... 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)