PBC blog

Did Luke get Christmas wrong?

2009-12-07T22:22:00.002+11:00

I've been chewing this over for a while now as I prepare to look at Luke 2 over Christmas

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)

Luke 2: 1-2

I'm sure we all know some of the problems with this - e.g. King Herod (cf. Luke 1: 5 and Matthew 1-2) died before Quirnius was governor. Richard Dawkins takes great delight in highlighting them in The God Delusion.

In my mind there are three questions:

1. What is the correct translation of verse 2? Especially of 'prote' (= first above) - is it possible to translate it 'before Quirnius was governor'? Or is that merely an attempt to harmonise the gospel accounts with history?

(Herod died in 4BC, the census that was finalised under Quirnius happened 6/7 AD.)

2. What do we think is the most likely historical reconstruction of what happened? And in doing that, how do we weigh up conflicting accounts? With things like censi (is that the plural of census or a martial arts expert?) sometimes taking decades to complete are we reading a modern notion of history back into the text?

3. How does this all fit with Luke's introductory appeal to Theophilus? If Luke has got it all wrong then doesn't that seriously undermine his claim to have investigated eye-witness accounts?

This is not merely academic to me. At the moment my first point from Luke 2 is going to be - Jesus is a real person because he had a birth certificate. That comes from the text but I want to be able to preach that with confidence and integrity.

The Lure of Pornography

2009-12-03T12:23:00.002+11:00

I was speaking to someone recently who struggle with internet porngraphy. This is a very common issue, especially amongst men, and therefore the first step to dealing with it is to admit to it. My guess would be that several guys at PBC struggle with this issue.

A recent article / sermon (from Proverbs 7) I read on the subject was really helpful - pornography unmasked.

Here are the 6 lures taken from it:

Lure #1: The Forbidden
One of the marketing strategies of pornography is to create settings and scenarios that present the lure of the forbidden.

Lure #2: The Physical Body

Lure #3: Passivity
Pornography’s message is that the man can take it easy; he can avoid the assertiveness of real relationships and reap the benefits of sexual pleasure anyway.

Lure #4: Comfort
One of the self-justifications we often use when we gear up to view pornography is that we want to unwind, we want to relax, and we want to reward ourselves after a hard day.

Lure #5: Ego-Fulfillment
The man that repeatedly returns to pornography is caught in the fantasy experience that the woman on the screen is selling to him: she wants him, she notices him and she makes him feel like a real man.

Lure #6: Secrecy
Often what makes porn so enticing is that it is viewed in secret.

The analysis is spot on. Read the original sermon for Biblical advice on how to deal with this sin.

Our beds are burning

2009-11-24T15:00:00.010+11:00

We looked at a gospel response to Indigenous Australians on Sunday. The sermon should be on the website to listen to by now if you missed it. Likewise (on the PBC website) there should be a link to Peter Adam's excellent lecture on this topic at Morling College back in August. I'd recommend reading this first too.

We looked at Luke 19: 1-10 (Zacchaeus demonstrated his repentance by making recompense - saying sorry is not enough) and 1 Peter 2: 21-25 (the only hope for Australia is found in the cross).

However, the question is 'what should we do?' Several people at PBC have expressed my own feeling in preparation - this is such a huge issue, where do we start? We feel paralysed by the enormity of it.

So this post is an open invitation to think through some practical suggestions. It is incredibly tempting to simply ignore the issue - to feel a bit better that we've talked about it but then just move on having done nothing.

Right, here are a few brief reflections and then some practical proposals:

a) There is no need (anymore) for us to feel personally guilty for the past - Christ has dealt with that, once and for all, on the cross.

b) However, just because we have been forgiven (both individually and collectively) does not minimise our need to seek to make restitution. If we believe in a God of justice we will seek to do so. This is not instead of the cross but rather because of it. (Ephesians 2: 8-10)

c) We are only accountable for our response to the gospel. It is not our job to force Indigenous Australians to forgive the past (in Christ Jesus), our job is to demonstrate our repentance.

d) Following on from c) - different cultures will apply the gospel to their own culture. On the one hand we must not place culture above scripture (and thus beyond critique) but on the other we must not assume that an Aboriginal (or Torres Islander) response to the gospel of Jesus Christ will look exactly like ours. Hence one key aspect here is dialogue with Indigenous Australians. We may think we are helping them when we are not; we may think we are making restitution but may be doing so on our terms.

e) The gospel is the only way we can escape the natural human cycle of injustice. As Australians are treated as both villains and victims so we are able to draw a line under the past and move on. This means that all of us must stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for our own lives and our own communities.

