, but opening their eyes, to discern where their foundations and assumptions truly lie.
   
   
2. just 51% possibility of the existence of the Other makes the resurrection a possible option
   it is to this 51% chance that we THEN bring any other evidence, ie the gospels, contemporaneous writings, archaeological evidence, sociological patterns etc
   
   
3. "living towards death" (c/f Heidegger) gives us meaning and hope
   with anything else, any meaning has to be injected from outside, creating one's own meaning. which is fine, it's simply without foundation.

come back at me if you want (mum and mark, unless there are indeed other readers out there - if so, GREETINGS!)

not an atheist

on sunday we started the first of two talks on atheism by Greg Clarke, of the newly formed Public Christianity Australia (or whatever it's supposed to be called).

of the many things he talked about, perhaps one of the most helpful was the classification of atheism into four drawers;

1. philosophical atheism
   that is, it makes sense, logically, that there is no god. Arthur C. Clarke (no relation, i believe), succinctly put it, that it is un-sane to be a theist.
   
   
2. sociological atheism
   the crutch idea - we need a god so we don't have to take responsibility for our own actions, think for ourselves etc - but surely we as a race have matured beyond this primitive need for a god.
   
   
3. darwinian atheism
   evolution = no god. or something like that. whatever. (thanks Ken Ham for all your great work in equating (in scientismists' minds) the scientific method with irreligion!)
   
   
4. ethical atheism
   perhaps where we can feel guiltiest. believers should be known for having all things in common, distributing for the poor as they have any need, caring for the widows, the sick. sure we can point to those who do do this, but that we have to point it out is a blight on us, as we do not, by our selfless works, make God's name known and praised among the nations.

i think that (4) was by far the biggest take home point for me, apart from the great apologetic thinking through of why not become an atheist?, ie, that we need to keep repenting for our unbelief, for living lives that don't necessarily show we have been saved from anything, to be anything.

looking forward to next week's installment, why i am still a christian

is it just coincidence that layman is a homonym for lame-man (as in ~'s explanation)?

a tale of two psalms

so psalm 105 and 106 both start similarly:

105:1 Oh give thanks to the Lord; call upon his name; make known his deeds among the peoples! 2 Sing to him, sing praises to him; tell of all his wondrous works!

106:1 Praise the Lord! Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever! 2 Who can utter the mighty deeds of the Lord, or declare all his praise?

but whilst ps105 spends the next three dozen verses recounting the marvelous work of God in his people, ps106 takes a different tack:

7 He is the Lord our God; his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He remembers his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, 9 the covenant that he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac, 10 which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant, 11 saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance.”

6 Both we and our fathers have sinned; we have committed iniquity; we have done wickedness.

even the time in Egypt looks okay, until you contrast it with 106:

37 Then he brought out Israel with silver and gold, and there was none among his tribes who stumbled. 38 Egypt was glad when they departed, for dread of them had fallen upon it.

7 Our fathers, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love, but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea. 8 Yet he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make known his mighty power. 9 He rebuked the Red Sea, and it became dry, and he led them through the deep as through a desert.

they were well provided for, and thankful:

39 He spread a cloud for a covering, and fire to give light by night. 40 They asked, and he brought quail, and gave them bread from heaven in abundance. 41 He opened the rock, and water gushed out; it flowed through the desert like a river. 42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham, his servant.

19 They made a calf in Horeb and worshiped a metal image. 20 They exchanged the glory of God for the image of an ox that eats grass. 21 They forgot God, their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt, 22 wondrous works in the land of Ham, and awesome deeds by the Red Sea. 23 Therefore he said he would destroy them— had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.

and were brought into the promised land:

43 So he brought his people out with joy, his chosen ones with singing. 44 And he gave them the lands of the nations, and they took possession of the fruit of the peoples' toil, 45 that they might keep his statutes and observe his laws.

34 They did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them, 35 but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. 36 They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons; 38 they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. 39 Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the whore in their deeds.

and are giving thanks to the Lord, but for different reasons:

45b Praise the Lord!

47 Save us, O Lord our God, and gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name and glory in your praise. 48 Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting! And let all the people say, “Amen!” Praise the Lord!

Praise the Lord indeed!

scripture help?

in my 4th semester of scripture teaching, the kids keep coming up with absolute corkers
from years 4 and 6, the current lot of questions are:

How can Jesus be both Joseph’s and God’s son?

