PBC blog

Future Australian Leaders

2011-12-13T19:34:00.006+11:00

Okay so this is probably a lot of sour grapes because neither of my daughters got to be School Captain. Oh reader, you will have to judge...

I'm really disturbed by the process of choosing Captains in Primary Schools here in Sydney. If our local primary school is typical of the public school system then it is basically a popularity contest.

Candidates promote themselves through a poster and a speech (apparently all candidates are uniquely qualified, caring, brilliant at public speaking etc.) and then the pupils decide via a straight ballot paper. I understand the teachers have a little influence but do we really appreciate children from (let's say) year 3 downwards to be able to make sensible choices over a poster and a speech?

It gets particularly frustrating when one person is elected who is famous throughout the school for their (note the non-gender specific language) bad behaviour in class. But they are well popular with the kids. Leadership is about being well known it has nothing to do with good character.

And then we wonder why our political system is in a mess?

I think this has a lot to do with confusion over consensus and consent, between popularity and leadership, and listening and representation.

Leaders who are appointed through a straight popularity contest will:

Seek consensus rather consent all the time. Consensus is an ideal but people disagree most of the time about most things. Frequently consent to move ahead is what is required.
regularly do what is popular rather than what is needed. It is built into the way we think about appointing leaders right from primary school.
get confused about what representation means. Good leadership listens to all those who are represented. That does not mean that the leader has to present all possible views of those represented though.

What say ye?

(Although it has been so long since I posted anything maybe you've all gone to sleep!)

[PS Coincidently I've just noticed an article in the SMH complaining about awarding Dave Warner the man of the match instead of Kiwi Doug Bracewell - apparently it was decided by a vote from Australian viewers!?]

Yay, Holiday

2011-09-01T10:36:00.001+10:00

I'm off to the UK for most of September.

Yay!

Under Valued Gifts (9)

2011-08-18T12:26:00.002+10:00

9. The Gift of Giving

Did you know that the NT describes the ability of Christians to give money to their local church and to mission as itself a ‘gift’? In 2 Corinthians 8 verse 7 Paul talks about giving in the same way he speaks about other spiritual gifts:

“But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us—see that you also excel in this grace [or gift] of giving.“

Therefore our financial giving to the church is as important as other gifts such as preaching, singing, or teaching kids about Jesus.

Most of us realise that our giving is part of our Christian faith but I think some of us have confused generosity with spontaneity. In other words, I think to myself, ‘I have the freedom to give generously to whatever needs come across my path.’

However, this is a common fallacy. Research has shown that, while disciplined givers often view their giving as modest and spontaneous givers as generous, regular givers are by far the most generous. Why do you think Street Chuggers (that is Charity Muggers who accost you with their clipboards) are so desperate to get you to sign up for monthly direct debits? They do this because they know full well that even if you only give $15 a month it will still add up to much more than a ‘generous’ donation of $100 once every few years.

Have a read of 2 Corinthians 8 & 9 - I’m preparing a Bible Study on it for BS groups. You will see that Christian giving is a gift, and it is meant to be done sacrificially, willingly and regularly.

Have you read 2 Corinthians 8 & 9?
How do you decide how much to give and how often?
Have you reviewed your giving to PBC?

“Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9: 7)

Hillsong

2011-08-15T17:55:00.004+10:00

Okay, so it has taken nearly 4 years but since Hillsong is just a couple of suburbs away I thought I'd go and check out an evening service.

It was the 7pm 'Sunday Night Live' service.

