You talkin' to me?

Miracles and Christian Ministry #1

2009-04-02T09:27:00.002+11:00

Me: How do you think we can build up attendance at our evening congregation?
Congregation member: Signs and wonders, miraculous happenings…that’ll work.

It was hard to gauge the seriousness of this comment when it was made to me after one Sunday service, but after further conversations I am convinced that for some of my friends, signs and wonders are held to be a valid and expected part of Christian ministry. Recent history teaches us that my friends are not alone in holding these expectations. Back in the 1980’s John Wimber of the Vineyard movement promoted ‘power evangelism’ with its miraculous wonders as a model for Christian ministry; people will come to faith through hearing the word and seeing God ‘show up’ with various acts of supernatural power. Since this expectation is still held by some brothers and sisters (who may or may not be aware of John Wimber’s thought), I think it's time to engage with these views and to provide a way of understanding the place of the miraculous in our weekly ministry...

Leadership lessons from the Kitchen

2009-01-05T13:27:00.003+11:00

I was watching Bloomberg TV yesterday when on came an interview with Laurent Tourondel, executive cheff at BLT Steak, NYC. Interesting to hear this entrepreneur’s reflections about opening a new venture in a tough environment:

1. His first step was to walk around the suburb and get the feel for the place. This was a significant step given the space he was about to put the restaurant in had played host to four failed eateries (yes four!) in the immediate past. The interviewer said "Didn't that history scream out 'don't start up here!'?" Tourondel's response was insightful...

2. He spoke about how many restaurants fail because they are based around a concept which doesn't mix with the area. The space he was looking to start up in was near a business district with lots of men making high powered, high testosterone deals, so he thought a steak house would do well. This was a departure from Tourondel's own seafood background.

3. He mentioned that the other model for success is to become a 'destination' restaurant; a place where people will come despite the distance and immediate surrounds. This approach was much harder, and requires something really special.

Now as I'm listening to this, I was struck by how relevant all this is to those leading Christian ministries, especially those church planting. I was also reminded how many of these observations have already been made by some of our current church gurus; Driscoll and Keller both talk about the importance of walking around your suburb to get a feel for the culture. But the idea of matching a venture's concept with its context is intriguing. The idea of cultural relevance is not new; the homogenous unit principle has been kicking around churches for decades now, and there are growing numbers of us who love to find new ways to use new media to reach new people. But there is something just a little sharper in what Tourondel is describing. Does our suburb/city/country suggest a concept which we can structure our church communities around? Of course the main concept - the gospel - has already been given to us, but is there room for another thread with which we can earmark our church life, a thread which connects with those living around us? Note that Tourondel was also happy to change styles to provide something which would appeal to those around him.

I was also interested to hear of the distinction between a fruitful local venture and a ‘destination’ restaurant. I wonder what that extra something is?

Hi Roger

2009-01-05T13:24:00.002+11:00

The dead shall indeed rise.
Let the readers (all two of you) understand.

The humility of Thomas

2008-04-04T15:59:00.003+11:00

John 20.26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

When I read this story the thing I often wonder is this: How would I feel if I were Thomas? I think I would probably feel embarrassed. I mean, Thomas has been caught out in his skepticism here hasn’t he? He is so adamant that he will not believe unless certain conditions are met—he wants to see the nail marks, he wants to see the hole in Jesus’ side—and Jesus comes along and says “Ok, you asked for it. Here it is.” Have you ever been caught out like that? When you’ve been so sure of yourself only to be shown to be totally wrong? He could have felt quite foolish. Or he could have become quite indignant. “Oh come on Jesus, you appeared to the others, how come you didn’t appear to me? You’ve set me up Jesus. You gave me the harder task of believing without seeing” But look at how he responds, “My Lord and my God!” No protest, no dummy spit. Thomas simply responds in complete humility…“My Lord and my God”.

Sometimes the reason we don’t believe is not so much about evidence but about how we will look if we start believing. Some might think “I’ve been a skeptic for so long, I’m not about to change now. In fact, it’s a little hypocritical to start believing when I’ve lived my whole life in disbelief.” There is no shame in humbly accepting the testimony that Jesus has been raised from the dead. Thomas could have maintained his stubborn disbelief, but in humility he accepted the facts as they were presented to him. No matter how stubborn we have been in the past, no matter how entrapped we feel by our own history of skepticism, it’s never too late to look to the resurrected Jesus and to say with Thomas, “My Lord and my God!”

"No one is blind in heaven..."

2007-11-25T00:23:00.000+11:00

That's the quote of the evening, from Maxine McKew, who at this point looks like she might take the federal seat of Bennelong, making John Howard only the second serving Prime Minister to lose his seat in an election. Yikes. The quote comes from a 90 year old blind nun in McKew's electorate. Not a great deal of context was given as McKew recalled the very true words of hope from the elderly woman; they were part of a speech where McKew related some of her personal highlights from the campaign. But it was a nice reminder of the 'second kingdom' of which we are a part.