So, here are some practical suggestions for PBC to get the ball rolling:

1. Flags - I've bought an Australian flag and an Aboriginal flag for the church. Could we have them up often in church simply to symbolise that Christ is for all Australians - Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I know a flag is another gesture, rather than an action, but it is at least a start. Equally, I realise that the Australian flag itself is supposed to unite all Australians, but I still think that the symbolism of an Aboriginal flag says something about PBC welcoming Indigenous Australians.

(BTW I tried to buy an Aboriginal flag in a local mall. When I asked the shop assistant if they had any she replied, "Nah, only Australian ones." I knew what she meant, but the irony was not lost on me!)

2. Acknowledgement - is it worth putting something on the outline each week (quoting Psalm 24) ... that the earth is the Lord and so no one nation can claim rights to the land? Everyone who has lived in Petersham has done so dependent on the Lord's grace - first the Gadigal people and later immigrants from many nations. The wording would have to be carefully scripted but there must be some way to acknowledge the original inhabitants of Australia.

3. Church connections - we need to support gospel ministry amongst Aboriginals. Is there some project in Redfern or in the Northern Territories with which we can partner? Alongside the obvious gospel partnership this would surely develop our understanding and appreciation of Indigenous culture.

4. Campaigning - I haven't had time to read it all carefully but the website ANTar seems to have plenty of sensible campaigns and ideas how to help and support Indigenous Australians.

Right. Over to you...

MX reporting - tough love or lesbian love?

2009-11-16T17:38:00.004+11:00

Since my wife works in town on Mondays and Tuesdays she brought back a copy of MX from the train today - the cream of Australian reportage.

Following my recent post she drew my attention to some recent research (quoted in MX) that suggests that lesbian couples are better than heterosexual couples in bringing up children.

Interested, I did a quick google search on the organisation that did the research (London's National Academy for Parenting Practitioners) and also the think tank that have picked it up - Demos.

I can't find any reference to this in UK media coverage or indeed on the NAPP or DEMOS websites. Or rather I can find plenty of coverage of the NAPP's report on parenting however all the newspaper coverage in the UK picks up on something else from the report. This is from The Independent on November 8th 2009 (just a week ago):

A generation of liberal parents has striven towards a utopian ideal: raising their children in a non-confrontational household, unfettered by strict rules. But a new study of 9,000 households found that children whose parents favoured this laissez-faire style of parenting were less likely to develop vital life skills – such as empathy, self-control and application – by the age of five than those whose parents took a traditional "tough love" approach.

While the "tough love" approach to parenting – defined as combining warmth with firm rules and clear boundaries – was thought to have gone out of fashion in the 1950s, researchers found that children with this upbringing were a third more likely to have well-developed "soft" skills than those with more relaxed parents.

In a blow to the huge numbers of parents who are divorced or remarried, the study also found that children with married parents were twice as likely to develop good skills as those living with stepfamilies or single parents.

And then later in the same article ...

The Building Character report, produced by the Demos think tank using data collected as part of the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), found that parenting style is the most important factor in determining child character development, cancelling any differences in development between children from richer and poorer families.

Researchers found that tough-love parenting is less frequent in low-income households, with only 9.8 per cent of the poorest parents subscribing to it. Twelve per cent of parents in the lowest-income quintile were found to be disengaged. "The factors that get in the way of more effective parenting are found more frequently in families living in disadvantaged conditions," said Professor Stephen Scott, director for research for the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners. "These include a stressful lifestyle interrupted by events such as serious physical illness, domestic violence, poor housing and medical disorders such as depression and drug misuse."

Now, it is quite possible that the bit about Lesbian parenting is buried somewhere else in the report and it hasn't hit the headlines yet. Nevertheless it is quite interesting that here in Australia MX decided to pick up on this while ignoring what everyone else thinks is the thrust of the report. This is another example of the survey society we live in. The question is not even which survey do you trust, but can come down to which part of which survey is actually quoted.

As I said MX is the gold standard of reporting down under!?

The Survey says ...

2009-11-09T20:23:00.006+11:00

This is something that has been bothering me for a while - it is especially relevant when trying to discuss social changes, e.g. to marriage. For the current sermon series on Aussie culture I've been re-reading Advance Australia ... where? by Hugh MacKay - a social researcher who gives an excellent summary of where Australia is 'at' today.

In his introduction, however, he makes the following two points by way of clarification about the study of attitudes:

It is very dangerous to assume too much from what people say: "we are all very good at saying one thing and doing another."
It is also dangerous to assume attitudes predict behaviour when it's usually the other way round. "Banners don't make the wind blow a certain way. Attitudes are an indicator of how we've reacted; they are not reliable predictors of how we might react to something that hasn't happened yet."