Here are my initial impressions. I'm still in shock (from sensory overload) and so this is not supposed to be a carefully considered review but merely a collection of random thoughts and impressions:

the professional production of the service was AMAZING - Lady Gaga and U2 would be chuffed if they could produce a show this good.
there wasn't a hint of the prosperity gospel.
it wasn't very pentecostal - e.g. no speaking in tongues.
it seems (from the last two points) they have worked hard on removing things that would seem alien to your average Sydneysider.
they weren't ashamed to ask for money though - the offering was preceded by a reading from Deuteronomy and the (very helpful) explanation that if we develop the habit of surrendering our finances to the Lordship of Christ then this will help us surrender in other areas too.
did I say that it was all very well done? Sometimes churches are said to be like a concert, this wasn't like a concert - it was a performance. Dark lighting for the audience, smoke machines, flashing lights, live video feed of the band (song words were tiny - right at the bottom of the screen). I've been to loads of gigs and plays. As I say this was not like a performance, it was one. To be fair to Hillsong I think that is the intention. Sunday Night Live is meant to be an evangelistic shop window which is easily accessible to the modern consumer.
The talk took multimedia to a whole new level. The theme was 'going in and going out' and the stage had props consisting of doors - the preacher would speak for a while and then walk through a door only to appear (seemlessly) in a video clip on the screen. These clips seemed to have been filmed (at great expense) during the week just for the service. When I say great expense I mean it. The last clip was of the speaker doing a parachute jump and speaking into the camera as he did it. My guess is that this one service was 'worth' at least $10k of production.
The speaker was also very polished. He hardly had any notes and yet quoted scriptures throughout. The talk was peppered with bible verses. It was very inspirational. Although I have to say that it was very lacking in content. At no point throughout the talk or the service (apart from giving our tithe, I suppose) was any specific example given to explain what things like repentance or 'letting God into our transitions' might look like. I realise that everyone's life is different and we mustn't do the Holy Spirit's job for him but it is easy to go away from a service like that fired up about obedience in life without having a clue what it will mean. Likewise I noticed a lot of the songs were about wholehearted obedience - great words but I cringe when making promises with my lips that I have no idea if I can keep.
At the end there was a time for response. After a general response to the talk there was an evangelistic appeal. Generally speaking I thought it was great. He explained the gospel simply and then expected people to respond. That was when it started to get manipulative. After asking us all to close our eyes we were asked to raise our hands if we want to trust in Christ. After a while (with the traditional keyboard key in the background) he pushed a bit harder and then started saying 'thanks' for all those who had raised their hands but I couldn't see any! (I was very disobedient and kept my eyes open.) It is possible there were a couple behind me but I could see about 3/4 of the congregation and I couldn't see any. While understandable (people are more likely to stick up their hand if they think they are not alone) it is highly manipulative.

So, overall, a mixture of emotions. Not quite what I expected. I'm still reflecting on it. The dominant issue is the level of the production. I can't quite work out if they are being 'all things to all men to win some...' in great evangelistic zeal to reach Sydney for Christ - or being like the Corinthians in losing their trust in the gospel as the power of God to change lives.

Evangelism made less difficult

2011-08-08T17:25:00.007+10:00

Early Christians couldn't stop talking about Jesus. We find it hard to start. Why is this?

After the current section of Isaiah we are going to do something thinking about evangelism.

I'm really keen for comments on why we find it so hard to share our faith in our culture. Also suggestions of key topics worth considering related to this issue.

I can't promise anything that will make evangelism easy, but it would be good to help make it easier.

Under Valued gifts (8)

2011-08-01T16:24:00.005+10:00

8. The gift of welcome

Tim Keller has written that there are only two kinds of churches:

1. One kind says to its community: ‘You can come to us, learn our language, learn our interests, become like us and meet our needs.’

2. The other kind says to its community: ‘We will come to you, learn your language, learn your interests, join in your life and try to meet your needs.’

A welcoming attitude is something that has to be constantly relearnt. Only the gospel can reorientate our vision - away from the inward, selfish desire to mix with people like ourselves and towards the selfless desire to love the wider community around us. Ministries like the Op Shop, Flo Harris Lodge and School Scripture help us to keep this focus. When it comes to the love of Christ it should be just as much ‘show and tell’ as ‘come and hear’. What practical things can we do to join in the life of the community around us?

However, that attitude will only translate into action ‘out there’ if it starts ‘in here’. This attitude of welcome should pervade all our meetings too - on Sunday, Bible study groups, Playtime ... etc.