It's been a while since posting but I blame the following things:

- A new girlfriend (Jasmine herself says "I've replaced the blog! I've replaced the blog!");
- Facebook;
- College exams;
- Martin Luther (on whom I was writing a project/thesis thing).

So now that I have finished that enormous trial of mental endurance and godliness which is Moore Theological College, what am I going to do? Get back to blogging of course. Issues to write about include:

1. Some things which were stimulated by the hundreds and hundreds of pages of Luther which I read over the last 4 months;
2. Some thoughts on singleness which were actually stirred by some ethics lectures we had at college last year;
3. Some stuff on my College experience;
4. A theology of happiness (what the heck was I thinking? Goodness me...)

But its been a while, so I might still be talkin', but is anyone listnin'?

On the couch with St Paul #1

2007-08-11T14:13:00.001+10:00

Interesting article in the Good Weekend today. All about 'positive psychology', a developing practice where psychologists and therapists are focusing their energies on uncovering those attitudes and environments which lead to feelings of happiness as opposed to feelings of sadness and depression. Kinda like a preventative psychology, a move away from the common practice of dealing with the problem (like finding treatments for depression) and instead helping people create lives where happiness and contentment are fostered in an effective and ongoing way. Their initial findings indicate that helping others (surprise surprise) is an important element in becoming happy, although the ultimate measure of ones approach to life is still centred on the self: I help others because it makes me feel good. Still, it got me thinking...

As the article pointed out, the pursuit of happiness has always been a focus of psychology; it's just that now some practitioners are being a little more proactive in helping people 'learn happiness' rather than just helping them to not be as sad as they might be. But the fact that happiness has always been a concern of psychology (and philosophy) indicates that it has always been a concern of humanity. So reading this article I was left wondering: "Surely as the Church we must have profound and helpful things to say about happiness and contentment. Surely we can provide some kind of answer to the questions that are driving those looking for answers in 'positive psychology'". It was interesting to note that those interviewed in the article didn't want to provide a 'religious' answer to happiness (even though religious ideas formed part of their research data). But can't we afford to be a bit more positive about what a NT faith can offer the individual and society in terms of ideas about happiness?

I suspect that many churches have failed to really hit this squarely on the head. Some speak a lot about happiness and fulfilling your potential but do so in a theologically naive way. It is my contention that such an approach only causes damage in the long run. Others seem to view NT faith in a way which uses lots of negative expressions "The Gospel is about our sin; the first thing to say about humanity is about how sinful we are; church is all about service and duty". It is fast becoming my view that this approach is also theologically naive, and can truncate our enjoyment of the Christian life while exposing the sad fact that we don't actually have much too say about happiness.

So this is what I'm planning to do. I want to start to explore and build up a theology of happiness. I feel that in doing so not only will we enrich the spiritual lives of our churches but we will also open up another avenue into the world of those outside our communities. People want to be happy. Surely we can say something to them which goes beyond the glib soundbites of an underdeveloped theology. The first step will be to put some theological pegs in the ground...

10 points for the first to tell me what this picture is of.

Church and Spirit #5

2007-07-25T22:53:00.001+10:00

Not only is a Spiritual church guided by the word of God and bound by the Spirit of peace, but a Spiritual church is also equipped by God with people who have various abilities; abilities which are empowered by the Spirit and used by Christ to care for and guide his Church.

Ephesians 4.11-13
11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Often these abilities are referred to as the “gifts of the Spirit”, because as we learn in 1 Corinthians it’s through the Spirit that Jesus grants these abilities to people as gifts for the Church. Much could be said about these gifts, and in our remaining time we cannot do justice to all that the Bible has to say on the matter. So I just want to point out one thing from verse 11 about these gifts of the Spirit: different people have been given different abilities. Jesus has granted some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers. Earlier in Chapter Four, in verse 7, Paul writes that:

to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.

Jesus grants each of us a certain role to play. We won’t have the capacity or ability to everything, but we will have the opportunity to do something. Jesus has given each of us a portion to play in his ministry through the church and because each of us has a portion, that means there are two mistakes we can make. Either we can think that it’s up to us to do everything, or we can think that it’s up to someone else to do everything. Some of us need to let go of holding all the responsibility within our congregation. The Holy Spirit doesn't work through just one person, he works through all of us. Alternatively some of us need to get on with the job of picking up various responsibilities. The minister can’t do everything, the church committee can’t do everything, but we all can do something. If you’re wondering what that thing is, then speak to John Hooton,* he will tell you! But this is the way the Church works: it’s through the Holy Spirit that Jesus guides us, unites us and also quips us to work effectively as his Church.