FWIW I agree with this. Now these comments are only by way of introduction. MacKay then goes to base his book on research and surveys etc. So he obviously sees the benefit of such studies, he is just wary about any over-reliance. Well I do wonder if we are becoming over-reliant. ISTM that whenever the government wants to do something they usually roll it out with some survey that (allegedly) proves what they want it to. I am very wary of this straight 'we must do what the survey says' approach precisely because of the two points above. I wish such research was used more as the start of a discussion rather than as the end of an argument.

So, is this a worrying trend in our culture or just another example of the on-set of grumpy old man syndrome (in me)?

more pilfering from The Gum Thief

2009-10-16T18:25:00.004+11:00

"A few years back I had to organize my son Brendan's, funeral. Joan was completely wrecked, and I was barely keeping it together. I remember sitting there with the funeral director, trying to think of what to say in the death notice or whom I could invite to speak. I drew a blank, and the director, an older guy - white hair, a head shaped like a stone dug out of a Scottish field, a guy who'd been through a trench or two - suggested that no one had to speak and we could recite grade school stuff like the Lord's Prayer. He said that most people know it by heart, and we could all get through the proceedings with a sliver of dignity.

He must have smelled my breath-tequila-because he looked at me a moment, then went to his desk and pulled out some very peaty Scotch, almost like soil syrup, and poured both of us a few fingers. He told me that most people who come to arrange services don't believe in anything. He said that if he's learned anything from doing his job, it's that if you don't have a spiritual practice in place when times are good, you can't expect to suddenly develop one during a moment of crisis. He said we're told by TV and movies and Reader's Digest that a crisis will trigger massive personal change - and that those big changes will make the pain worthwhile. But from what he could see, big change almost never happens. People simply feel lost. They have no idea what to say or do or feel or think. They become messes and tend to remain messes. Having a few default hymns and prayers at least makes the lack of crisis-born insight bearable. The man was a true shepherd of souls. Why don't men like him run for public office?"

Extract from The Gum Thief, by Douglas Coupland.

Painfully insightful. Chillingly honest ... "if you don't have a spiritual practice in place when times are good, you can't expect to suddenly develop one during a moment of crisis."

Lessons in life:

#1 - growth through adversity is not automatic, it requires the right (disciplined and faithful) response to the adversity.

#2 - if a faithful attitude cannot be cultivated when times are good, don't expect it to magically appear when the going gets tough.

Conservatives & Politics

2009-10-08T11:50:00.003+11:00

This has been an issue buzzing away in my brain ever since the comments about the definition of marriage and civil partnerships. Christians always seem to be protesting against gays but never protesting against the wrong treatment of gays.

I wonder if part of the problem is the current system of western politics - based around special interest lobbying.

Things get done in politics today by coalitions around issues. Human nature being what it is, it is really hard to get people to agree on anything these days - therefore the 'voice' put out by various groups is usually black and white, without any nuance.

Generally conservatives (politically and theologically) are opposed to gay marriage and feel they can impact public policy if they put up a united front. As soon as nuance is added to the debate coalitions get scared that they will lose the majority vote they think they need.

I want to be clear, I'm not at all trying to justify this - for example it is wrong that conservatives do not speak out enough against violence to homosexuals. I'm just saying that our whole political process makes that hard to do so. The bigger issue is the need to change how we do politics. (Indeed, I would argue that films like Milk protray how the gay rights movement only started to make ground when they started to adopt this style of politics themselves as well - it is the only way to get things done at the moment but it actively encourages division and factionism, the them and us mentality.)

Nicked from The Gum Thief

2009-10-03T12:01:00.007+10:00

I seem to be pilfering from books I'm reading at the moment. And they all have titles about stealing ... it is just a coincidence. Honest.

A few years ago it dawned on me that everybody past a certain age - regardless of how they look on the outside - pretty much constantly dreams of being able to escape from their lives. They don't want to be who they are any more. They want out... Do you want out? Do you often wish you could be somebody, anybody, other than who you are - the you who holds a job and feeds a family - the you who keeps a relatively okay place to live and who still tries to keep your friendships alive? In other words, the you who's going to remain pretty much the same until the casket?

The Gum Thief, by Douglas Coupland.

A great quote for our age. As a kid we spend all our time wishing we were about 20 - with all the independence and freedom that would bring - and then the rest of our lives wishing we were 20 again ... with all the independence and freedom that would bring!?

