I've been enjoying reading Don Miller's blog lately.
I just read this post where he stuck up a video of Bill Hybels announcing that Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, had pulled out of the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit. Schultz pulled out of the event because of an online protest threatening to boycott Starbucks because Willow Creek is perceived to be anti-gay.
I really appreciated the way Hybels was so gracious to Mr Schultz and even to the people who had started the petition. I also appreciated that he stated Willow Creek's view on homosexuality positively and without judgement.
In contrast to Hybels' comments I saw this on ABC news today. And while obviously biased and heavily edited, I wish Christians didn't say dumb stuff like this in public. (Also see if you can notice Richard Dreyfus sitting next to Bob Katter.)
I hope when people let me down and misrepresent me I can be as gracious as Hybels.
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Christianess. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianess. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Centrality of the Cross: Part Two - Practice
Here is Part Two of my series on the centrality of the cross. Part One is here
Ok. So the cross is central, someone might say, but if you keep mentioning the Cross all the time, what’s to stop it becoming formulaic and just the magic words to keep a service orthodox? Isn't mentioning the cross just religion?
The truth is that anything you want to keep as a defining principle or event, can be mentioned only out of compulsion, or habit but it is not inevitable. I think the trick is to keep asking throughout the life of the church “How does the cross impact on this?” In major times of teaching we must be clearly showing how the cross makes a difference. Let me show you how this works for three different topics, dealing with evil, relating to people of other faiths and responding to the poor.
The Cross and Responding to Evil
In this world we are constantly faced with the reality of evil. We are confronted with war and terrorism on a global scale, violence, rape and neglect in our communities and anger, hurt and abuse in our own lives. The church, if it is truly going to engage with world needs to know how to respond to evil.
Biblically the church will be calling its people to a ministry of reconciliation, of love for enemies and forgiveness. It will also hold firmly to the principle of justice and the fight against evil.
When the church teaches these things without the cross then it either becomes too hard, too soft or the preacher of two irreconcilable ideals.
If the church preaches forgiveness and love without the cross then evil becomes tolerated and the victim’s suffering gets dismissed. Forgiveness comes free and costs nothing. The suffering victim is told to love their enemy and forgive because that’s what Christ taught we should do. The evil doer escapes punishment and the victim must carry the burden of someone else’s sin.
Any justice achieved now will be unsatisfactory. How do you make a people group adequately pay for the acts of genocide they committed against their neighbours? How do you make the rapist adequately pay for violence they committed against someone created in God’s image? How do you make the mother who neglects and verbally abuses her children adequately pay for all the pain they inflict and the future damage they cause? You don’t because you can’t. We are a church that worships a holy God who hates sin. This means that no punishment and vengeance dolled out by earthly authorities will ever make up for the sins committed.
The end point in the fight against evil must be the destruction of the source of evil. If a church preaches justice and the fight against evil without the cross it must fight a battle that it cannot win with a God who is uninvolved. The reality is that all of us are participants in evil, and if we pursue evil to its end, we will pursue it not to the ends of the earth, but to the centre of our hearts. If we are to destroy evil, we must destroy others and we must destroy ourselves. If we were ever to whole-heartedly fight evil outside of the cross we too would just join in the cycle of violence.
In the history of the Church whenever it has been in charge of the state it has almost without fail ended up punishing sin with an iron fist.* Death for the adulterer, the homosexual, the witch and the disobedient child. And in the churches’ pursuit of justice it becomes the committer of evil.
Yet when we face evil in the light of the cross we see a God who hates sin, who punishes sin, who never trivialises suffering, who puts the wicked to death and gives life to the righteous.
At the cross Jesus takes all the wrath of his father heaped upon him. He, the sinless one, has the sins of humanity placed upon him. There on the cross, beaten and naked, he goes through hell and we see just how much God hates sin, that he would kill even his own Son.
He does this so that through him God would be able to forgive the wicked. Here at the cross we see God’s justice as he punishes evil, rebellion and sin. And we see God’s mercy upon the sinner as he offers his grace and forgiveness.
So when the church preaches forgiveness and reconciliation to the victim in light of the cross it does so knowing that God has already forgiven us. We are all perpetrators of evil and the one who we have done evil to, first and foremost, is God. Yet God forgives us and takes all the wrath we deserve upon himself.
When we call on each other to forgive those who sin against us, we do so in the knowledge that God has already forgiven us. But not only that, one way or another, the sin that has been committed against the victim will be dealt with. Either God has punished it at the cross or he will punish it at the end of time. No evil escapes the hand of God. Justice will be done.
At the cross we see how seriously God takes evil. He doesn’t trivialise suffering but shows that it is so serious that only the life of his beloved Son will pay for it. Jesus takes the wicked, gives them a new heart and a righteousness that is his own. The destruction of wickedness need not mean the destruction of the wicked if it is Christ who makes them righteous. Or to put it another way the wicked person is put to death, as they die to sin, and are born again, a new creation in Christ.
The cross shows us our King who is not dead but will one day come to right the world. What he began on the cross he will finish on that last day. The wicked will be judged and the righteous will be vindicated. Judgement will come and it will be great and terrible just as it was at the cross, yet no more will the innocent suffer for sins they did not commit. We will celebrate because we know that the right response to evil is the wrath of a righteous God.
The church can rest assured. The churches’ fight against evil and for justice can march on knowing that the true judge of the world has come and is coming again. The church fights knowing that we do not, and the systems of this world do not, need to be the final reckoning for sin. When we strive for justice we know that because Jesus is taking care of punishment we must strive for fairness and equality; More than that, we strive for love. As the cross shows us love, love becomes our modus operandi. Because of the example and power of the cross we see that our greatest weapon against injustice is love, and we work so that all people might be changed by love, ultimately to have their evil nature put to death, and to be given new life in Christ. Only that power comes through the cross.
When the church centres it’s response to evil in the cross it finds a response that is more compassionate to the sinner and to those who have been sinned against than could be imagined and harder on evil than is thought possible.
The Cross and Interacting with Other Religions
In Australia we are blessed to live in a multicultural society. This means that one of the great challenges to the church in our country will be how we interact with other faiths.
This is even more important given that we, the people of earth, have a history of fighting over religion more than anything else.
For the church to engage in fruitful dialogue with people of other faiths it must hold the cross at the centre of its thinking and its speaking because the cross gives Christianity it’s greatest distinctive, it clearly sets us apart from every other faith.
Often interfaith dialogue seeks to show the similarities between multiple faiths and find areas of commonality so as to build mutual respect because “we are just like you.” This can end up with people praying to the same God, in the same religious services, under the ridiculous notion that all roads lead to the same God. We flush out all the distinctives in an effort to forge better relations with other faiths.
Unfortunately this insults all involved. Dialogue is vitally important, but dialogue never has to mean acquiescing vital tenets of faith in the name of tolerance.
When the church talks to and about other faiths, it must keep the cross front and centre, otherwise how will we know who we are, and how will they know who we are?
No other religion has a God who is so foolish as to let himself be killed by those who he created. No other faith solves the problem of the human heart purely through divine initiative. No other God has saved its people purely out of his own goodness and through no merit of the people.
This being the case the cross gives the Christian, no right to boast. Knowing that salvation comes only through the death and resurrection of a loving God rather than our own goodness, means that we cannot in any way look down upon people of other faiths. The difference between the Christian and the non-Christian is not that the Christian is smarter, better, more special or more moral. The difference is only Jesus, and the faith that he gives.