So what church should our new immigrant look for? A church where the members are each taking a part in the ministry of the church. A church where the twin evils of egotism and apathy are replaced by teamwork. What church should we be? A church where we each accept the portion of the Spirit’s work which we have been given. A church where we put that portion into action. A church not unlike the church that Richard Johnson started back in the first days of the colony.

We started by talking about what it would have been like going to church back in the days of early European settlement when Richard Johnson was the only chaplain. From what historical evidence we have it seems that Richard Johnston tried his best to build a church which was Spiritual in the way we have seen this morning. When he arrived he brought with him 500 bibles to give away; it seems as if he knew that the Spirit authored Scriptures were an essential part of doing church. And one of the convicts who experienced the ministry of Johnson wrote about the sickness endured by the convicts of the colony, reporting that:

few of the sick would not have recovered if it was not for the kindness of the Reverend Mr Johnson, whose assistance out of his own stores makes him the physician of both soul and body.

It seems as if Johnson knew that the church ought to live by putting others first. And Johnson himself wrote about his plans to raise other workers up to teach the children of the young colony; he knew that the church’s work was a team effort, with each member bringing something to the community. In short Richard Johnson knew what a Spiritual church looked like: It was a church guided by Scripture; it was a church focused on others; it was a church where each person receives and gives back their portion. May Christ mould us into a church like this through the power of his Holy Spirit. Amen.

* John Hooton is the minister with special responsibility for Emmanuel Church Glenhaven, a church within the Anglican Parish of Castle Hill where I work on Sundays.

Church and Spirit #4

2007-07-19T17:24:00.000+10:00

Our newly arrived Australian should not only look for the central place of Jesus ruling through Scripture, she should also look for a church which is united by the Spirit.

Ephesians 4.2-3
2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

Let’s think back to the body metaphor for a moment. The image of the church being a body teaches us that Jesus is our head, our leader. But it also teaches us that as a church we are all connected. We each have the same Holy Spirit dwelling in each of us. To extend Paul’s image we could say that if Jesus is the head then the Spirit is like the central nervous system, coordinating all the parts of the body so that they work in unison. And one of the symptoms of a properly functioning church body is whether we are maintaining peace within our relationships:

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

I remember hearing a story about a church undergoing a building project, and this church ended up divided over the issue of where to put the port-a-loos for the workmen. One party within the church thought that the port-a-loos should be out the front where the workmen could access them; the other group thought it was just too ugly to have the toilets out the front and they wanted them out the back. This dispute divided the parish council for up to six months. People left the church over that matter and it became really quite tragic in the end. In a spiritual church issues such as where to put the port-a-loos should never reach that stage – that’s the very opposite of living at peace – and if we recognize that the Holy Spirit is in each of us, then it should be a top priority to demonstrate that unity in our relationships with one another.

And Paul knows that this will take some work. Have a look at verse two:

completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.

Maintaining the bond of peace will mean being patient with each other, it will mean overlooking those things which irritate us, that’s what it means to bear with one another in love. Sometimes it’s so easy to become frustrated with people: “That person over there, she’s always voicing her opinion. That guy is so unreliable. This woman only ever thinks of herself, and he is just plain rude…” But a Spiritual church will always seek to maintain the bond of peace, recognizing the unity which have: a unity given by the Holy Spirit, a unity which sees us bearing with one another in love and patience.

There’s a story about General William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army. The story is set at the end of the General’s life when he was due to make one final public appearance at the North American Salvation Army Convention. But when the time came for the General to give his address, he’d become ill and so he couldn't deliver his speech, so he sent a telegram instead. And so word spread that the General was sick, but that he’d sent one last telegram to the convention; a final message containing his last words to the movement which he had founded. And so on the last day of the convention the chairman opened up the telegram and read out the General’s final charge. The telegram contained just one word: Others. General Booth knew what a Spiritual church looked like. A Spiritual church is a church with is other-person centered. A church which is humble and gentle. A church which is patient. A church which bears with one another in love.

What should our new immigrant look for in a church? A church where disputes don’t drag on, and where forgiveness and reconciliation flow freely. What kind of Church should we be? A church which strives to be patient. A church where we have each determined to overlook the irritating habits of others; where personality faults are no barrier to fellowship. A church demonstrating the unity which the Spirit brings.

So a Spiritual church is ruled by Christ through his Spirit-authored word and it’s seeking to live out the unity created by the Spirit. However there’s one other thing we’ll say characterises the Spiritual church…

Church and Spirit #3

2007-07-17T16:55:00.000+10:00

This is where our main theme emerges. Remember when Jesus was saying goodbye to his disciples. “I will not leave you as orphans” he promised them (John 14.18). And so at Pentecost (Acts 2) the Holy Spirit came and the enabled the church to stay faithful and to proclaim Jesus’ name. Jesus stayed with the disciples through the Holy Spirit. And so the way Jesus rules and guides the church is through his Holy Spirit. In particular we can say that Jesus rules through the Bible which is a product of the Holy Spirit’s work; 2 Peter 1.20-21 describes the Bible's content as men speaking from God as they are carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So these leather bound words not just mere human words; they’re the words of Jesus as spoken by his Holy Spirit, they’re words of power, they're words which change lives. I’m not sure whether you still expect things to happen when you read the Bible: whether you expect to be comforted; whether you expect to be changed as people. I think we should! Scripture is a divine word which is transforming. Expect that you will be affected by it. Pray that you would be affected by it. It’s a powerful word and it’s an authoritative word. As the word spoken by the Holy Spirit it’s the word by which Jesus still rules his church today. Jesus is the head of the Church, and he exercises that headship through the Scriptures.