Instead the Apostle Paul said this:

"But godliness with contentment is great gain." (1 Timothy 6: 6)

Wow. Our world could do with a big piece of that. Ummh, contentment. Happy to be the person God created you to be, right now, right here.

Stolen from The Book Thief

2009-10-01T21:59:00.004+10:00

I wanted to tell the book thief many things, about beauty and brutality. But what could I tell her about those things that she didn't already know? I wanted to explain that I am constantly overestimating and underestimating the human race - that rarely do I ever estimate it. I wanted to ask her how the same thing could be so ugly and so glorious, and its words so damning and brilliant.

taken from The Book Thief by Markus Zusak.

What an accurate depiction of humanity and what a biblical one. People - created in God's image with all that divine potential, and yet fatally flawed by sin. So ugly and so glorious. That is humanity. That is the gospel.

Gospel Down Under

2009-09-28T15:42:00.002+10:00

Right, so the votes are in (well sort of ) and here is the list for the 'Gospel Down Under' series starting at PBC on Oct. 18th:

1. Miracle in Marrickville (cultural references - John Kennedy's song plus quotes from Banjo Paterson's The Man from Snowy river).

The series will start off by thinking about what the gospel means to the Inner-West: the reality of the multicultural melting pot contrasted with the rugged Aussie ideal.

2. Sydney Funnel Web (cultural reference - the Internet. No one suggested this one but I don't see how we can avoid thinking about the impact of the Internet on contemporary Australia.)

3. The Turning (short story by Tim Winton)

4. Sea Change (the popular TV series)

5. Our beds are burning (cultural references - song by Midnight Oil and recent movie Samson & Delilah).

This will face the painful issue of how the gospel relates to the Australian Aboriginal community.

6. The Castle (the quintessential Aussie movie?)

So that's the list. It's too late to change it (we've started preparing!?) but I'd be interested in comments or additional suggestions. Remember the aim is to address modern popular Australian culture. A backdrop to all of this will also be Advance Australia Where? by Hugh MacKay. Oh yes, and the Bible :-)

Marriage Equality Bill

2009-08-27T10:36:00.004+10:00

As Christians across the land protest against the proposed amendments to the Marriage Acts of 1961 (i.e. the desire to remove all gender distinctions from the definition of marriage and hence allowing gay partnerships to be called marriage) Luke Mac raised an interesting point.

He thought "we should separate the state's concept of marriage from the Church's concept of marriage. Our understanding of marriage is already fundamentally different to the world's anyway."

In other words, in these debates we must be careful that we are not expecting non-Christians to behave like Christians. The Kingdom of God will come by people surrendering to Christ as their king, not by legislation that tries to make people behave the way we think they should. (Luke's right by the way.)

However, the danger with this argument is that it has been used by Christians in the past to justify our withdrawal from politics. On issues like this we must not try to create a theocracy, but we do have a responsibility to speak up for what we think is best for our society.

Hence I think the key issue in the current debate is the role of children in marriage. The definition proposed by the new bill does not mention children at all. This is slight of hand. It is made to look as if it is all about giving gay couples the same rights (in expressing commitment) as straight couples. However, the definition of family is being changed by default. Marriage has traditionally included the possibility of children. If this bill is passed then we will have accepted that two mums or two dads are just as healthy as role models as a mum and a dad, and we will have accepted that without a public debate.

That is why we should be submitting our objections to this bill to the senate committe for legal and constitutional matters.

Back into it!

2009-08-27T10:34:00.001+10:00

Okay, so I've been away in the UK ... and then there was winter School ...

Time to crank the PBC blog back into life.

The Shock (er)

2009-06-18T17:40:00.004+10:00

As promised, here is my first stab at a proper review of The Shack.

*** Spoiler warning - plot details will be given away ***

Essentially the book is a theodicy. "Why does God allow suffering?" is a question that Christians have asked ever since ... well, ever since there were Christians.

The book takes a long time to answer the question but does it by making God more human. Suffering and evil is outside of God's control but he can make good things come out of it.

Therefore the incarnation takes centre stage. All three members of the trinity are represented in more or less human ways. And the thing to notice is that Mack (the main character) finds Jesus the nicest and easiest to get on with. Instead of our preconceptions about God we need to realise that 'God' is more like Jesus than the other way round. Now there is some truth in this. Of course, Jesus reveals God to us and we need to look at him to understand God. And yet the Scriptures wrestle with the tension between the immanence and transcendence of God. He is imminent in the human person of the Son but he is also transcendent in the person of God the Father. The Shack goes full out to portray God as imminent with no (or very little) transcendence.