So as we relate to those of other faiths, the cross will lead us to love them because, just like us, they too need Jesus. As Luther (or someone) said “We are all mere beggars trying to show other beggars where to find bread.” The cross will lead us not to acquiesce the uniqueness of our faith in the spirit of unity and tolerance but to humbly share with people of other faiths a vision of a God of ultimate love and ultimate mercy. Then they will see Christianity clearly, and true inter-faith dialogue can happen. But until we embrace the cross we insult our God who died for us because we hide away his greatest act of love, because of it’s offensive nature, and we insult those we speak to about our faith, because we think they cannot handle the most distinctive part of our faith.
The Cross and the Poor
People will often feel the church should be focusing on sharing Jesus’ love through deeds of justice and mercy. The church has a responsibility to be loving the poor and marginalised. If the church is to stay true to its mission we will be loving the poor.
This emphasis can be seen as being in tension with preaching the cross. We can spend our time in church talking about Jesus or we can spend our time in the community loving like Jesus. It’s a choice between words and actions. If you follow this thinking to its most extreme the only time we should be talking about Jesus we should be talking about him in relation to how we care for the poor.
But the truth is that the best and true motivation for our love for the poor has to come out of the cross. A proper understanding of the cross has to lead to a changed response to the poor.
Without the cross our care for the poor and marginalised becomes about obeying the rules set forth by our teacher, it becomes an exercise in changing our hearts through our actions. The more we love the poor, the more we will be conformed to the likeness of Jesus, and our hearts will be changed and the more we will love the poor. The more we achieve this, the more we will be living in the will of Christ and worthy of his love and honour. It’s a religion of work with ourselves at the centre. We are at the centre because we try and please God with our own goodness and adherence to his values. We are at the centre because we are doing the work that changes our hearts, and hoping this will please God.
But the cross turns that on its head. The cross says that for our sake Christ became poor (2 Cor 8:9). He came, the most rich becoming the most poor. And he poured himself out for a wretched and sinful people, saving them from their own self-imposed, spiritual poverty, making them children of God and giving them, in himself, every spiritual blessing.
The cross shows us a God who has saved us in the greatest act of generosity ever to brighten the universe. Our life comes from a God who has saved us out of his heart, a heart inclined towards the undeserving poor.
Christ has risen to new life giving us a new heart and his power through the Holy Spirit.
We now have a responsibility to be loving the poor and marginalised because we know that we are the recipients of Christ’s love when we were poor. We know that we are only who we are because God had mercy on us when we had nothing.
As a result we live out the teachings of Christ not to change our hearts, or to please our Lord, but because he has given us a new heart and through the power of his Spirit he changes us to be like him and live out his love. We love because we have been loved and received his love. We love the poor out of grace. We love the poor who are undeserving because we are undeserving. We reach out to the lowest, seek out the most lost and go into the places that are darkest because he came searching for us when we were lower, more lost and in greater darkness, and now he empowers us to search and love like him.
Any church that spends all its time talking about the cross but does not see justice and mercy as an outworking of the cross hasn’t really understood the cross. And any church that forgets the cross when talking about the need for loving the poor and marginalised has forgotten where the true locus of power lies in Christianity.
So there are three ways where the cross is played out in giving meaning to the everyday issues Christians face. Jesus Christ, known and preached as our Lord who came, lived, died and rose again for us, must be at the centre of all we do. Without him and his saving work done at the cross through his death and resurrection, we are to be pitied more than all people. I’ll let John Stott bring it home: “To encounter Christ is to touch reality and experience transcendence. He gives us a sense of self-worth or personal significance, because He assures us of God's love for us. He sets us free from guilt because He died for us and from paralysing fear because He reigns. He gives meaning to marriage and home, work and leisure, personhood and citizenship.”
* I haven’t actually done my research and looked up every time the there has been a Christian theocracy in the past two millennia and examined their penal system. But I can think of plenty of examples of the Church gone feral when given the reigns to power.
Ok. So the cross is central, someone might say, but if you keep mentioning the Cross all the time, what’s to stop it becoming formulaic and just the magic words to keep a service orthodox? Isn't mentioning the cross just religion?
The truth is that anything you want to keep as a defining principle or event, can be mentioned only out of compulsion, or habit but it is not inevitable. I think the trick is to keep asking throughout the life of the church “How does the cross impact on this?” In major times of teaching we must be clearly showing how the cross makes a difference. Let me show you how this works for three different topics, dealing with evil, relating to people of other faiths and responding to the poor.
The Cross and Responding to Evil
In this world we are constantly faced with the reality of evil. We are confronted with war and terrorism on a global scale, violence, rape and neglect in our communities and anger, hurt and abuse in our own lives. The church, if it is truly going to engage with world needs to know how to respond to evil.
Biblically the church will be calling its people to a ministry of reconciliation, of love for enemies and forgiveness. It will also hold firmly to the principle of justice and the fight against evil.
When the church teaches these things without the cross then it either becomes too hard, too soft or the preacher of two irreconcilable ideals.
If the church preaches forgiveness and love without the cross then evil becomes tolerated and the victim’s suffering gets dismissed. Forgiveness comes free and costs nothing. The suffering victim is told to love their enemy and forgive because that’s what Christ taught we should do. The evil doer escapes punishment and the victim must carry the burden of someone else’s sin.
Any justice achieved now will be unsatisfactory. How do you make a people group adequately pay for the acts of genocide they committed against their neighbours? How do you make the rapist adequately pay for violence they committed against someone created in God’s image? How do you make the mother who neglects and verbally abuses her children adequately pay for all the pain they inflict and the future damage they cause? You don’t because you can’t. We are a church that worships a holy God who hates sin. This means that no punishment and vengeance dolled out by earthly authorities will ever make up for the sins committed.
The end point in the fight against evil must be the destruction of the source of evil. If a church preaches justice and the fight against evil without the cross it must fight a battle that it cannot win with a God who is uninvolved. The reality is that all of us are participants in evil, and if we pursue evil to its end, we will pursue it not to the ends of the earth, but to the centre of our hearts. If we are to destroy evil, we must destroy others and we must destroy ourselves. If we were ever to whole-heartedly fight evil outside of the cross we too would just join in the cycle of violence.
In the history of the Church whenever it has been in charge of the state it has almost without fail ended up punishing sin with an iron fist.* Death for the adulterer, the homosexual, the witch and the disobedient child. And in the churches’ pursuit of justice it becomes the committer of evil.
Yet when we face evil in the light of the cross we see a God who hates sin, who punishes sin, who never trivialises suffering, who puts the wicked to death and gives life to the righteous.
At the cross Jesus takes all the wrath of his father heaped upon him. He, the sinless one, has the sins of humanity placed upon him. There on the cross, beaten and naked, he goes through hell and we see just how much God hates sin, that he would kill even his own Son.
He does this so that through him God would be able to forgive the wicked. Here at the cross we see God’s justice as he punishes evil, rebellion and sin. And we see God’s mercy upon the sinner as he offers his grace and forgiveness.
So when the church preaches forgiveness and reconciliation to the victim in light of the cross it does so knowing that God has already forgiven us. We are all perpetrators of evil and the one who we have done evil to, first and foremost, is God. Yet God forgives us and takes all the wrath we deserve upon himself.
When we call on each other to forgive those who sin against us, we do so in the knowledge that God has already forgiven us. But not only that, one way or another, the sin that has been committed against the victim will be dealt with. Either God has punished it at the cross or he will punish it at the end of time. No evil escapes the hand of God. Justice will be done.