So what Church should our immigrant choose? A church which is ruled by the Christ through his Spirit-authored word. What church should we be? A church whose Bible studies remain just that: Bible studies. A church where we avoid the temptation to start considering other books in our small groups apart from this one. A church where the Bible is explained and applied in its sermons each week. A church where direction is taken from Jesus in his word. That’s the kind of Spiritual church we should be.

But of course, hunger for and submission to the Bible isn’t the only mark of a Spiritual church…

Church and Spirit #2

2007-07-16T13:00:00.001+10:00

Now when I say Spiritual gathering, that doesn’t mean we dance around like a bunch of drugged up hippies, trying to connect with some kind of vague “meta-Spirit”. What I mean is that as a church we are ruled, guided, united and equipped by God’s Holy Spirit. It’s the presence of God’s Holy Spirit which sets us apart. So to answer the question about which church our newly arrived immigrant should attend, we can say that he or she should seek out a Spiritual church.

But that raises another important question: What does a Spiritual church look like? If I were to ask someone from Hillsong for an answer and then someone from St Andrew’s Cathedral in the city, followed then by someone here at Glenhaven I could get three very different answers, so our poor immigrant isn’t out of the woods yet. But this is where Ephesians 4 will help us. This is a great chapter for figuring out what church is and also for discerning the type of gathering we should seek out and in turn be a part of.

Starting in the middle of the chapter, we find two verses that anchor us with a simple definition of church:

Speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Perhaps the best definition of the church is simply this: the church is the human community which is connected to Christ. Paul uses a body metaphor here, just like he uses in 1 Corinthians. Christ is the head, and we are the various parts of the body, all of which are connected to and controlled by the head. So when we say that the church is the community which is connected to Jesus, we don’t just mean that Jesus is the focus of our attention, or that his teachings are the ones we choose to read. Those things are true – we do want to focus on him and we do want to study his teachings – but the connection is a little more real than that.

When Paul says that Jesus is our head, he’s saying that Jesus is actually our living ruler. Remember that Jesus has been raised from the dead. That means that he is alive and active. And one way that Jesus is alive and active is that he is actively ruling his Church, this church, even as we speak. Jesus is not just someone we admire, Jesus is someone who is present and ruling his Church. Now this has massive implications for the way we do church. Whenever we lead in church, whether it be on a committee or in a bible study or by organising a roster, then we only ever lead as deputies to the true leader, Jesus. He is the chief shepherd, we are only ever the assistant shepherds (1 Peter 5).

I remember hearing a story about a young couple who were leaving their church here in Sydney to go interstate, and before they left they said to their minister “What are we going to do? You won’t be there to tell us what to do anymore.” And the minister said “Well there’s always the telephone”! I think he failed to realise that he was only an assistant shepherd. Their true leader was, is and always will be Jesus. And I think the young couple failed to realise this too! They didn’t need to be constantly linked to the one church even after they’d moved interstate, because wherever they found themselves to be, Jesus would still be their true shepherd.

So back to our immigrant looking for a church…what should they look for? A church which is lead by Christ. What church should Emmanuel Church Glenhaven be? A church ruled by Christ. If you are a leader, are you constantly deferring your leadership to Jesus? Do you recognise him as the one truly running the ship? If you see yourself as a follower, are you looking to Christ for leadership? or have you replaced him with the leadership of others?

A true church is one led by Jesus.

Well that’s all well and good, but how does Christ rule his Church? How is he active in the Church today? How do we defer leadership to him? How do we seek his leadership?

Church and Spirit #1

2007-07-13T17:57:00.000+10:00

A sermon preached at Emmanuel Church Glenhaven, 1st July 2007

Imagine for a moment that you’re a member of the first fleet, newly arrived on the shores of Sydney cove. You can pick whichever character you like for this exercise: maybe you’re Mary who was transported for seven years for stealing a handkerchief and a raisin bun; or perhaps you’re George, an officer in the royal army, hoping that your time in New South Wales might mean promotion to a more comfortable role back home. Imagine life in your new quarters. After many months on an uncomfortable ship, you move into your luxurious wooden hut, with dirt floor and holes in the walls which let the wind whistle in during the winter months. And then on Sundays you go to church. There is only one choice of church in the early colony; Richard Johnson is the chaplain, and he’s an Anglican. But he’s an Anglican without a building. Gov Phillip is a little slow in providing for the physical needs of a congregation so you meet under a tree until the first church building is built some months after landing.