Why not evaluate any PBC activity you are involved with from this perspective of welcome:

• is there a language newcomers are expected to learn?

• do our songs only appeal to one particular interest group?

• is it obvious what to do and how to get involved?

• do we take the initiative in welcoming new people?

• are we addressing the needs of the wider community or just the needs of those who come already?

“Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:...” (Philippians 2: 4-5)

Under valued gifts (7)

2011-07-09T13:42:00.004+10:00

7. The gift of prayer

“All I could do was pray.” How often have we heard that as an expression of helplessness. All I could do? All?

During my life I have met several old people who had a profound ministry of prayer. They all seemed to be women, but I haven’t yet worked out the significance of that. These people had reached a stage in life where they were no longer physically able to do much to serve the church. So they did what they could - they prayed. Some of them were apologetic, as if their contribution to the work of the Lord was rather pathetic.

Far from it. The Lord had used their frailty to teach them a lesson that we all need to learn - that without him we can achieve nothing. Only the branch that remains in the vine will bear fruit.

Our human nature has a strong bias towards self-reliance. Even good things like studying the bible, evangelism, serving the poor can quickly become about us - what we are doing to bring about Christ’s kingdom. However, the gospel of grace is supposed to cut through all of that.

While it is true that even prayer can become yet another thing that we do to show off to God, it is probably the hardest arena in which to trust in ourselves. Just as men hate asking for directions (because it means admitting that: 1. They are lost. 2. They need help) so the very act of prayer is admitting that we cannot solve our own problems but only God can.

Christians who really understand the gospel are people who pray. They pray all the time. About everything. No event and no decision is faced without asking for God’s help. Their utter dependence on him has a direct correlation with their prayer life. It has been said that if you want to know how popular the preacher is count how many people turn up on a Sunday; but if you want to know how popular Jesus is then count how many are at the prayer meeting.

Prayer is, I think, the most undervalued ministry in churches today.

read the bible - learn from the heroes of our faith and how they prayed.
pray - on your own, in pairs, in threes, as a church. Anywhere.

“Pray continually.” (1 Thessalonians 5: 17)

Under Valued gifts (6)

2011-07-01T16:58:00.001+10:00

6. The gift of hospitality

This strikes at the heart of why we have lunch together once a month - hospitality is really important in the bible.

Have you ever noticed how much of Jesus’ ministry revolved around food? From the miraculous (Feeding of the 5,000 or the Wedding at Cana) to the mundane (having dinner at the home of a Pharisee named Simon), and even to his ministry (how many parables climax with a big banquet?).

Take a gospel. Luke is a good place to start. Read it through in one go pausing to note how often hospitality breaks into the story.

In every culture that I have ever encountered there is something special about eating and drinking together. It breaks down barriers - it both symbolises and encourages a deepening of relationships.

Now I realise that some find this easier than others. Finances or other circumstances of life may make it much harder for you to open up your home for others. Some of us are paraylsed by high expectations of entertaining. But hospitality is not entertaining. Just put the kettle on. All that’s okay - Jesus does not expect us all to be the same - but he does expect us all to get the principle.

That’s why we have lunch together after PBCam once a month. Anyone can join in that and invite others to stay. If you aren’t a good cook then why not invite some people from church out to a cafe? Of if money is an issue then why not go out for a coffee? Or stay in for a coffee?

There is something magic that happens when we eat and drink together. Suddenly we relax and become more ourselves. Then it is so much easier to laugh and cry together. Table Talk. That’s such a valuable gift in encouraging people to follow Jesus.

read - through Luke’s gospel looking for meals.
invite - people over for a meal or coffee. It doesn’t have to be much.
explore - grab some friends and check out the Bourke Street Bakery or Coffee Alchemy (both in Marrickville). If anyone asks, then tell them your Pastor said you had to go!

“Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.” (1 Peter 4: 9)

Under Valued gifts (5)

2011-06-25T17:55:00.002+10:00

5. Talking about Jesus.

I don’t think we are very good at evangelism in Sydney. I don’t think there is at lot of evangelism going on at PBC for that matter. There are many things that we do well, but sharing our faith isn’t one of them.

So what do you do about it? I met up for a coffee with the Pastor of Castle Hill Baptist this week and he said that he was tired of training courses. “Church needs a kick up the pants about evangelism? Get them to do this course!” Courses can be helpful but I agree that the problem runs much deeper than that.

I think that the reason why we find it so hard to tell our friends and neighbours about Christ (and we do, or at least I do) is that we even find it hard to talk to other Christians about the gospel. Quotes from the Early Church Fathers suggest that the early Christians couldn’t help talking about Jesus all the time - and so it naturally spilt out in conversations with non-Christians.

In fact some of the most interesting descriptions of early Christianity come from pagans! For example Celsus was a second century pagan who argued with Origen. Despite their cynicism even those opposed to Christianity had to concede that the Christians both lived the gospel and kept talking about it.

So let’s start by talking about Jesus to one another. How did you become a Christian? What difference does Jesus make to your week? Those are the kind of questions we should get so used to they become second nature.

Practice - write out your testimony and share it with another Christian
Encourage - how about asking someone how they became a Christian over morning tea?
Encourage one another in conversations to apply the gospel to our lives in simple and practical (and therefore visible) ways.
Don’t avoid people who talk about Jesus as ‘weird’ and ‘super-spiritual’. Actually, when it comes to Christians, they are the ‘normal’ ones.

Under Valued gifts (4)

2011-06-06T10:59:00.003+10:00

The Gift of Sympathy

According to the Apostle Paul sympathy should be the automatic outworking of the gospel. You can tell if someone’s life has been changed by Jesus because they show sympathy.

However, by sympathy I don’t mean the way it is often portrayed on TV. I’m talking about the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Technically sympathy involves more than empathy (feeling what other people feel), it also entails a positive concern for the well-being of the other person.

For example, instead of turning up at PBC thinking, “Wow, I’ve had a tough week at work, I’m going to sit back and receive encouragement this morning...” turn it the other way round - “Wow, I bet everyone else has had a tough week - how can I encourage them?”

Similarly instead of expecting others to cut me some slack because I’m new / sick / tired / a hassled parent ____ (fill in the blank) I’m going to cut everyone else some slack because they are all of the above, and more!

So here are some tips on how to develop this ministry. Anybody can do this:

turn up early (before 9.30am) - think: if I was new to church, how would I like people to treat me?

pray as I enter the building - how can I serve people this morning?

look around you at those sitting near you - what are their needs?

if someone is short with you, or doesn’t treat you as you would expect - think: is there a reason (I don’t know about) why they are acting like this?

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” (Philippians 2: 3-4)

Under Valued gifts (3)

2011-05-31T11:39:00.003+10:00

3. The Gift of Supporting World Mission

World Mission is something most of us put into the ‘too hard’ basket. We admire missionaries who go off to other side of the world but actually what they do makes little connection with our lives.

Instead let’s learn to think of PBC as a family where we all have the same purpose, to “... make Jesus known to people in the Inner West of Sydney and throughout the World.”

Mark and Rochelle are simply carrying out that purpose in a different country but they are just like you and me. (Well, Mark is not just like anyone, but you get my point.) They are a normal family with normal needs and normal hopes and fears. They miss family and find evangelism hard work just as much as you do.

Therefore simple things like sending them an email / card just saying “G’Day” really encourages them. Gifts for the kids say a lot. Most of all they crave our prayers. Pray for them regularly and tell them that you are praying for them when you pray.

They need financial support to stay in Slovenia so consider either giving to PBC or supporting CMS directly. Although it is a sacrifice to give money it is not particularly hard, in the sense that once you’ve set up the bank transfer it happens automatically and you don’t even have to remember - easy as!