At the cross we see how seriously God takes evil. He doesn’t trivialise suffering but shows that it is so serious that only the life of his beloved Son will pay for it. Jesus takes the wicked, gives them a new heart and a righteousness that is his own. The destruction of wickedness need not mean the destruction of the wicked if it is Christ who makes them righteous. Or to put it another way the wicked person is put to death, as they die to sin, and are born again, a new creation in Christ.
The cross shows us our King who is not dead but will one day come to right the world. What he began on the cross he will finish on that last day. The wicked will be judged and the righteous will be vindicated. Judgement will come and it will be great and terrible just as it was at the cross, yet no more will the innocent suffer for sins they did not commit. We will celebrate because we know that the right response to evil is the wrath of a righteous God.
The church can rest assured. The churches’ fight against evil and for justice can march on knowing that the true judge of the world has come and is coming again. The church fights knowing that we do not, and the systems of this world do not, need to be the final reckoning for sin. When we strive for justice we know that because Jesus is taking care of punishment we must strive for fairness and equality; More than that, we strive for love. As the cross shows us love, love becomes our modus operandi. Because of the example and power of the cross we see that our greatest weapon against injustice is love, and we work so that all people might be changed by love, ultimately to have their evil nature put to death, and to be given new life in Christ. Only that power comes through the cross.
When the church centres it’s response to evil in the cross it finds a response that is more compassionate to the sinner and to those who have been sinned against than could be imagined and harder on evil than is thought possible.
The Cross and Interacting with Other Religions
In Australia we are blessed to live in a multicultural society. This means that one of the great challenges to the church in our country will be how we interact with other faiths.
This is even more important given that we, the people of earth, have a history of fighting over religion more than anything else.
For the church to engage in fruitful dialogue with people of other faiths it must hold the cross at the centre of its thinking and its speaking because the cross gives Christianity it’s greatest distinctive, it clearly sets us apart from every other faith.
Often interfaith dialogue seeks to show the similarities between multiple faiths and find areas of commonality so as to build mutual respect because “we are just like you.” This can end up with people praying to the same God, in the same religious services, under the ridiculous notion that all roads lead to the same God. We flush out all the distinctives in an effort to forge better relations with other faiths.
Unfortunately this insults all involved. Dialogue is vitally important, but dialogue never has to mean acquiescing vital tenets of faith in the name of tolerance.
When the church talks to and about other faiths, it must keep the cross front and centre, otherwise how will we know who we are, and how will they know who we are?
No other religion has a God who is so foolish as to let himself be killed by those who he created. No other faith solves the problem of the human heart purely through divine initiative. No other God has saved its people purely out of his own goodness and through no merit of the people.
This being the case the cross gives the Christian, no right to boast. Knowing that salvation comes only through the death and resurrection of a loving God rather than our own goodness, means that we cannot in any way look down upon people of other faiths. The difference between the Christian and the non-Christian is not that the Christian is smarter, better, more special or more moral. The difference is only Jesus, and the faith that he gives.
So as we relate to those of other faiths, the cross will lead us to love them because, just like us, they too need Jesus. As Luther (or someone) said “We are all mere beggars trying to show other beggars where to find bread.” The cross will lead us not to acquiesce the uniqueness of our faith in the spirit of unity and tolerance but to humbly share with people of other faiths a vision of a God of ultimate love and ultimate mercy. Then they will see Christianity clearly, and true inter-faith dialogue can happen. But until we embrace the cross we insult our God who died for us because we hide away his greatest act of love, because of it’s offensive nature, and we insult those we speak to about our faith, because we think they cannot handle the most distinctive part of our faith.
The Cross and the Poor
People will often feel the church should be focusing on sharing Jesus’ love through deeds of justice and mercy. The church has a responsibility to be loving the poor and marginalised. If the church is to stay true to its mission we will be loving the poor.
This emphasis can be seen as being in tension with preaching the cross. We can spend our time in church talking about Jesus or we can spend our time in the community loving like Jesus. It’s a choice between words and actions. If you follow this thinking to its most extreme the only time we should be talking about Jesus we should be talking about him in relation to how we care for the poor.
But the truth is that the best and true motivation for our love for the poor has to come out of the cross. A proper understanding of the cross has to lead to a changed response to the poor.
Without the cross our care for the poor and marginalised becomes about obeying the rules set forth by our teacher, it becomes an exercise in changing our hearts through our actions. The more we love the poor, the more we will be conformed to the likeness of Jesus, and our hearts will be changed and the more we will love the poor. The more we achieve this, the more we will be living in the will of Christ and worthy of his love and honour. It’s a religion of work with ourselves at the centre. We are at the centre because we try and please God with our own goodness and adherence to his values. We are at the centre because we are doing the work that changes our hearts, and hoping this will please God.
But the cross turns that on its head. The cross says that for our sake Christ became poor (2 Cor 8:9). He came, the most rich becoming the most poor. And he poured himself out for a wretched and sinful people, saving them from their own self-imposed, spiritual poverty, making them children of God and giving them, in himself, every spiritual blessing.
The cross shows us a God who has saved us in the greatest act of generosity ever to brighten the universe. Our life comes from a God who has saved us out of his heart, a heart inclined towards the undeserving poor.
Christ has risen to new life giving us a new heart and his power through the Holy Spirit.
We now have a responsibility to be loving the poor and marginalised because we know that we are the recipients of Christ’s love when we were poor. We know that we are only who we are because God had mercy on us when we had nothing.
As a result we live out the teachings of Christ not to change our hearts, or to please our Lord, but because he has given us a new heart and through the power of his Spirit he changes us to be like him and live out his love. We love because we have been loved and received his love. We love the poor out of grace. We love the poor who are undeserving because we are undeserving. We reach out to the lowest, seek out the most lost and go into the places that are darkest because he came searching for us when we were lower, more lost and in greater darkness, and now he empowers us to search and love like him.
Any church that spends all its time talking about the cross but does not see justice and mercy as an outworking of the cross hasn’t really understood the cross. And any church that forgets the cross when talking about the need for loving the poor and marginalised has forgotten where the true locus of power lies in Christianity.
So there are three ways where the cross is played out in giving meaning to the everyday issues Christians face. Jesus Christ, known and preached as our Lord who came, lived, died and rose again for us, must be at the centre of all we do. Without him and his saving work done at the cross through his death and resurrection, we are to be pitied more than all people. I’ll let John Stott bring it home: “To encounter Christ is to touch reality and experience transcendence. He gives us a sense of self-worth or personal significance, because He assures us of God's love for us. He sets us free from guilt because He died for us and from paralysing fear because He reigns. He gives meaning to marriage and home, work and leisure, personhood and citizenship.”
* I haven’t actually done my research and looked up every time the there has been a Christian theocracy in the past two millennia and examined their penal system. But I can think of plenty of examples of the Church gone feral when given the reigns to power.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Women in Church Leadership
So over the next few weeks, among other things, I've decided to spend time thinking about women in ministry and what roles are open to women in the church. I've heard a lot of the arguments that are against female eldership in the church. I'm really keen to hear arguments for female eldership.
I know there are a bunch of you readers and friends who think women should be allowed to do everything. I really want to agree with you. I'm finding it difficult to justify biblically.
So convince me. If you use biblical arguments you'll be more convincing.
Right now, if I had to plant a church, I wouldn't have the highest levels of leadership open to women. Should I really rule out half the population?