Now jump forward 219 years to 2007. You’re a newly arrived immigrant to the city of Sydney, a bustling and growing metropolis of over 4 million people. You’re fortunate enough to find accommodation quickly, and then look to start the job of finding a new church. The choice is dazzling. Anglican, Catholic, Uniting Church, Baptist, Presbyterian, Free Presbyterian, Evangelical Free, Churches of Christ, Assemblies of God, Russian, Geek and Coptic orthodox, Hillsong, Gospel Halls, the Chinese Christian Churches, Potter’s House ministries, Grace community churches … and so the list goes on. I heard a statistic earlier this year which said that in the Blacktown City Council area there are well over 200 independent churches. This is not including churches aligned with the main denominations, so you could probably add another 30-50 to that number. That’s up to 250 individual churches to choose from in the one council area.

If you were a new immigrant living in Blacktown (or any other part of Sydney for that matter), how would you even begin to tell the difference? How would you go about choosing a church from all those different options? This is an important question to ask because there might come a point when its time to leave Emmanuel Church Glenhaven. What kind of church will you go to? Denominational loyalty is going the same way as brand loyalty - we’re becoming less inclined to stick with the same 'Anglican' badge - so what will go into your decision? Alternatively you might have friends who are looking to get involved with a church somewhere. What kind of advice would you give them? Or maybe you’re not about to go anywhere, maybe you’re not even thinking about what it means to find a church or to change churches. Even if this is the case then it's still an important question to ask because it’s really a question about the nature of church. What is it that makes this type of human gathering unique among all the others? How are we meant to be different to the Lions club which meets in the Community Hall, or the book club which meets in your best friend’s lounge room? What label should we aspire to?

The answer to this question is that we’re a Spiritual gathering…

1o points for the location of this convict-built building. Another 10 for the name of the umbrella carrying convict.

Back to basics with Schleiermacher

2007-06-26T16:55:00.000+10:00

Earlier today we had our Shapers of Contemporary Theology exam. This was the course where we were able to read ample sections from Germans like Barth and Rahner, Pannenberg and Moltmann. We started the course by looking at Schleiermacher, the guy known as either "the Father of modern theology" or the "Father of Protestant Liberalism", depending on whether you think he's a goody or baddy (and, I guess, whether you think Protestant Liberalism is a good or bad thing). My own tradition has set him up as a baddy, so what a surprise to read him saying things like:

Christ is distinguished from all others as Redeemer alone.

Sounds fairly evangelical to me.

Of course, his view of the nature of Christ's redemption may be deficient:

Jesus is the Founder of a religious communion simply in the sense that its members become conscious of redemption through him (Consciousness? Surely this is not the sum total of what it's all about).

But he does maintain the centrality and necessity of Jesus.

So this got me thinking...Is Schleiermacher a Christian? Often we think "No way, he's a liberal", but as I read him I see a guy who responded to Jesus and only Jesus, which is the response called for in the Gospels. Now we might argue that he is responding to a different Jesus than the one he ought to respond to and the one we ought to preach, but I think his heart was in the right place, and if God judges the heart...

So a question: How much do you need to get right to be a Christian? To put it another way, I heard one MTC lecturer say that "Theologian X is wrong. He'll be in heaven, but he's not an evangelical" So if he'll get there in the end why are we bringing him down? And is "being in heaven/the age to come" the right way to think about this in any case?

Love to hear your thoughts.

Was SJ Kirkby Sydney's Barth?

2007-06-14T10:51:00.001+10:00

You be the judge as he answers the question: “Which Christ do we lead people to?”

Not to any pale, merely theological Christ, a lay-figure, product of the schools (though to Dogmatics we owe a tremendous debt); not to any vague, impalpable, though beautiful Christ, the creation of a wistful imagination; but to Christ of the New Testament, the Christ of the Incarnation and of Bethlehem, the Christ of the Atonement on Calvary’s Cross, the Christ of the Resurrection and Ascension, and of the Blessed Appearing, the ever-present Christ Who is “warm, sweet, tender,” and Who confirms Himself unto us in all joys and stresses, and to set Him forth should be the burden of our ministry.

A Gospel that is not Christo-centric is no Gospel at all. We may gather people unto ourselves with a smart eloquence, or with snappy criticisms of public affairs, or with spectacular and popular services; we may think that we hold them to ourselves by providing well-organised rounds of social functions, pleasing and amusing, for all sorts and conditions of men and women; we may, by such means, secure the good-natured help and interest of a wide circle of supporters; but we shall never save their souls alive if that be all which we have to give them. Without this Christo-centric Gospel we have no authority enabling us to stand as did the prophets of old who faced kings and men with the words, “Thus saith the Lord”; we have no message calculated to bring home to people that sense of sin and of God’s forgiveness of it, we have no assurance of peace and harmony for the whole wide world. Woe be unto us if we fail to preach it.