How is Jesus in the line of David if he's only been adopted by Joseph?

Why are the genealogies in Matthew and Luke different?

What's the go with Jesus' tomb?

(after hearing Goliath was 3m tall), how can we really trust what it says in the Bible?

i've got some ideas for most of these (the Jesus Family tomb is ok), but i really don't feel like i've got "knock-down answers" for all of them

any advice would be helpful!

thanks blog-community!

scientists and evolution (and the gospel?)

With the New College Lecture Series coming up, I came across this quote from John Suppe when reflecting on his own conversion (he's a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, noted professor of geology at Princeton University, outstanding scholar in the area of plate tectonics), in the talk by Henry F. Schaefer III on Science and Christianity.

"Some non-scientist Christians, when they meet a scientist, feel called on to debate evolution.
That is definitely the wrong thing to do.
If you know scientists and the kinds of problems they have in their lives: pride, selfish ambition, jealousy; that's exactly the kind of thing Jesus talked about, and which he came to resolve (by His death on the cross).
Science is full of people with very strong egos who get into conflicts with each other........The gospel is the same for scientists as for anyone.
Evolution is basically a red herring. If scientists are looking for meaning in their lives, it won't be found in evolution."

this may seem a little redundant, but with my work with Science Students at the UNSW, evolution seems to be a topic they seem to think will somehow convert the heathen to Christianity (or to Creationism?).

Guidance MYC

another week away, another dozen less blogservers (that's a contraction of bloggers and observers i think)

so yeah, week away at MidYearConference, the topic being guidance.

my biggest take-home point was the no-bulls-eye, plan-a idea.

grimmo acknowledged that he nicked it from someone else (the new director of MTS), who in turn nicked it from someone, which just goes to show it's a good example.


that is, we all have this belief that God's got this plan-a in store for each and every one of us; Mr/Mrs Right, the perfect, fulfilling job, the ministry where we will be of best service etc.

however the guidance we are given by God is that we are free to serve by means of the wisdom he gives us, and the Holy Spirit he sends to work in our hearts to conform us to live by his wisdom.

this means we aren't to fear making the wrong decision, so long as we are making it for godly reasons, and regarding the wise counsel of Christian brothers and sisters.

in this respect (and this is my favourite line from the whole week), the little decisions are the big decisions, whilst the big decisions are infact the little decisions!

Four Ways To Live

I've heard of 2WTL, some have even suggested there may be 3, but my recent reading of things such as Luther v Melancthon, as well as hearing sermons from the sermon on the mount in Matthew's biography of Jesus, plus my recent work on eschatology and restoration, has led me to a 4th way to live.

Now, I'm not trying to suggest there isn't two ways to live, either under, or against God's rule, that every person needs to either accept, or continue to reject Jesus as God's appointed King. I'm just trying to add a few shades in this fairly black or white picture.

For some explanation, the crown with a J means accepting Jesus as King. The little drawing of a round thing is my attempt at a 2D globe, symbolising accepting the God-given role of caring for this world, it's inhabitants, as per Genesis 1, which in this stylised description, would also include the so-called "golden rule" of loving one's neighbour as oneself (one's self?).

This is partly trying to think through the place of works in the Christian, as well as the non-Christian.

1. The top one is obviously the person that God desires we all be - firstly, accepting God's rule, and because of the great gift of forgiveness in Jesus, being spurred on to good works.
   
   
2. In the middle, on the left, we see the type of "Christian" that non-Christians always hold up as the reason they wouldn't want to become a Christian. The type of person that knocked Jesus off the top spot (behind Mohammed) of the most influential people, simply because his followers can't take him that seriously, coz they don't do what he says!
   
   
3. On the right then, is perhaps the group Paul refers to in Romans chapter 2, "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." This is the group many of my non-Christian friends would fall into. They are great people. Really nice. As infallible as a fallen human can be (please excuse the oxmoron). And, all this, despite not knowing God, not living for eternity, compelled by naught, but their love for their fellow creature.
   
   
4. At the bottom, perhaps rightly so, is the group who both reject God, and live in all ways despite his desires for this world. The people who say, "it doesn't count if you don't get caught."

Now, the third group i've mentioned, doesn't get too much of a mention in the New Testament. The latter gets a fair turn in the OT; Jesus' focus seems to be railing agaist the Pharisees for their impenitent hearts, and arrogance due to their nationality and position. The epistles are directed towards the 2nd (Jewish) and 4th (Gentile) groups.