I know there are a bunch of you readers and friends who think women should be allowed to do everything. I really want to agree with you. I'm finding it difficult to justify biblically.
So convince me. If you use biblical arguments you'll be more convincing.
Right now, if I had to plant a church, I wouldn't have the highest levels of leadership open to women. Should I really rule out half the population?
Friday, July 29, 2011
Father God
I was leaving for work this morning. And as I was walking out of the door I said to my father "Bye God." I can't remember what I was thinking about before that but I'm pretty sure it must have been God. Dad felt that I may have overestimated his role in my life.
Frued would have been pleased.
"The mechanic says, 'If you’re male and you’re Christian and living in America, your father is your model for God. And if you never know your father, if your father bails out or dies or is never at home, what do you believe about God?'" - Chuck Palahniuk, "Fight Club"
I'm happy I both my dads are good. However one is better than the other and would certainly win in a fight.
Frued would have been pleased.
"The mechanic says, 'If you’re male and you’re Christian and living in America, your father is your model for God. And if you never know your father, if your father bails out or dies or is never at home, what do you believe about God?'" - Chuck Palahniuk, "Fight Club"
I'm happy I both my dads are good. However one is better than the other and would certainly win in a fight.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
John Stott - 1921-2011
“The modern world detests authority but worships relevance. Our Christian conviction is that the Bible has both authority and relevance, and that the secret of both is Jesus Christ.” - John Stott
I heard today that John Stott died. It's sad news. John Stott was one of my heros. Over the last ten years I've loved reading his books and listening to his preaching. He has been probably my favourite writer, preacher and theologian since I was introduced to his work in early 2002.
It was reading Evangelical Truth
before starting bible college that I realised there were other people who believed in Jesus the same way I did. What Stott described in the book described how I felt about faith. He spoke about a faith that loved Jesus and held firmly to the Bible. A faith that was real and vibrant and tied to God's personal revelation to us through his Son and his word. I read the book and felt like I had found home.While I never met him, John Stott always struck me as a man who I would like to be like. By all accounts he was humble, gentle and caring. I heard a story once from someone who met him at a conference that at meal times he would only take small amounts. He did this because he knew there were people in the world who didn't have enough to eat, so he would not take more than he needed in solidarity with them.
He had a great heart for the poor and was so influential in the evangelical world in showing that biblical faith is faith that loves the poor and works for justice. He showed that you did not have to sacrifice orthodoxy for justice and mercy.
Most of all he loved Jesus, and that shone through in everything he he wrote and said. He loved to show us Jesus as he showed us his word.
He also loved birds
.I am very thankful for the life and ministry of John Stott. I'm sad that he's no longer here. I very happy for him that there is no where now he'd rather be.
Quote and photo from this blog.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Centrality of the Cross: Part One - Church
I started writing this in February last year. It wasn't meant to be huge. Then it evolved into a monster and I didn't touch it for over a year. Still I didn't want all that typing to go to waste, and I still agree with myself. So I've touched it up a bit and here is part one of my two part series on the centrality of the cross.
When I made my Hillsong post a while ago I mentioned that I thought that it was important that the Cross is mentioned in every church service. In the comments, not one person agreed with me. While this sent me into an apoplectic rage in which I blocked the IP addresses of everyone who disagreed with me and then sent letter bombs to their houses, it also got me thinking about whether or not I was just being a superstitious legalist, as if saying a particular formula of words will make a church service orthodox and pleasing to God. I went to church the next Sunday watching to see if we mentioned the cross. Happily we sung about it, and the Pastor talked about it in his sermon.
But what if it hadn't been mentioned? Would I need to start wondering if my church was a church of heresy? Would I need to sit down with my Pastor and ask him to make sure the church was preaching Jesus?
After thinking about it for a while, I'm still of the view that the cross needs to be talked about and that it should be talked about every week.
I think perhaps what I said about needing to mention the cross in every service in the Hillsong post, needs elaboration. I reckon I need to elaborate for myself, if nothing else.
For starters I want to make clear that when I say the Cross, I mean the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's short hand for the historical event where Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who is God incarnate, was put to death through crucifixion on a Roman cross, only to be physically resurrected on the third day after his death.
This event was a universe shifting occurrence. It's through of this momentous act of God that he makes peace between humanity and himself, by taking the punishment for sin upon himself. And it is out of this act that God draws his children to himself, Christ wins a bride for himself, and the Church is born.
The question is, why do I feel like this needs to be mentioned in church every time we meet together? Is this a requirement of a good church, or just an ideal to be aimed for?
To put it as simply as possible, I think it is out of the Cross that the church finds its identity, and so it needs to be regularly talked about.
But, you might say, I find my identity in where I was born, who my family is, what has happened to me, who my friends are, what job I do, what hobbies I have, what pain I have had to endure, and more. It’s not like I have to mention this every day to remain being who I am. Why should the church have to talk about its defining event every time it meets to retain its identity? Whether you mention defining events or not, they are part of you, nothing will change that.
I guess the difference is between mere history and fact and what you actually value. For instance, the fact that I was once robbed in the street when I was younger, for years had an affect on how I felt in public, and it probably still, to some degree, has an affect on how I respond in situations where I feel threatened. It is an event that is part of who I am. But that said, it’s not an event that I feel particularly attached to, and it not one that I hold on to so it can keep forming who I am.
On the other hand, when I was 18 God called me into full time ministry to young people. This too is a defining event, it has changed the course of my life. Unlike being robbed however, I want this to keep defining who I am. As soon as I forget that call, I forget why I do what I do. When I doubt why I am where I am, and if I really should be living the life I am, I go back to that event and am reminded that “Yes” this is what God called me to. It’s an event I need to keep central because it is important to my identity.
Similarly the cross is a defining event for the church. We need to keep going back to it because it informs who we are and where we’ve come from. For individuals it is important to remain vigilant in telling ourselves the stories that we want to form and inform our identity. For the church it must be doing the same thing. But more so, because a person is only one person only they, the individual, has to decide what events to draw life from, the church is made up of many individuals and all of them have the chance to speak into what should define the church. Deliberately talking about the cross regularly will help everyone in the church remember what is central to who we are. It is our story of value and identity.
Some people will ask, however, why always talk about the cross? There is more to Jesus than the cross. Similarly there is more to the church than the cross. The church needs to be focusing on Jesus rather than just the cross.
My response would be, as I think I responded in the comments, while there is certainly more to Jesus than the cross, there is never less to Jesus than the cross.
Jesus’ teaching is vital for the Christian to know how to live. His miracles point us to the marvellous kingdom that is breaking into this world. His practical love for all people gives us the example we need to go and practically love just like him.
However, it is the death and resurrection of Jesus that sets him apart from all other holy men and wise teachers who have walked the earth. It is the death and resurrection of Christ that sets God apart from the pantheon of gods who are worshiped every day all over the world.
If Jesus did not die and rise again, then his claims of divinity were misguided, and foolish. If he didn’t die and rise again, his assertion that he is the judge of the whole earth is positively foolish. If Jesus didn’t die and rise again, then the life that he calls us to becomes an impossible burden. It is only through the power of the cross that we can live as followers of Christ.
If Jesus didn’t die and rise again, then God has not come to be with us in human form, he has not fully suffered as one of us, and he has not beaten death on our behalf. If Jesus didn’t die and rise again, then God has not graciously taken our sins upon himself, and he is still holding our sins against us, storing up his wrath. He is not a loving and gracious God but an angry or unconcerned God.