So, God emphatically does not punish sin (p 120), rather he cures it. That's PSA out the window then. God just got nicer and more cuddly, but smaller at the same time.

And when Mack brings the toughest question of all to God - where was he when his daughter was kidnapped and killed? - God was comforting his daughter apparently. This was, IMHO, the weakest part of the book. It seemed an attempt to make palatable the unpalatable. Sometimes human wickedness and suffering is so evil that all we can do is cry out, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?"

All in all the novel (in both senses of the word!) approach to the book makes it a tricky one to tackle. How do you deal with fiction that describes someone talking to the Trinity? When you have the very person of God talking to a man then revelation must be taking place ... or not as the case may be. In other words it is easy to forget what is at stake here. Wm. Paul Young is writing a doctrine of God. People are lapping it up because our culture (at the moment) wants a God like this - a much more human God.

The problem is he is not revealed like that in scripture.

(Maybe I'll come back later to look at the pop psychology in the book.)

Human Wrongs

2009-06-16T10:49:00.004+10:00

Most of you will be aware (thanks to Duncan) that the Federal Government appointed a Committee, chaired by Father Frank Brennan to undertake an Australia-wide community consultation on the protection of human rights.

Although the closing date for written submissions was on Monday 15th June, there is time to participate in the online consultation. The closing date for this is 26th June, 2009. Information can be found at the National Human Rights Consultation Website here

If you oppose a Bill of Rights for Australia, or want more information, you can sign a petition against a Bill of Rights here:

I've been trying to post comments to Frank Brennan but I can't even seem to login yet - I'm still waiting for them to send my password. Perhaps that should be the first right on the list ... all Australian's have the right to submit a comment on the National Human Rights Consultation?

Essentially I think it is all back to front. An emphasis on 'rights' is misplaced because it is inherently selfish. It encourages us to stand up for our own rights and the rights of our 'tribe' but it does nothing to change the human heart.

Instead the Bible talks about justice and compassion. It uses the languages of responsibility rather than rights. The only people who benefit from all this legislation are the lawyers (sorry Catherine :-) ) who make lots of money.

As Christians we should care passionately that all other human beings are treated fairly and with respect - for we are all image bearers of the divine. But that doesn't mean the 'rights' is the way to go. For a start such legislation immediately runs into problems when different rights conflict - so which rights are more important?

A common test case of this in the UK concerns human sexuality. At the moment it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation or on grounds of religion. But what if your religion calls certain sexual behaviour immoral? (as Christians and Muslims do)

Are some human rights more right than others? Are some human rights wrong?

The Shack

2009-06-15T16:23:00.003+10:00

Okay, so it has taken a while but I've finally done it.

I put it off and put it off, but finally it had to be done.

I've read The Shack.

I'll try and write a more thorough review later but for now here are my immediate reflex reactions...

I really, really do not like this book. As the old review puts it, "This book was both good and original, unfortunately the parts which are good are not original and the parts which are original are not good."

It's not just that there is so much bad theology in it, it is that it is so badly written. I know lots of people rave about it but, for me at least, it just didn't work. It reads like a primer for Emergent Christianity 101.

I remember getting caught up in the hype surrounding Sophie's World when it came out. The idea for Sophie's World was very clever - a similar 'story' approach to philosophical history - but it soon became tedious. Along with the story there were (what seemed like) quotations from a textbook on the history of philosophy. The Shack feels like that too. The fact that it is dealing with immensely painful and emotional issues (coming to terms with the violent murder of a child) is used to mask the shallow nature of the writing. Complex issues are raised, sometimes trite and simplistic answers are given. At least Sophie's World had some substance to it.

Most chapters were entirely predictable in the questions they posed. The Shack does one thing well - it reflects our culture. If you want to know what modern man dislikes about Christianity then read this book. This is what bugged me most of all. It felt like an apologetic for pomo Christianity. There were regular sops to conservatives ("of course will still believe that") it's just that what we believe doesn't mean what it used to. It's the insistent pleading of an immature teenager, "Come on Dad (or should I say Papa!?) we still believe the same gospel ... I can't demonstrate that it is the same gospel, I just 'know' it is!"

This is Theologylite.

Oh dear.

I'm not normally this sledging in my book reviews. Still, it really got to me.

I'll do some more specific analysis later when I've got time. Hopefully that will be a bit more dispassionate.

The Church & Money

2009-06-10T16:00:00.002+10:00

As we have seen in Malachi God's people have always had an uneasy relationship with money.

The article in the SMH today simply highlights it again.