Presidential address to ordinary session of Synod, 1933. Year Book of the Diocese of Sydney 1934, 306-07.

Granted, a line like “we shall never save their souls alive” might be a little too eager to find a place in the Dogmatics, but note the flow of the language: short, sharp clauses that colour and build up the one idea. Very Barthian. And also the obvious Christo-centricity.

I was commenting to a friend of mine (Ed Loane) how I thought Kirkby must have been a Barth reader, and he commented that when his great-grandfather (D.J. Knox, father of D. Broughton Knox) first read Barth’s Commentary on Romans, it was as if he was connecting with a “kindred spirit”. Ed also told me that Knox was close friends with Kirkby, so it’s possible that Barth was being passed around the senior Sydney clergy at this point. That would go some way in explaining Kirkby’s prose in the above speech.

Sydney's theology of hope #2

2007-06-11T11:46:00.000+10:00

When researching my church history essay I came across SJ Kirkby, Bishop Coadjutor of Diocese of Sydney in the 1930s. Check this bit out from his Presidential address to the Synod of 1933:

For what are the motivating impulses to war? Are they not desire for world rule and possession, arrogant pride in merely national culture, the temptation open always to the strong to exploit the week, fierce racial jealousies too often the outcome of pure misunderstanding? We not only deny the morality of all these motives, but we would supplant them with something finer and greater. We present unto mankind that divine ideal which swallows up all world ideals, an ideal which is able to capture the imagination and thrill the hearts of man, an ideal which challenges and calls forth all that splendid sacrifice too often wasted in war, the ideal of tremendous freedom giving, peace-ensuing truth of St. Paul: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Note when this was delivered. In 1933 Hitler was stirring in Germany, and there was a growing fascist movement here in Australia. And here is one of Sydney's senior clergy taking these issues on and providing a clear call to a theological alternative. Not only would this have challenged society's policy makers, but also all those in the pews who were playing with the idea of falling in with either the communists or fascists as a way of dealing with the hopelessness of the Depression. As an alternative Kirkby posits the hope of a humanity reconstituted in Christ. Nice!

RIP Red Rocket, 2000-07

2007-06-09T17:42:00.001+10:00

After 7 years and 115,000+ km its all over. This morning, just before noon, the Red Rocket was smashed into by a white falcon which lost control when turning into Carillon from City Rd. I was completely oblivious to the RR's fate, having left it parked in Carillon at about 11pm last night. The first I knew about its unexpected demise was when John Woodhouse came knocking on my door asking "Do you own SSB 219? I have bad news for you mate..." Proceeding downstairs this was the sad sight which greeted me:

The tow-truck guy said "yeah, NRMA will write that off". So that's it. I will cherish the memories, such as the late night tours of Sydney with various friends from different circles, and that time a youth group kid knocked me over with my own car.
Vale my friend, you served your master well.

way way cool

2007-06-08T17:31:00.000+10:00

Last night Craig Tubman, Rowan Patterson, Pete Boyd and I went on a late late night sojourn to Dean's cafe in Kings Cross where we sat under a peacock tapestry drinking coffee and red wine. Very cool. The Red tones, late hour and stimulating conversation made us all feel very bohemian. Like, totally intellectually hip, baby.

Sydney's theology of hope #1

2007-06-06T19:28:00.001+10:00

John Charles Wright was Archbishop of Sydney from 1909-1933. During that time a world war and the Great Depression put his leadership under the spotlight, and, according to some, he was found wanting:

He excelled as a patient and conciliatory chairman. Yet Wright's temperate influence upon the Diocese was resented by conservative Evangelicals who believed that he over-emphasised his administrative role and failed to give sufficient leadership to his flock. They were wanting a father-in-God, not a moderator.

Judd and Cable, Sydney Anglicans, 225-26.

But his 1931 address to Synod during the worst months of the Depression shows that he was far from being a soft pen-pusher:

The fact is that two years ago we had abundant money. There was money everywhere. But we were living in a fool's paradise. We forgot that it was borrowed money, borrowed lightly and spent gaily in the State and Church and by private individuals ... Then came what no one had deemed possible - all over the world a sudden collapse of the world's purchasing power ... It is not easy to cure the borrowing habit. We all alike had become extravagant. The luxuries of yesterday had become the necessities of today. But at last the unwholesomeness of the position was sternly brought home to us...this was, itself, a call from God to live a simpler life.

We have to confess that the days of prosperity with which we have been blessed in the past have involved the temptation to forget God as the author of our success.