There is more to Jesus than the cross, but there is never less to Jesus than the cross. Take out the cross and you have no Christ.
It’s the reason the writers of the New Testament keep coming back to the cross. It’s why Paul says: “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” – 1 Corinthians 2:2
It’s why Peter says: “For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.” – 1 Peter 1:18-21
It’s why the writer to the Hebrews says: “Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant… he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” – Hebrews 9:15, 26-28
The cross is central, it defines our faith, it defines us. It puts us in our rightful place and God in his. It shows us the depths our sin and the greatness of his love. The writers of the New Testament kept coming back to the cross because they understood that there is nothing greater and nothing that helps us see who God is more clearly.
With this in mind we see that the cross is the central point in the defining narrative of the church. Out of the cross the church gains it's existence and identity. Just as any intentional community needs to remember it's defining stories, and reasons for existence, whenever it meets the church needs to be pointing itself back to its point of definition – the cross of Christ.
If we want to teach Jesus clearly, if we want to preach him faithfully, if we want churches that are centred on Jesus, then we need to always centre ourselves on the event that the Bible is centred on and on which Jesus centred himself on; his world changing, life bringing, glory radiating, sacrificial death and resurrection.
In part two I’ll look at how you keep the cross central to your teaching, using the examples of teaching on evil, dealing with other faiths, and care for the poor.
Photo by djking
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Deathly Hallows
***Spoilers contained within***
I went and saw the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 tonight.
It was a fittingly awesome. Very dark. Very serious. It looked spectacular. Ron, Hermione and Harry are competent actors now. And the story is great.
I think one of the things I enjoyed most about this film was the pace. Generally the Harry Potter films have been about cramming as much of the story in as possible. This film they really took their time. Yates allowed for there to be plenty of silence between lines. People didn't spend heaps of time explaining things. We could take time just to watch magical visual effects and the battle of Hogwarts. It made the whole thing feel grander.
One of the things that Harry Knowles pointed out about Transformers 3 is that it takes people 3 seconds to process a shot. Which means that Michael Bay had to slow down his editing in the action sequences so that we didn't get lost. That totally changed up how Bay did action, and it made Transformers' action sequences a whole lot more fluid and comprehendible. I think it made them the best action sequences in the francise.
For Potter, I think it may have had a similar effect. The whole film felt like you could just take your time to absorb everything. It was quite special. I good way to say goodbye.
I must say, I think I may have mentioned it before, but Harry Potter is quite the Christ figure. I came out thinking "Goodness me, JK Rowling has to be a Christian."
And it turns out, she is. She said this after the last book came out "To me, the religious parallels have always been obvious, but I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going." I guess I missed that piece of news.
About her faith she said "It's something I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books." (From here).
It is tempting, as a Christian who works with young people to exploit Harry Potter's obvious Christ connection. And perhaps I will. But that always seems a bit lazy to me. I'd rather be inspired to create art that points people to Jesus and appreciate art that is inspired by Jesus than just use other people's art where Jesus makes a cameo appearance.
I guess, thinking back to where Harry started to where he's come to, it's nice. I remember someone telling me back in 2003 that when Harry Potter ends, he's going to encourage everyone worship Satan. Instead Harry Potter ends by defeating evil through sacrificial love, and not by killing his enemy through being more powerful, but by dying himself. Love wins. And as Lesley pointed out, when Harry dies, where does he end up? Kings Cross. That's pretty spectacular for a book encouraging kids to worship Satan.
Someone must have written an interesting academic thesis on it. I'd like to read it.
Anyway, it's a pretty awesome movie. It ended well. Go see it.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Wisdom
I was listening to an interview with Tim Keller the other day. He talked about how sometimes the issues for mature Christians are not about right and wrong but more wise and less wise. There are decisions we have to make and neither option is sinful, but one is better than the other and we need wisdom to figure out which is best.
I liked that. I feel like I spend a lot of time having to make those types of decisions. Sometimes trying to work out the answer you feel like if you pick wrong, it'll be sinful. But often it won't be sinful, just less wise.
I'd like to be wise.
I liked that. I feel like I spend a lot of time having to make those types of decisions. Sometimes trying to work out the answer you feel like if you pick wrong, it'll be sinful. But often it won't be sinful, just less wise.
I'd like to be wise.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Bin Laden
It's been interesting watching everyone's reactions to the death of Osama. It's rather distressing to see scenes of Americans waving flags and rejoicing in the death of another human. I take no joy in the death of anyone. I have no feeling that justice has been done.
How does shooting and killing Osama make payment for the thousands of lives he took? Death seems too easy. He deserved worse.
However I do feel like his death is an inevitable consequence of a life lived at war with the most powerful nation on earth. I have no dreams of the US capturing him and locking him up and reforming him. The US could not change his heart. They could not bring back the thousands who he killed. They could only take his life. They could only execute their role to be "agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." It was justice done man's way.
Messy problems require messy solutions.
But this isn't really a solution, is it? Terrorism will go on. War and violence will continue. Atrocities will continue on both sides. No one will win.
With this in mind, once again the violence and tragedy of this world points me to the God of this world, who brings justice not through a gun but through a cross. The life of one evil man cannot atone for the lives of the thousands of people he killed. But the life of one innocent God-man can, and does, atone for all the terror and atrocity done and to be done. The killing of an infinite God is justice for the sins of a finite race. And those who put their trust in this cross are put to death with Jesus, that they might also be given new life in the risen Jesus. It's a mercy undeserved through a death undeserved.
But justice does not just come through the cross. And Jesus will come again, and he will wield the sword. He will not let the unrepentant escape with just a simple death. Evil will meet its match.
One way or another the evil will be put to death, either at the cross of Christ, or at the sword of Christ. Justice will be done. Fear will end. Pain will cease. Life will reign. Goodness will prevail. God has won.
But until that day, I will not celebrate the death of the wicked at the hands of the wicked because I know that I too am wicked, and I too deserve a death worse that of being killed by a gun.
I will work for peace in this world. I will seek to do no violence and I will not encourage violence to be done in my name. But when evil is done, and terrible solutions are sought, I will look forward to the new and better world to come.
A new day is coming. God has won.
How does shooting and killing Osama make payment for the thousands of lives he took? Death seems too easy. He deserved worse.
However I do feel like his death is an inevitable consequence of a life lived at war with the most powerful nation on earth. I have no dreams of the US capturing him and locking him up and reforming him. The US could not change his heart. They could not bring back the thousands who he killed. They could only take his life. They could only execute their role to be "agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." It was justice done man's way.
Messy problems require messy solutions.
But this isn't really a solution, is it? Terrorism will go on. War and violence will continue. Atrocities will continue on both sides. No one will win.
With this in mind, once again the violence and tragedy of this world points me to the God of this world, who brings justice not through a gun but through a cross. The life of one evil man cannot atone for the lives of the thousands of people he killed. But the life of one innocent God-man can, and does, atone for all the terror and atrocity done and to be done. The killing of an infinite God is justice for the sins of a finite race. And those who put their trust in this cross are put to death with Jesus, that they might also be given new life in the risen Jesus. It's a mercy undeserved through a death undeserved.
But justice does not just come through the cross. And Jesus will come again, and he will wield the sword. He will not let the unrepentant escape with just a simple death. Evil will meet its match.
One way or another the evil will be put to death, either at the cross of Christ, or at the sword of Christ. Justice will be done. Fear will end. Pain will cease. Life will reign. Goodness will prevail. God has won.