As usual it is not hard to detect some media bias. The Rev. John Cornish was clearly interviewed simply to put pressure on Peter Jensen. It is easy to imagine a reporter sitting at his desk trying to come up with another 'angle' on the current recession ... "ummh, something about Sydney Anglicans being evil always stirs the pot a bit..."

Nevertheless it does make us think. Again.

Was the Anglican Church wise or foolish to play the stockmarket like this? Personally I think that the answer to that question is ... neither. The least the third servant (in that famous parable) could have done is put his Master's money on deposit in order to collect interest. Sydney Anglicans have been very creative in the past few decades in finding ways to see God's kingdom grow. They are to be applauded for their initiative and courage. On the other hand all of this reminds us that money and influence do not grow the kingdom, God does by his Spirit. The $100 million loss should remind us of that.

God has been humbling the Western world through the recession. That includes His Church by the way.

The Frog and the Prince

2009-05-26T10:49:00.002+10:00

A big thank you to The Brothers Grimm and to Abi & Sophie for sharing this story with me at bedtime last night.

Gold ball meets girl. Girl loves ball. Girl loses ball. Frog offers to get ball if girl promises to love him and marry him. Frog gets ball. Girl breaks her promise. King makes girl keep her promise. Girl kisses Frog. Frog turns into hansome prince. Girl kisses him again. (Cue girlish giggles ... "they're in lurve!") THE END.

The King frowned. 'If you make a promise you must keep it,' he said sternly... she could almost hear the voice of her father saying, 'A promise is a promise,' so she moved towards the frog, closed her eyes and waited for the kiss.

Malachi would love this story. What a tale for our society - when the Princess keeps her promise and kisses the frog they all live happily ever after.

I, like all Frogs, love that story. In fact I might read it to the children on Sunday morning.

Idolatry exposed - the Emperor's new clothes

2009-05-15T13:08:00.004+10:00

It is only when idolatry is exposed to the light of day that we see it for what it is - pathetic, hopeless and ultimately meaningless. This time it wasn't the Emperor who was wearing no clothes but most of the Cronulla Sharks team.

The thing that is most striking about this sad event in a hotel room is just that, it is so sad. The media loves this kind of sallacious gossip. After all it combines it's three greatest loves: sex, celebrities and sport. However, if there is anything good that come out of this it is the unmasking of sex as an idol. Sex has been robbed of its power. It's like a bucket of cold water.

To quote again from Christopher Ash:

"The essence of idolatry is subjectivism. An idol is an object of worship that is no object, for it owes its existence to the subjective imagination of its worshipper, who is also its creator."

No one comes out well from this story. In our world obsessed by sex, stories like this strike a different chord. We are constantly bombarded by the message that sex outside of marriage brings fulfilment and happiness. The message is SO loud and SO powerful that most Christians feel they are fighting a rear-guard action. We try to hold to a Biblical morality but deep down we envy everyone else.

This story is a wake up call. We are not the ones trying to pretend were satisfied. Immoral Sex only has the power we give to it. Have the courage to expose the hollow nature of this idolatry. To stand up and say, "they've all got no clothes on!"

Prayer is generally a good thing

2009-05-06T18:51:00.002+10:00

The highlight (for me) of the SMBC biennial preaching conference has been John Woodbridge's lectures on the Church History of Revivals.

His historical analysis has been astute - he has read primary texts widely and yet is able to see patterns and trends.

One of the major themes has been prayer. God does great things when his people pray, and pray believing that he is able and willing to answer their prayers. Amazing that. It is almost as if there is a connection between God's people praying and God answering their prayers!

My guess is that prayerlessness is the first sign of practical atheism - we pray (short) prayers in church services ('cos thats what you do) and we say grace before our meals, but we do not pray as if we really believed that God is able to revive his church and transform our city.

Married to Jesus?

2009-05-02T18:07:00.007+10:00

I've been reading Marriage - sex in the service of God by Christopher Ash. (So have Duncan and James BTW so please feel free to ask them about it! )

There is some great stuff in it but one aspect made me think about marriage as an analogy for Christian faith. After all both the OT & NT frequently make this analogy themselves - marriage is supposed to be a picture of the covenant love that God has with his people, that Christ has with his church.