We have good precedents, then, in talking to the 2nd and 4th groups, and a clear goal, in the 1st. I think, however, we find it hard to know what to say to the 3rd. To the "good person". To the honourable, kind, caring, selfless, genuine person.
Who happens to be a non-Christian.



Man, I need to start writing some short, witty posts. Just go to Crikey.com.au and have a look through the videos of the day (especially the Pasha Bulka Transformer, and the iPhone isn't bad either!).

i'm back, with Asaph

1/ apologies for the lack of blogging in the last week (sorry mum and mark)
i've been quite busy, and then i took a week off in the blue mountains. i'm sure byron will oblige with a couple of points for anyone able to guess the lookout point for this photo!
2/ still reading through the Psalms, i've arrived at the offerings of a chap called Asaph. he starts off book three, with psalms 73-83, as well as 50, and possibly that recorded in 1 Chronicles 16, after the Ark of the covenant was brought back to Jerusalem.
he also got the great job of banging the cymbals on the way (along with Heman!), to warn people not to grab it like Uzzah did.

the thing that interested me especially was the progression from 73-83.
please do read on if this interests you!

73 starts of saying he's worried by the prosperity of the wicked, but realises that his strength is in the Lord,

v25-26 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

74 therefore returns to the honour, not of his own self, but of God,

v21-22 Let not the downtrodden turn back in shame;
let the poor and needy praise your name.
Arise, O God, defend your cause;
remember how the foolish scoff at you all the day!

75 is "according to Do Not Destroy"; Israel looks in pretty bad shape, and their enemies may well be closing in, it seems a desperate reminder that they are God's chosen people, and their enemies are not,

v8-9 For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup
with foaming wine, well mixed,
and he pours out from it,
and all the wicked of the earth
shall drain it down to the dregs.
But I will declare it forever;
I will sing praises to the God of Jacob.

76 is a reminder of God's worthiness, of the unworthiness of all others, and after effusive praises,

v11-12 Make your vows to the Lord your God and perform them;
let all around him bring gifts
to him who is to be feared,
who cuts off the spirit of princes,
who is to be feared by the kings of the earth.

77 is a time when things have, it seems, hit rock-bottom,

v2-3 In the day of my trouble I seek the Lord;
in the night my hand is stretched out without wearying;
my soul refuses to be comforted.
When I remember God, I moan;
when I meditate, my spirit faints. Selah

78 then recounts the entire history of God's covenantal relationship with his people, remembering his fidelity despite his people's continual provocation,

v5-8 He established a testimony in Jacob
and appointed a law in Israel,
which he commanded our fathers
to teach to their children,
that the next generation might know them,
the children yet unborn,
and arise and tell them to their children,
so that they should set their hope in God
and not forget the works of God,
but keep his commandments;
and that they should not be like their fathers,
a stubborn and rebellious generation,
a generation whose heart was not steadfast,
whose spirit was not faithful to God.

79, now that God's character has been firmly established, is the plea to him, to redeem them, like in Ps74,

v9 Help us, O God of our salvation,
for the glory of your name;
deliver us, and atone for our sins,
for your name's sake!

80, similarly, pleads for redemption,

v7-8 Restore us, O God of hosts;
let your face shine, that we may be saved!
You brought a vine out of Egypt;
you drove out the nations and planted it.

81, and it seems it's not working. The problem isn't with God, the problem lies in his people,

v13 Oh, that my people would listen to me,
that Israel would walk in my ways!

82 (a favourite with JW's!) compares the God of Israel to the other (false) gods, and illuminates the way those who follow other gods end up treating others (assuming the English punctuation is accurate),

v2-3 How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

83 wraps up this big eleven with a final plea for God to take action, to no longer be silent,

v17-18 Let them be put to shame and dismayed forever;
let them perish in disgrace,
that they may know that you alone,
whose name is the Lord,
are the Most High over all the earth.

i've been trying to think through Asaph's role as David's Psalmist, thinking how it may've worked, what he would be instructing his Psalmist, "quick, the Philistines are coming! write a Psalm we can sing to God reminding him of the covenant."
[...]
"well that obviously didn't work. how about one telling him that it's not about us, but him!"

i don't know if that's quite how it would have worked, how much artistic license the King's Psalmist would have, how much direction etc.