But until that day, I will not celebrate the death of the wicked at the hands of the wicked because I know that I too am wicked, and I too deserve a death worse that of being killed by a gun.
I will work for peace in this world. I will seek to do no violence and I will not encourage violence to be done in my name. But when evil is done, and terrible solutions are sought, I will look forward to the new and better world to come.
A new day is coming. God has won.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Wisdom's Back
Just in time for Soul Survivor and the sex talk, it's a brand old Wisdom with Tabitha. Enjoy.
Comrade Jesus Christ
I bought this t-shirt from Etiko the other day. It arrived this morning. I quite like it, but wearing it makes me feel like I'm on mission for a University Christian group. If I wasn't so theologically conservative I feel like I could wear it and people would say "Wow, yeah, Jesus was the ultimate socialist." However now I feel like I'm a conservative co-opting Jesus from the communists.
Still, I like the shirt.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Facebook and Teenagering
It was Facebook night tonight at youth group. We spent most of the night running around Hornsby trying to catch people pretending to be drug dealers. They were particularly bad drug dealers because they posted clues about their whereabouts on Facebook every few minutes. Despite that, one of the drug dealers managed to stay uncaught anyway. So good on them.
I didn’t get to go hunting though because I needed to monitor base camp and be ready to go out in my ambulance car if there were any emergencies. There weren’t. I also had to stay back and work on my talk. I had virtually no time to work on the talk this week, so it was feeling like a bit of a mess.
Despite my lack of preparedness I had a lot to say. I ended up with a 20-25 minute talk rather than the 10 minutes I had to give it in. I edited a lot.
What struck me this week is how concerned parents are about Facebook. At the beginning of the term we let the parents know what we were speaking on, and each week I’d send an email. No one has said anything about any topic, until this week when suddenly parents were wanting to know what I was saying about Facebook. I guess the concern is that Facebook is a vast world that they can’t control. And the dangers are huge for teenagers. You have issues of bullying, cyber-stalking, inappropriate relationships being formed, inappropriate photos being posted, and then kids just doing things which are generally dumb.
The potential audience for dumbness is massive.
One of the illustrations I did was got the youth to imagine they were in a hall and in that hall was everyone they know, parents, friends, enemies, youth leaders, siblings, teachers, everyone. And then to imagine that also in the room is everyone that everyone they know knows.
Then I got one of the male youth leaders up and got him to put on a bikini (over his clothes). Everyone thought it was very amusing, which it was.
Then I asked the girls to imagine how they would feel if they were standing in that hall, in front of all those people, in their bikini. Awkward. Embarrassed. Uncomfortable.
The boys I then pointed out they they’re likely to do dumb things like get in bikinis too. Of if I had an older audience I would have mentioned getting drunk, and doing dumb stuff at parties. Getting naked. The only naked photos I’ve seen on Facebook are of guys. And we probably don’t want everyone seeing how dumb we are.
The point was when you stick photos of yourself on Facebook, when you make comments on Facebook, when you post stuff, you have a potential audience of thousands. And the maths backs me up.
If you have your privacy settings on Facebook as Facebook recommends the you will have photos you post and photos of you set to be able to be seen by ‘Friends of Friends’.
If you are an average Facebook user, you’ll have 120 friends.
Now say my friend Bill takes a photo of me and posts it on Facebook, and he has his photo settings to ‘Friends of Friends’ too, then with just first degree friends, on average each photo has a potential audience of 240 people.
But because the photo is set to ‘Friends of Friends’ assuming Bill and I have no mutual friends, and none of our mutual friends have mutual friends (extremely unlikely, but it’ll make it easier for the maths) then the potential audience for the photo of me that Bill took jumps from 240 people to 28,800 people (if my maths is right). That is a lot of people.
So if you do something dumb on Facebook, the potential audience for your stuff up is huge.
I think the issue is probably bigger for girls. Guys can do dumb stuff and not too many people will be interested, but we live in a culture that expects girls to be sexy. So sticking photos of yourself in your swimmers or underwear on Facebook is a huge temptation. And if you do that boys (and men) are going to look, and friends of friends are going to look. And there are potentially thousands of people who will look at photos of unsuspecting teenage girls posing on Facebook who didn’t think things through.
The point of my talk tonight was, while Facebook offers us the ability to create a custom built identity and community, it won’t be able to live up to its promise. In Jesus however, we are given an identity that is not created online, is not subject to whether people ‘like’ it or not, it does not get better or worse with our successes and failures online and offline. It is safe and secure in the by the work of Jesus on the cross. And we are brought into a community, a holy nation, a royal priesthood and family of God. And that community is not made up of people you have a loose connection to, it’s made up of people who are your brothers and sisters. In Jesus we have an identity and community that is safe, secure and very healthy.
With that in mind, our difference means that we must live differently. I encouraged the youth to live differently because they are different; to treat Facebook not as a tool to shore up their identity and community but as a tool to love God and love others and to help others love God and love each other.
As Christians, I think if we could grasp that our salvation in Jesus affects our whole life, and our character and identity is shaped by Jesus in every aspect of our lives, we wouldn’t need to have think hard about whether our silly choices in the physical world are going to end up online. Our integrity of life would mean that whatever ended up online from what happened offline would fit in with our character online and offline. It would fit in with the character we portray to our parents, friends, family, teachers, bosses, work mates and perfect strangers.
Social networking puts an end to the double life of the Sunday Christian. Instead of making us stress about what goes online, it should keep us accountable in all our life because anything could go online. It should help us live lives of integrity in every facet of life.
That said my experience of teenagers is that integrity of character isn’t always first priority. Not because they don’t value integrity. In fact I think teenagers value integrity more than many adults. Teenagers seem less willing to accept the duplicity and hypocrisy of daily life that grown ups take as par for the course.
However teenagers are still working out who they are. They aren’t asking “How do I make sure I live consistently in all areas of life?” because they are still asking “Who am I? How should I live?” When they know who they are, then they can work at living consistently. Are they the one who drinks on the weekends, the one who obeys the rules, the one who rebels, who is selfless, who is ambitious, who is seductive, who is reserved, who is fun, who is funny, who is thoughtful, who is kind? They’ll test the various aspects of their character they find coming out to see what fits. They’ll ask, what brings peace, what brings comfort, what brings happiness. When they find the character traits that fit then they’ll start asking questions about integrity.
So back to Facebook, when teenagers are discovering and forming their character, Facebook becomes a vast stage for them to test their boundaries, and discover their character and having a couple of hundred people there they can give you instant feed back about the character you’re building. And while this can be potentially harmless, it can also be very detrimental. Facebook can be a permanent record of unthinking moments. One dumb Saturday night, which in the past could be forgotten or just remembered by the few who had to carry you home, can be kept for posterity, a permanent witness that people, friends and strangers are going to interpret however they want, and most won’t interpret the night in light of lessons learnt and character built.
I guess all this musing really just leads me to conclude that we need to be helping teenagers use Facebook well. We need to encourage them to live with integrity. To be living out the character traits of who they want to be rather than who they are discovering they are.
I think older people need to be feeding back online and offline to younger people about what they value in them and what they appreciate, so that they can form a character that isn’t just shaped by the feedback of their peers, which while important will only be one perspective.
Christian teenagers need to be taught to have their identity and community thoroughly grounded in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus so that they can live differently out of that reality. If that can happen, not matter what happens online, no matter what mistakes they make, no matter what dumbness they do, they will have something deeper to hold onto, a way of living that stems from something other than just peer opinion and a character that is rooted in an identity that goes beyond any social network.