"The distinction between marriage perceived as a status following an event and marriage perceived as relational process is of great pastoral importance. The marriage 'one flesh' union is an ethical imperative (we ought to grow in it), but it is first a divine gift (Guroian 1987:88). There is a parallel here to the New Testament ethical calling to the Christian to 'become what you are'; the status and security of being adopted into the family of God is the foundation upon which the ethical life of the Christian is built. This safeguards grace as the principle that infuses all Christian living. It is the same in marriage: we enter a state in which security has been pledged without conditions, and in this safe state we live out the calling to which we are called, to build a relationship of growing sacrificial love. But when we focus on the gradually deepening (or evaporating) relational intimacy as the locus of marriage, paradoxically a terrible insecurity is engendered. This is how it is with an extramarital affair; it all rests on the current condition of an ever-fluctuating relationship. Graham Greene conjures up this insecurity in "The End of the Affair" as his 'hero' ruminates about the way that passionate desire when the lovers were together can go hand in hand with fear when they were apart. He speaks of loving her obsessively, 'And yet I could feel no trust: in the act of love I could be arrogant, but alone I had only to look in the mirror to see doubt. . .' (Greene 1951:2.08). Sceptics speak mockingly of 'living in an institution' and of a mere 'piece of paper', but those who engage in sexual relations outside this institution often yearn for the security it brings. To live outside is to live by works, to be constantly on best behaviour, to be only as good as the last time. To live inside is to live in grace, responding freely to unconditional pledged love, not to have failure and personal inadequacies drive us to paralysing despair."

(Marriage - sex in the service of God, Christopher Ash, Regent College Publishing, 2003, p 74-75)

I'm sure you can see the link that Ash is making. He is moving in the other direction - he has marriage in his sights and uses divine covenant love as a starting point - but I'm interested in moving the other way. Our relationship with Jesus develops in the context of a change of status. The moment we believe we are justified by faith. Our status is now righteous in Christ. That security enables our relationship with him to flourish and thrive. So, as we saw in Romans, Justification Sola Fide is not 'cheap grace'; it is not an excuse to carry on sinning, rather it creates the right conditions in the garden for true faith and godliness to grow.

The Resurrection on Facebook

2009-04-21T10:26:00.002+10:00

An interesting article in the SMH today about Facebook being used as evidence.

The bit of the article that struck me was this:

These digital collections are so convincing to a jury, fed a constant diet of television forensics, that a Sydney University law professor, Mark Findlay, believes it is leading to cases being increasingly won on circumstantial evidence. "You are going to see a trend in trials away from oral evidence to documentary trials," Professor Findlay said. Such a trend was concerning because documentary evidence was easier to fabricate than that provided by a witness, he said.

Leaving aside the punctuation of SMH jounalists, this raises profound questions about the way we view the historicity of the gospels. People often say that we can't trust the oral and written tradition on which the four gospels are based.

'If only Jesus had lived in the 21st century and then everything could have been captured on film!'

Actually recent developments make it easier to fabricate evidence. Professor Findlay thinks that eye-witnesses make for a much better case. Findlay is arguing for the historicity of the gospels ... but he probably doesn't realise it!?

Easter every day!

2009-04-13T16:43:00.004+10:00

I've been thinking about the Church's calendar recently. I remember my old Pastor telling me that he preached Christmas one Sunday a year and Easter for all the rest!?

And yet, especially in our Biblically illiterate age, isn't it good to 'teach' the Christian calendar? For example, Good Friday is a day when we particularly reflect on the death and suffering of Jesus; whereas Easter day is all about the resurrection. Likewise a case could be made for Pentecost (the Holy Spirit) and Harvest (God as Creator), simply to weave the key aspects of Christian doctrine into the regular pattern of our lives and worship.

I don't think I'd ever want to be tied down into a formal lectionary throughout the year but I am coming round to thinking that some regular theological rythymn to the year would be a good thing.

How does it work?

2009-04-01T17:57:00.005+11:00

I've almost finished N.T. Wright's latest book Justification: God's plan and Paul's Vision. For those interested it is his latest on the NPP (New Perspective on Paul) and is a response to John Piper's response to him on the NPP. For everyone else it is all about justification in Paul's teaching and how we become righteous in Christ.

As expected it a great book. Wright is a fantastic writer and handles Scripture very well.

However, it is not so much that I disagree with Wright, more that I often don't get what difference it makes.

For example, when he is critiquing the traditional reformed understanding of imputation - that is that Christ's righteousness is seen as moral 'merit' which is credited to us by faith - he has this to say,

"It is not the 'righteousness' of Jesus Christ which is 'reckoned' to the believer. It is his death and resurrection. That is what Romans 6 is all about." (p 205)

That confuses me. Wright is right (well he would be!) about what the text says. But where does that actually get us? The question Reformed theologians have been wrestling with for the past 500 years is how the believer is counted righteous by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

What does it mean to say that Christ's death and resurrection is reckoned to the believer? Yes, the cross is ultimately a mystery. Certainly, all atonement models should bring with them a healthy helping of humility - we tread on holy ground and shouldn't presume to fully grasp the 'mechanics' of the gospel. And yet (ISTM) the traditional Reformed view is perfectly consistent with Wright's view himself. For most of the book I've sat there nodding, but thinking, "So what?" Surely Wright can only over turn the Old Perspective if he can show that it is inconsistent with the Biblical text.