but it is interesting seeing the progression, from 73's, "help us God, you're really good," to the incredulity at God's inactivity in 74, then remembering who he really is in 75-76; a big, all-in plea in 77, and then a reminder to God of his covenantal promises (c/f Exodus 2:23-25?) in 78.
the final five seem quite despondent, although they do seem to recognise the root problem - namely their own sin.

i guess in some ways it goes to show that even over a lifetime of relating to the God of the Universe, there are always going to be the same elements of sin, of asking, "where is God now?" and of singing his praises.

eschatology and restoration

only two days away from my WaSaBI seminar on the above-mentioned topic, subtitled, is it right to say "the Christian hope is to go to heaven when we die"?

my plan is as follows:

why do we think what we think?
and take a look at world histories, and how we get to where we seem to have got to

what actually happens when we die?
we can think thru matrices(!) and a few passages that talk about the now and the not yet

what will be the characteristics of the new heavens and new earth?
looking at a few passages, working out what will be continuous, where the discontinuity is

what is God's goal for creation?
restoration

if we live now for the future because of the past, how does our thinking about the future affect how we live now?

it will be nice to get all this stuff out that has been swinging around in the monkey-bars of my head for so long.
and i hope it should be fun too!
Sunday 24th June, 2:30-4:00pm, Wild St Church Hall, Maroubra

matrices!

i used to be a mathematician.
well, i did lots of maths at high school.
7 units in my final two years, to be precise!

and it may be (unless you include counting animals in the ark), that we finally have a use for maths in Theology!

John Polkinghorne, in his chapter in The End of the World and the Ends of God (Trinity Press, 2000) on Eschatology, suggests that an understanding of matrices may help us understand the nature of the resurrection!


the current state of forgiven sinners is that which is portrayed in the first 20 chapters of John's Revelation.

but what then happens when we die? are we bodiless? do we go do the limbo rock?

Polkinghorne postulates:

What [we] would naturally think of as the vector spaces of the old and new creations could be "alongside" each other, with the continuity of resurrection being the result of a structure-preserving mapping from one space into the other. From this point of view, it would be conceivable that all persons arrive at the general resurrection at the same "time," irrespective of the time of their deaths in this world. (p40)

no limbo, no "sleep", no bodiless resurrection, no playing harps in clouds.

but does it hold water?

the bible was written for me! or was it?

When you're feeling a bit down, reading the Psalms, it's easy to start seeing yourself in them.

When I wept and humbled myself with fasting,
it became my reproach.
When I made sackcloth my clothing,
I became a byword to them.
I am the talk of those who sit at the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about me.
[...]
Hide not your face from your servant;
for I am in distress;
make haste to answer me.
Psalm 69:10-12,14

You start saying - yeah, that's so true. That's exactly what's been happening. It's like it was written just for me, 3,000yrs beforehand!

But then you come across something like this:

Reproaches have broken my heart,
so that I am in despair.
I looked for pity,
but there was none,
and for comforters,
but I found none.
They gave me poison for food,
and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.
Psalm 69:20-21

And then you remember that all of the scriptures point not to you, but to the Christ, the suffering servant King – to Jesus, who fulfilled this on the cross.
He was despised, abandoned, rejected; to top it all off all 4 gospels testify to him being offered sour wine to drink, fulfiling this Psalm. (c/f Matthew27:48, Mark15:36, Luke23:36, John19:29-30)

For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Corinthians 5:21

the problem of evil

are things as good as they can be?
no.
why aren't they?
God uses bad stuff for 3 reasons:

1. as judgement because of sin (c/f isa45:7 dan9, 1cor11:30)
   
2. to discipline us as his children (c/f heb12:10)
   
3. to test/make sure of our faith (c/f 1pet1)

therefore we should be satisfied that God is in control over all, knowing he works all things for good (Rom8:28)

right?
wrong.

reading this article by Matheson Russell, it was good to see his righteous indignation at this "ideology", this apathetic, laissez-faire view of the evil.