The question is though, how do we do that?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sex Tips
It's Soul Survivor seminar time. I'm down to do four seminars. I'm pretty sure that's the most I've ever done at Soul.
I'm doing The Bible Makes Me Giggle Parts 1 and 2, Ten Reasons Not to Become a Christian (that one is like 4 years old now) and one more. It turns out they loved my sex talks so much last year that I'm down to do another one. I called it Sex Tips from a Single Guy because I thought it'd be a funny title. But now I have to think of sex tips for 13-16 year olds that don't involve having sex. Like I'm not going to be giving anyone advice on foreplay or good positions. I'm planning on talking about how they can get in-tune with God's view of sex so they go into marriage with a healthy view of sex.
The two that I have so far are:
- Don't get pornified - i.e. don't let porn and dictate how you should behave or look or how you should expect other people to behave or look.
- Think about sex hard and often - following on from the porn one, I think young people need to be re-educated in a healthy view of sex based on the Bible, which doesn't degrade women, men or sex. To do that people are gonna have to think spend a lot of time thinking through what sex is, isn't and should be.
And that's all I got.
So blog friends, I'm hoping that you'll be willing to give me some sex tips that I can share with my friends.
Thoughts?
I'm doing The Bible Makes Me Giggle Parts 1 and 2, Ten Reasons Not to Become a Christian (that one is like 4 years old now) and one more. It turns out they loved my sex talks so much last year that I'm down to do another one. I called it Sex Tips from a Single Guy because I thought it'd be a funny title. But now I have to think of sex tips for 13-16 year olds that don't involve having sex. Like I'm not going to be giving anyone advice on foreplay or good positions. I'm planning on talking about how they can get in-tune with God's view of sex so they go into marriage with a healthy view of sex.
The two that I have so far are:
- Don't get pornified - i.e. don't let porn and dictate how you should behave or look or how you should expect other people to behave or look.
- Think about sex hard and often - following on from the porn one, I think young people need to be re-educated in a healthy view of sex based on the Bible, which doesn't degrade women, men or sex. To do that people are gonna have to think spend a lot of time thinking through what sex is, isn't and should be.
And that's all I got.
So blog friends, I'm hoping that you'll be willing to give me some sex tips that I can share with my friends.
Thoughts?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
It's Voting Time Again
So I had a coffee today with one of my friends who is a staunch Liberal supporter. I always enjoy meeting up with him because politically we tend to disagree on almost everything while theologically we agree on almost everything. It's always amazing to me that two people can have such similar views of faith, and of what we want the final outcome in society to be, and such vastly different views on how to get there. We have very enjoyable conversations. I like people who can disagree and argue their case well. I think he argues better than me. One day he could be Prime Minsiter. I hope so.
At one stage I mentioned that I'd consider voting Greens in this state election. I wasn't saying that I was voting Greens, merely expressing that I was an undecided voter and I like some of the Green policies. Anyway, he was pretty firm in letting me know that voting Green is a terrible idea for a Christian. He was telling me that the Australian Christian Lobby doesn't support any party they just tell you not to support the Greens. Good Christians don't vote Greens.
I often think about how in politics the Christian is generally faced with the issue of choosing between voting for conservative parties which are strong on individual morality, or the leftist parties which are strong on corporate morality. No parties seem to be able to handle being both, from a Christian point of view.
Anyway, I'm not sure who to vote for this state election. I told him he was allowed to send me whatever he wanted to show why I shouldn't vote Greens.
Meanwhile, I'm gonna try and work out who to vote for. This state election is even more uninspiring than the federal, which is a real shame because I like politics when you have good choices to make. Feel free to give me some voting advice.
I was going to vote for my friend Chris Simpson but it turns out I miss out on his electorate by a street. But if you're in Willoughby, I reckon, vote for Chris, he's a good guy, and he's not a Green.
At one stage I mentioned that I'd consider voting Greens in this state election. I wasn't saying that I was voting Greens, merely expressing that I was an undecided voter and I like some of the Green policies. Anyway, he was pretty firm in letting me know that voting Green is a terrible idea for a Christian. He was telling me that the Australian Christian Lobby doesn't support any party they just tell you not to support the Greens. Good Christians don't vote Greens.
I often think about how in politics the Christian is generally faced with the issue of choosing between voting for conservative parties which are strong on individual morality, or the leftist parties which are strong on corporate morality. No parties seem to be able to handle being both, from a Christian point of view.
Anyway, I'm not sure who to vote for this state election. I told him he was allowed to send me whatever he wanted to show why I shouldn't vote Greens.
Meanwhile, I'm gonna try and work out who to vote for. This state election is even more uninspiring than the federal, which is a real shame because I like politics when you have good choices to make. Feel free to give me some voting advice.
I was going to vote for my friend Chris Simpson but it turns out I miss out on his electorate by a street. But if you're in Willoughby, I reckon, vote for Chris, he's a good guy, and he's not a Green.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Top Two
I was at a school today and I saw a year four kid come up to his chaplain and say "Excuse me, what do you think God's top two favourite things to do are? I'll tell you what I think; I think it's loving people and inventing stuff."
I'm pretty inclinded to agree. Quite the theologian that kid.
I'm pretty inclinded to agree. Quite the theologian that kid.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Christians and Government Aid
I read this blogpost on Ed Stetzer's blog about how huge amounts of evangelicals in the US are in favor of cutting foreign aid, welfare, unemployment benefits and education in the federal budget, as opposed to spending on the military and security.
I don't understand how a Christian can arrive at a view like that. Like if you said to Jesus "Should the government spend $10 on clean water for an African village or should it buy some bullets?" I feel like I know what Jesus' answer would be.
But Stetzer poses the question about how the church should be responding to the talk of the federal budget and the responses he got were enlightening.
Basically, the people who were in favour of budget cuts to aid and education seem to be saying that it's wrong for the Christian to be outsourcing their individual responsibility to help the poor to the government. Christians should be changing the world, not getting their government to do it for them. When we support aid we're just avoiding what we should be doing ourselves.
Now this idea makes more sense than just saying "Stuff poor people, let's buy tanks!" (Though tanks are awesome!)
The advantages to aid coming from the church and individuals is that it can bypass the government's political agenda, money doesn't have to be spent on propping up government backed dictators, or doing aid work to ultimately benefit the donor country. It means that aid can go where it's needed, with no agenda or a gospel agenda. Both agendas I think would be more appealing to Jesus.
However my view is that if the government is going to take the money that God has entrusted me with then I would like them to be spending it on things that seem to be more in-line with God's Kingdom values that nuclear submarines. Plus as a member of a democracy when the government that represents me spends money they do it on my behalf. So it is my responsibility to urge them to spend the money on the things that align with my values. As a Christian that falls more in the camp of aid and education than national security. I'm not shirking my responsibility by seeking that my government helps the poor and marginalised, I'm fulfilling it. And with the money that is left over after tax I still have a responsibility as a Christian to spend my money on helping the poor and marginalised. It's not either/or, it's both.
That's what I think. I might put some of that in a comment.
Anyway, what I am pleased about is that now I have a better understanding of why people disagree with government aid and it's not as loony as it first seemed.
I don't understand how a Christian can arrive at a view like that. Like if you said to Jesus "Should the government spend $10 on clean water for an African village or should it buy some bullets?" I feel like I know what Jesus' answer would be.
But Stetzer poses the question about how the church should be responding to the talk of the federal budget and the responses he got were enlightening.