The Aussie Lifestyle

2009-03-19T17:29:00.004+11:00

Well, it is only 9 months after my birthday (roughly) but I finally got to enjoy my birthday present. Emily and I enjoyed the Sydney Bridge Climb on my day off this week. (I gave the climb to Emily for her birthday this year so that explains the wait!?)

It was amazing - what a way to learn about the Bridge and enjoy the awesome view of the city. Did you know that the entire bridge is supported by four joints? That would make a great illustration in a talk of the centrality of Jesus ... unless James Oosterveen gets there first!

Anyway, enough of my rambling. During the 3 hour trek we got talking to a couple on holiday from the UK. They were very interested in the fact that we had moved out here - you could tell they liked the idea. It didn't take long for Paul to utter the immortal words I've heard countless times from Brits ... "well, it is a great change of lifestyle."

When we told non-Christian friends back in Cheltenham that we were moving to Sydney everyone rationalised our decision as a 'lifestyle choice'. Apparently Aussies are more physically active outside, do more sport, are friendlier and thus Sydney would provide a healthier environment for our family.

I suppose this is related to 'Sea Change' - just like the ABC show - it is popular for people to escape the rat race of consumerism and materialism and settle down in the country or on the coast. Sometimes it is even put as the 'spiritual' option.

It's laughable though, isn't it? Since a strict philosophical definition of materialism refers to a world view where this physical world is all that exists, then surfers are just as materialistic as fashion victims; farmers as much computer geeks. In the short time we've lived in Sydney we have grown to love Australians and this country, but the lifestyle swap is materialism for materialism.

Jesus used a Greek word for 'change of lifestyle' - in Greek it is metanoia. We are more used to the word repentance. This morning I was reading Jeremiah. How relevant are his words:

"My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water." Jeremiah 2: 13

How true for the people of Britain and Australia. We have forsaken God, and we have looked for him in possessions and experiences. They are broken cisterns, the water they hold does not satisfy and leaks away before our eyes.

We are Australian

2009-02-23T15:34:00.004+11:00

Now that the memorial service has happened I think we can begin to get some perspective on the terrible tragedy that our nation has faced. The bushfires in Victoria have been awful.

Musician Bruce Woodley wrote the song "I am Australian" 22 years ago. While out of the country last week, Bruce was rung and asked to pen two new verses and perform the stirring song at the memorial service for the bushfire victims.

Look in particular at the lyrics of one of these new verses:

There are so many heroes
who’s stories must be told
they fought the raging fires of hell
and saved so many souls.
From the ashes of despair our towns will rise again!
we mourn your loss
we will rebuild
We are Australian!

I watched some of the memorial service and was saddened by how shallow it seemed. Yes, it was great to see how traegdies like this bring out the best in some people. There was a great spirit of 'mateship'. However, there was no hope. Well, no hope apart from trust in ourselves. As a nation we were called to worship at the altar of positive thinking.

Just look at the words of Bruce Woodley's verse above. At first glance it seems full of hope. But look carefully. On what basis? I realise that arsonists started the fires but, in general, the whole point of natural disasters is that we cannot stop them happening. We might limit the damage but we cannot prevent them occurring. Albert Camus wrote an essay called The Myth of Sisyphus, based on the original story from Greek mythology. In the final chapter he compares the absurdity of man's life with the situation of Sisyphus, who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a rock up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. Apparently if this devestation happens again, it's okay because we will just rebuild and start over. Such sentiment only brings hope if we are actually heading somewhere, achieving something. If this life is all there is then Bruce is actually writing a song about the absurdity of human existence.

More significantly did you recognise the allusions to the Christian gospel? The fire-fighters are compared to Jesus who really fought the fires of hell and really saved people's souls. Once more Woodley's song collapses under the weight of its own rhetoric. No one assumes he believes hell is real, so what is he saying? He is comparing something horrific and very real, with something even worse but (allegedly) not real. It's like a scene from Edmund Blackadder - "So let me get this straight. You're saying that something which you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else which you have never seen?"

Let's pray for the people of Victoria as they rebuild. Most of all pray that they will build on solid ground, and not the shifting sand of Woodley's song.