Cop that Synod.
But the really impressive bit of what is really a remarkable piece of oratory is his call for the church to place their hope in the Father's eternal benevolence:

We are all suffering from a pressure of financial anxiety such as we have never known in this generation and never dreamt that we could know. Things were threatening with dark clouds at the beginning of the year, but since then, month by month, the clouds have banked up in darker masses in the heavens ... Yet no one who believes in God and His fatherly care ought to despair of the future. As we enter the unknown we should recall the command of God to his people of old as the approached the land of promise, 'Be strong and of a good courage'.

What I like about this address is Wright's willingness to not pull punches (note his call for the church to repent), while sharing the blame (note his use of the 1st person plural in the first quote). And then he speaks of the sure hope we have which is guaranteed by the Father's love. A nice theological response to a tough time. Of course, detractors of Wright will say that this was precisely the problem; he provided a theological response when what was needed was practical relief. While Wright firmly believed that the Church's primary role was to provide spiritual direction, it remained the case that on an organizational/institutional level the Church was unable to do much due to a lack of funding and resources. AND part of the problem seems to have been that the hardline evangelicals had pulled their funding from the Diocese because they didn't respect the Archbishop. This is why it was left to people like RBS Hammond of St Barnabas Broadway to do what they could in the parishes (and in RB's case, that was quite a lot).

Still, Wright's address is a definite "Father-in-God" moment, no matter what his reputation might be.

Pic is of John Charles Wright with his wife Dorothy.

Luther on Friendship

2007-06-03T22:59:00.000+10:00

To love a brother who is kind and pleasant in return—this is a trivial matter. This is the way the world also loves. “The crowd judges friendships by their usefulness” (Cicero, De finibus). Accordingly, John does not say: “Let us love those who are saintly, agreeable, and rich.” No, he says: “Let us love the brethren,” in such a way that then nothing but the brotherhood is loved and regarded; for a brother is loved out of a sense of duty, not because of usefulness and not because of praise. All the gifts we have should serve those who do not have them. For example, he who is learned should serve him who is not learned; he who is rich should serve him who is poor; he who is sensible should serve him who is foolish, etc. it is easy to love Paul and other apostles. They serve you even after their death. But to love those who are weak, troublesome, and unlearned—this indeed is to love truly. Otherwise there is no brotherhood, but there is carnality. In short, it is the duty of Christians to serve, not for their own advantage but for the advantage of the brethren.

Lectures on 1 John (LW 30), comment on 3.18.

Luther paints an all too familiar picture of how twisted our friendships can get. Instead of being opportunities to serve, our relationships can so quickly become mere opportunities to get ahead. "Friends with benefits" one might say. But while genuine friendship can turn this way, even more abhorrent is the picking of friends for reasons of advantage straight from the outset. I have seen this, and it ain't pretty.

Here's to friendship instead of carnality.

The Boroughs of Sydney...

2007-05-26T00:50:00.000+10:00

Every great city has its own divisions. Take New York with its five boroughs. They each have their own flavour and together make the city what it is. But what about Sydney? If you were to divide Sydney up into smaller segments how would you do it?

Here is my attempt, you might need to click on it and zoom in to make out the detail...sorry. Special apologies to Berowra people, I meant to include you in the Northern Suburbs bit.

Its an interesting exercise, and while attempting it I made the following observations:

1. Which criteria do you use? Economic? physical? or just "the vibe"? I kinda went for the third, which in reality is a mix of lots of other factors. But some areas do carry a widely recognised identity, eg "the Shire" and "the Upper North Shore". What makes for such identities?

2. Following on I noticed that other areas really didn't lend themselves to a more obvious label. What about that bit just south of the CBD which isn't really Inner West but isn't quite St George either? Inner South?

3. What about those bits which seems to get lots of negative press? The strip of land stretching between Bankstown and Auburn for example. This is often labeled as Muslim territory, but are Muslims really the dominant group? The vast multiculturalism of this area is perhaps the biggest identifying factor.

4. Notice how the more west you get the bigger the boroughs? This could be for a number of reasons: People in the more established areas are more concerned to identify themselves more narrowly therefore they have established their identity accordingly; The newer areas are yet to develop identities that have Sydney-wide currency; My scheme reveals my own ignorance and biases.

5. I wonder whether you could draw up a typical character profile of people living in these areas. As one (female) friend said, "You can tell a woman from XXX because of the massive amounts of gold jewelry and the massive massive hair."

6. It would be interesting to compare the comparable regions. Eg, Upper North Shore vs Hills. Both are affluent, but is it a different kind of affluence? Old Money vs New Money? What about Lower North Shore and the Eastern Suburbs?

What do people think? Is my attempt on the money?

A good book to read...