Basically, the people who were in favour of budget cuts to aid and education seem to be saying that it's wrong for the Christian to be outsourcing their individual responsibility to help the poor to the government. Christians should be changing the world, not getting their government to do it for them. When we support aid we're just avoiding what we should be doing ourselves.
Now this idea makes more sense than just saying "Stuff poor people, let's buy tanks!" (Though tanks are awesome!)
The advantages to aid coming from the church and individuals is that it can bypass the government's political agenda, money doesn't have to be spent on propping up government backed dictators, or doing aid work to ultimately benefit the donor country. It means that aid can go where it's needed, with no agenda or a gospel agenda. Both agendas I think would be more appealing to Jesus.
However my view is that if the government is going to take the money that God has entrusted me with then I would like them to be spending it on things that seem to be more in-line with God's Kingdom values that nuclear submarines. Plus as a member of a democracy when the government that represents me spends money they do it on my behalf. So it is my responsibility to urge them to spend the money on the things that align with my values. As a Christian that falls more in the camp of aid and education than national security. I'm not shirking my responsibility by seeking that my government helps the poor and marginalised, I'm fulfilling it. And with the money that is left over after tax I still have a responsibility as a Christian to spend my money on helping the poor and marginalised. It's not either/or, it's both.
That's what I think. I might put some of that in a comment.
Anyway, what I am pleased about is that now I have a better understanding of why people disagree with government aid and it's not as loony as it first seemed.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Gay Marriage and Sexual Discrimination
I have tried to avoid blogging about gay marriage, but Dicker just wrote a good post on it which you should read, so I just thought I'd agree.
My general feeling is I'm quite happy for homosexual marriage to be allowed. Christians don't own marriage and I don't think we have the right to dictate who gets married and who doesn't. It's silly for us to impose our morality on a bunch of people who don't agree with our beliefs.
I do think that Churches should have the right to not marry homosexual couples. We shouldn't be forced to sanction something which we fundamentally disagree with.
What I'm wondering is, does the church currently have the right to discriminate against hetrosexual couples who want to get married? Could my pastor refuse to marry a couple who formed as an adulterous relationship? Could they refuse to marry someone who got divorced but didn't meet the Biblical guidelines for divorce? I assume they can, but I wonder if that will always be the case.
It's interesting that there is an article in SMH today about religious organisations fighting to maintain their rights to hire and fire in relation to the moral (particulaly sexual) behaviour of their employees and potential employees.
The writer seems pretty outraged that religious organisations would be so callous as to destroy someone's career because of an adulterous relationship even if their sexual conduct isn't directly related to their job. But I think if the religious institutions make clear the standards of behaviour expected from the outset they should be allowed to decide who they do and don't employ if it's vital to their faith.
If the NRL can fire or suspend a footballer for bad sexual conduct, though their sex life has nothing to do with how well they play football, then religious organisations should have similar rights, even if their standards of behaviour are a little more exacting.
Anyway, I'm sure there's something here for everyone to disagree with. But thems are my thoughts.
My general feeling is I'm quite happy for homosexual marriage to be allowed. Christians don't own marriage and I don't think we have the right to dictate who gets married and who doesn't. It's silly for us to impose our morality on a bunch of people who don't agree with our beliefs.
I do think that Churches should have the right to not marry homosexual couples. We shouldn't be forced to sanction something which we fundamentally disagree with.
What I'm wondering is, does the church currently have the right to discriminate against hetrosexual couples who want to get married? Could my pastor refuse to marry a couple who formed as an adulterous relationship? Could they refuse to marry someone who got divorced but didn't meet the Biblical guidelines for divorce? I assume they can, but I wonder if that will always be the case.
It's interesting that there is an article in SMH today about religious organisations fighting to maintain their rights to hire and fire in relation to the moral (particulaly sexual) behaviour of their employees and potential employees.
The writer seems pretty outraged that religious organisations would be so callous as to destroy someone's career because of an adulterous relationship even if their sexual conduct isn't directly related to their job. But I think if the religious institutions make clear the standards of behaviour expected from the outset they should be allowed to decide who they do and don't employ if it's vital to their faith.
If the NRL can fire or suspend a footballer for bad sexual conduct, though their sex life has nothing to do with how well they play football, then religious organisations should have similar rights, even if their standards of behaviour are a little more exacting.
Anyway, I'm sure there's something here for everyone to disagree with. But thems are my thoughts.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Sin?
Here's my theological question for the week:
If Jesus decided not to die on the cross, would it have been a sin?
Someone on camp asked me and I'm still thinking it through.
If Jesus decided not to die on the cross, would it have been a sin?
Someone on camp asked me and I'm still thinking it through.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
I'm off a boat
Last year I went on Sailing Camp and if you believe the revisionist history I'm currently revisionising, I became an expert sailor.
This year I went to speak on the same camp again. And despite my brilliant skills of sailing, I didn't manage to sail once. Which seems a little like going to Africa and not going on safari, which I also did. I did want to go sailing, but things got in the way. Like on the first day I canoed because there wasn't enough room on the boats. The second day I was doing canoeing again, but then a kid cut his finger on an oyster. I was tasked with ambulance driving, so another leader and I spent 4 hours in Wyong hospital with him. In the end he didn't even get a stitch, it was a little disappointing. We did get to eat McDonalds though, so we'll call it even.
The next day I took a girl to the medical centre to get a tetanus shot after she was also attacked by an oyster, which meant I didn't sail that day either. On the last two days of sailing, I stayed on land because they needed extra leaders there. So the lack of sailing was a little sad, I enjoy sitting out on those boats. Especially on the hot days.
Despite the lack of nautical adventures, I did have a pretty good camp. There were almost 70 kids on the camp which made it almost at capacity. I had trouble getting to meet all the kids. Still they all met me. One of the things about being speaker is that everyone feels like they know you better than you feel like you know them and it's probably true. So hopefully people felt like I had interacted with them even if I hadn't got to do it much face to face.
Best of all about the camp was that there were 12 kids who put up their hands to say they became Christians after the talks. I'm pretty sure it was a worthwhile camp.
Next year though, if I'm there, "I'm on a boat!"
This year I went to speak on the same camp again. And despite my brilliant skills of sailing, I didn't manage to sail once. Which seems a little like going to Africa and not going on safari, which I also did. I did want to go sailing, but things got in the way. Like on the first day I canoed because there wasn't enough room on the boats. The second day I was doing canoeing again, but then a kid cut his finger on an oyster. I was tasked with ambulance driving, so another leader and I spent 4 hours in Wyong hospital with him. In the end he didn't even get a stitch, it was a little disappointing. We did get to eat McDonalds though, so we'll call it even.
The next day I took a girl to the medical centre to get a tetanus shot after she was also attacked by an oyster, which meant I didn't sail that day either. On the last two days of sailing, I stayed on land because they needed extra leaders there. So the lack of sailing was a little sad, I enjoy sitting out on those boats. Especially on the hot days.
Despite the lack of nautical adventures, I did have a pretty good camp. There were almost 70 kids on the camp which made it almost at capacity. I had trouble getting to meet all the kids. Still they all met me. One of the things about being speaker is that everyone feels like they know you better than you feel like you know them and it's probably true. So hopefully people felt like I had interacted with them even if I hadn't got to do it much face to face.
Best of all about the camp was that there were 12 kids who put up their hands to say they became Christians after the talks. I'm pretty sure it was a worthwhile camp.
Next year though, if I'm there, "I'm on a boat!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