Theodicy [This idea of God using evil for good] misrepresents evil by saying that evil is necessary for the good; God is weaving a tapestry and he needs the light and the dark thread to make the picture beautiful. But the analogy won’t wash: while the weaver may need the light and dark threads, the creator of heaven and earth made a world that was good, very good without a drop of blood being spilt. And theodicy puts us in the wrong relationship to evil since it asks us to put our pain, outrage and opposition to one side and to see the bigger picture, the harmonious and rational whole of the universe in which evil has its place. But this does not do justice to victims of pain, loss and injustice. And even more importantly, it doesn’t do justice to the good news of the gospel [...]

and what is the good news of the gospel?
that God is seeking to right the wrongs.
that he will not be content with a world that is self-destructive, consuming itself in hatred.
that no price is too great a price to pay, that this world might be redeemed for that which he purposed it.

mmm. salt.

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet." Matthew 5:13

Jesus here is telling Kingdom people, those living with him as their king, that they're to be the salt of the earth.

now, it has been put to me there are two options for Jesus' use of the word salt here:

as a flavour enhancer, and/or,

as a preservative.

how do we do that?
i'm thinking it's a great idea, but is there not a point at which you're no longer tasting the real food underneath? if i'm eating something (chips are probably the exception here), i want to be tasting what i'm eating. i want to know if whatever i'm tucking into is off. roadkill with lots of salt is still road kill. i'm not saying we're not to be in the world, we are, but we're not to be of the world. we're to show that we are different, that we don't value things which will rust and rot and the moth will eat. so does that pretty much rule out the flavour enhancer idea?

and what of salt being a preservative?
for what are we preserving this decaying world? we're told the heavens and earth will be renewed - isn't it like putting a fresh coat of paint on a wall you're about to bulldoze?

comments? what have i missed?

thru a mirror dimly

... it is as if this story's (Mark's biography of Jesus) method is to possess the reader through its characters, in order to provide a range of mirrors back on the viewing I.

what is the purpose of the scriptures?
what do you like about this quote?
what would you change?

(from John Carroll's The Existential Jesus)

guy dance

CampusBibleStudy's Mid-Year-Conference is on the topic of Guidance. as part of the advertising to this generation, there's a youtube campaign, replete with some very clever vids.
for any napoleon dynamite fans, guy-dance is particularly funny. actually i think only it, and Decisions, Decisions are the funny ones. all the others are interviews and such.
it's at youtube.com/campusbiblestudy
check it out. even better, GO! 16-20 july 2007AD

la science des rêves

wow. top film. the science of sleep, another astonishing film by michel gondry (also eternal sunshine of the spotless mind)

it's one of those movies where you smile almost incessantly throughout! which is great!

one of the toughest nuts to crack, scientifically, would surely have to be the science of dreams. maybe that and homeopathy. or chiropracty! do you ever do that? work out the source of the elements of your dream? why was that person in there - i haven't so much as thought about them in years!

one question i sometimes have is how much our dreams are guidance? to what degree should we take them as divine providence, communication from God - or are they more self-absorbed than all that, ie they're us communicating with ourselves what we want to hear, just making transparent what in waking was opaque.

or simply gobbledygook?

it's interesting seeing the visions of others of our subconscious, movies like the cell (i think with J-Lo?), as well as being john malkovich, which interestingly enough was written by charlie kaufman, who co-wrote eternal sunshine with michel gondry. quite freudian, really!

arrival or attestation?

the questions raised in my short comment below regarding talladega nights have been mulling over in my mind for some days now.

the incarnation of Jesus, the 2nd person of the trinity, born as a baby around 4-6BC, is oft quoted (particularly around Christmas time) as the pinaccle of God's creation.

yet i remain convinced that the resurrection of this self-same man is the attestation of his messiahship, the beginning of the in-reaching of the heavenly realms into this created order; the foreshadowing of what will be brought to it's mighty fulfillment when Jesus returns, when the faithful receive their resurrection bodies. (c/f Rom 1:4, Phil2:5-11, Eph2:16, 3:11, the vibe of Gal, 1Tim4:14 et al, not even going to Hebrews!)

whilst i am still thinking this through, is it too simplistic an answer to wrap this up in saying it's the narrative, the story, mabo, the vibe?

the word, spoken to us through the prophets in the past, which became flesh and dwellt among us, has now sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

jesus is Lord before all time and now and forever. to say that he is only king because of his death and resurrection would be to deny his power in having all things created through him. likewise, it would be to say that when he descends from heaven with a cry of command, that that authority is enabled only because of his death and resurrection.

we cannot summarise our great God in a simple statement of faith, a creed, much less a three-day period in the history of the creation of the creator. what we do have are snippets, fragments of a great tapestry, like this:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. Titus 2:11-14