2007-05-24T15:40:00.000+10:00

Real Sex is book which came highly recommended to our class last year by Andrew Cameron, ethics lecturer here at MTC. Lauren F. Winner was a non-pious Jew who converted to Christianity in her 20s and had to learn the art of chastity as an adult. Not that you can expect any devious detail about her pre-conversion life (nor that you would want to), but you can read an honest account of someone who has lived on both sides of the conservative line which we evangelicals draw in the sexual ethics sand. While not a lot of time is spent in Scripture, her Biblical work is solid with a mature Biblical Theology (not that she would label her use of the Bible as such), and her thoughts are well grounded in a useful Christian anthropology and is not short on advice which is both sensible and workable. Winner also offers some stinging critiques of how conservative pastors tend to speak and think about this issue. Grown up without being patronising, savvy without being flippant, this is a really useful and enjoyable book.

Postcards from Karl #5

2007-05-23T12:53:00.000+10:00

Often we focus on what our salvation means for us. But what does it mean for God?

What is quite certain is that for God it means severe self-commitment. God does not merely give Himself up to the risk and menace, but He exposes Himself to the actual onslaught and grasp of evil. For if God Himself became man, this man, what else can this mean but:

That He declared Himself guilty of the contradiction against Himself in which man was involved;

That He submitted Himself to the law of creation by which such a contradiction could be accompanied only by loss and destruction;

That He made Himself the object of the wrath and judgment to which man had brought himself;

That He took upon himself the rejection which man had deserved;

That He tasted Himself the damnation, death and hell which ought to have been the portion of fallen man?

...

If we would know what it was that God elected for Himself when He elected fellowship with man, then we can answer only that He elected our rejection.

He made it His own.

He bore it and suffered it with all its most bitter consequences.

For the sake of this choice and for the sake of man He hazarded Himself wholly and utterly.

He elected our suffering (what we as sinners must suffer towards Him and before Him and from Him).

He elected it as His own suffering.

This is the extent to which His election is

an election of grace,

an election of love,

an election to give Himself,

an election to empty and abase Himself for the sake of the elect.

Church Dogmatics II/2, 164

That's a lot of love, and it's a lot of suffering by God on our behalf. Note also Barth's unflinching acceptance of penal substitutionary atonement and his wonderfully poetic way of describing its beauty. I read recently some opinions that PSA is perhaps the dumbest theological invention of the Christian Church.

Not so from Barth's point of view.

10 points for the location and official name of the above monument (hint: it's not in Athens). Another 10 points for its nickname.

Pannenberg on the ascension

2007-05-18T00:20:00.000+10:00

Why is it important to affirm that Jesus "ascended into heaven" and that "he is seated at the right hand of the Father"? Pannenberg gives us an important implication of the ascension:

A Gentile mission seems to have arisen for the first time as a result of the conviction that the resurrected Jesus has now already been exalted to Lordship in heaven and consequently the news of his Lordship is to be carried to all nations.

Jesus - God and Man (London: SCM, 1968), 71.

That Jesus has been raised and is now the ascended, ruling Lord over all means that he is not only the God of Jewish expectation but also the God of the whole world. It's the ascension (among other things) which drives the gospel to all nations.

Nice one Wolfhart!

Postcards from Karl #4

2007-05-14T12:43:00.000+10:00

Which comes first: Grace or Sin?

That man is against God is important and must be taken seriously. But what is far more important and must be taken more seriously is that in Jesus Christ God is for man. And it is only in the light of the second fact that the importance and seriousness of the first can be seen.

Church Dogmatics II/2, 154.

Often we evangelicals are quick to say that you cannot understand the light of grace unless you first understand the darkness of sin, and often we also catch ourselves describing grace primarily as the solution to sin; grace is a reaction from God to our selfish ambition. But here Karl reverses this order. Sin is not understood unless grace is first grasped. If there is a priority within the economy of salvation then it falls on God's graciousness.

The importance of this was drilled home to me recently on college mission. When door-knocking in outer suburban Sydney I met one woman who wanted nothing to do with the church. Why? "All I was told as a youngster was how much of a sinner I was. I want nothing to do with the church now." Hmmmm ... while we do want to affirm human sinfulness, we must affirm it in a way which acknowledges the priority of grace. Grace has come first, and so that is the first part of our message. This is what Calvin meant when he described 'evangelical repentance'; we repent not in order to recieve God's grace, but in order to respond to it. God makes the first move, and it's a move of grace. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5.8).

10 points for the location of this statue

Life in a Northern Town

2007-05-07T19:05:00.000+10:00

Rhyl (on the northern Welsh coast), January 2007

Moore Mission Madness - Sunday #2

2007-05-06T23:37:00.000+10:00

Ummmm ... so the posting once a day thing didn't really work. There are a number of factors to blame for this: I ran out of camera batteries; I forgot my camera on a number of occasions; when doing scripture work in schools no cameras are allowed because of all the weirdos who want to take photos of little kids; mission was generally so busy that "capturing the moment" didn't always figure as a priority. But, it was a good time away, and lots of people were saved, YES!!!

I would post some general photos taken over the course of the week, but somehow they all disappeared from my memory card. That wouldn't have happened in the old 35mm days...