However, if we are a united family at PBC then we should also consider going ourselves. What about a holiday to Europe? Visit Slovenia on a short-term mission trip and you might love it so much that you want to stay. Scary, yes, but exciting too!

Encourage - what can you do this week to encourage a PBC misho?
Pray - buy a copy of Operation World, and then use it!
Give - nuff said.
Go - short term mission trip to one of our mishos? Long term mission?

“⁴ In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy ⁵ because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now,⁶being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.“ (Philippians 1: 4-6)

Under valued gifts (2)

2011-05-23T17:36:00.000+10:00

2. The Gift of Small Talk

Here is another gift that it is worth exercising at PBC - the gift of small talk.

I want to stick up for small talk and the hard time it often gets in churches and in sermons in particular. How often do we hear church lambasted for how shallow it is? Allegedly all you hear over morning tea is, “Hi ... nice weather ... go the Rabbitohs!” Apparently this is stopping us from bearing our souls and sharing our deepest struggles so that we can grow as Christians.

Well, I want to amount a defence of the beleaguered small talk. I fully agree that much of our conversation can be shallow and that Christian growth means increasing openness. However, it is a cop out to cut out the small talk. If we are to get to know one another we need more small talk, not less.

When I’m struggling in my marriage, when my Mum gets cancer, or I’m made redundant, I’m not going to suddenly unload on complete strangers. Instead if I’ve been saying “G’day” to you every Sunday for the past few years then I’m much more likely to open up when the time comes.

It is true that small talk can be used as a barrier to genuine openness but normally it is the route to it. The way we learn to share our lives with each other is just by talking to one another... about anything. Of course for this to progress past the superficial we need to meet regularly otherwise each time we speak will feel like starting again - hence the gift of presence last week.

So here are some tips on how to develop this ministry. As you will see this is not just for the upfront or extrovert. Anybody can do this:

✓ turn up early (before 9.30am) - newcomers usually do!

✓ sit somewhere different - it’s probably warmer :-)

✓ ask about what you talked about last week - people will really appreciate the interest.

✓ be the first to say ‘hello’ - then they have to think of something to say.

“Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another....” (Hebrews 10: 25)

Under Valued gifts (1)

2011-05-23T17:32:00.002+10:00

Gifts of the Holy Spirit:

1. The Gift of Presence

As the series (sermon series at PBCam on What we believe) gets more practical I’m going to write a few short articles on some of the spiritual gifts you don’t hear about so often.

Let’s start with the gift of presence. I mean the gift you use at church (or Bible study group) by simply showing up. In order to exercise this gift you don’t really have to do anything else except say “G’Day!” It is really encouraging to see you every week. Your presence encourages everyone else that, in a world that rejects Jesus, you are still hanging on in there and you are still trying to follow him. It also communicates powerfully that you think it was worth getting out of bed to meet with God’s people. All that just from turning up!

However the effort comes in developing it as a habit. You see for the gift to be effective it has to happen regularly. Of course there are occasions when we have to miss church for all sorts of good reasons, but if I turn up no more often than I’m away then my absence speaks just as loud (if not louder) than my presence.

As I’ve said already this gift is probably more noticeable by its absence. What I notice is that if I miss church then I always feel more distant from people when I return - relationships become harder work. And that becomes a vicious circle - I’m less likely to come and so I feel more distant. (And I’m the Pastor :-) )

On the other hand it is immensely encouraging to meet the same people week after week. Some weeks all we do is smile but the connection has been made. The gift of presence has been exercised. I’m not mad making a church a priority after all! All these people stand with me in faith.

So here are some tips on how to develop this ministry. As you will see this is not just for the upfront or extrovert. Anybody can do this:

✓ turn up early (before 9.30am) - newcomers usually do!

✓ sing enthusiastically - the musos will feel their practice was worth it.

✓ listen attentively - the preacher will get so excited he will finish early.

✓ smile at people - they will think you are up to something.

✓ be the first to say ‘hello’ - then they have to think of something to say.

“Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another....” (Hebrews 10: 25)

Under appreciated gifts

2011-05-23T17:30:00.004+10:00

Okay, so here now starts a series of posts on gifts that are seriously under-appreciated at church.

I've called them 'gifts of the Spirit' but basically I mean things we should be doing to encourage one another when we meet together - so, in that sense, gifts we should be exercising.

Resurrection!

2011-05-23T17:26:00.002+10:00

I have no idea how people find the time to post to their blogs once a day (never mind several times a day) I seem to regularly find more important things to do.

Nevertheless this PBC blog is pretty pointless unless there are regular posts.

So to kick start it (again!) I'm going to upload a letter I'm putting in the church bulletin each Sunday morning at the moment.

No. 3 - The desire for something to believe in

2010-11-27T14:59:00.002+11:00

Hugh MacKay writes like so many Australians - he has rejected the conservative Christian faith of his upbringing (Baptist, I think!?) but has returned (in later life) to a sense of the numinous that he finds in a more liberal Christianity.

So he attacks all forms of fundamentalism - be it Atheistic or Theistic. Dawkins and Hitchens get short shrift but so do any religious believers who take their faith a bit too seriously. This leaves us with something a bit too vanilla. There is some good sociological analysis about belief reinforcement and the desire for certainty but he doesn't actually answer anything.

For example, let's take the desire for certainty - why is it so popular? Now that is a conversation worth having.

It may well be because I'm a Christian but this chapter was the least satisfying of the book. There is no traction here. We seem to need people and religious ideas to believe in. And? Simply saying 'that a bit of belief is okay just don't take it too seriously' is both intellectually weak and emotionally unsatisfying. If something is true how is it possible to believe it too much?

So called 'fundamentalists' do often bring the gospel into disrepute but the world does not need less passionate followers of Jesus, it needs more passionate ones!

No. 2 - The Desire for 'My Place'

2010-11-16T14:35:00.004+11:00

I'm not surprised that this is no. 2 in a book about Australian culture. What may be true for all humanity is especially true for a nation so largely comprised of immigrants.

Where do you come from? Where do you live? Where do you feel most at home?

These are key questions for Aussies.

Hugh is especially insightful in highlighting 'the shed' for guys. I think the aspect most important to 'the shed' is that it is the place where I can be myself. In a society where men are becoming confused about their roles then a 'safe place' will become increasingly important to them.

And while Hugh is right in his description of the car as 'my place' I'm not sure he fully understands why we have so many 'deep' conversations in it. I suspect it is because we have no where else to go. I've had some of my best conversations with people in a car because of the combination of the following factors: 1. No direct eye-contact ... so we can talk for a long time without it feeling too confrontational and awkward. 2. No where else to go - the conversation has to continue for the alternative is just silence ... or the radio!

Space & Morality - it is so true that we behave differently in cyberspace as in real space. The aggressive on-line debates or inappropriate use of FaceBook are just two of many examples. Our geographical locatedness (is that a word?) helps to earth our identity. If it is a very human temptation to wear masks then the internet actively encourages us in our play-acting. Integrity needs real space.

As MacKay recognises there are two sides to our desire for cultural identity. Like many Australians my identity has much to do with where I grew up and what countries my Father and Mother came from. However, this cultural identification can quickly lead to territorialism. It is fascinating talking to Michael Prodigalidad and Ross Ciano about growing up in Sydney as an Australian-Filipino and Australian-Italian. If 'my place' has boundaries (which it must to be 'my' space) then it will tend to exclude others. Passages like Ephesians 2 and Revelation 7 have profound implications for a truly Christian understanding of identity. Somehow heaven is depicted as being a place of diversity and unity, where we maintain our cultural identity but all barriers between us are removed in Christ.

Home Ownership is a big one. And it is an issue we must grapple with at PBC. As house prices escalate in the inner-west it is easy to spot the trend - Flo to house-share, possibly to married unit rent, to family and wanting to buy ... to having to move where we can afford. MacKay challenges the Aussie dream though. The Castle has weak foundations. Who says we have to own? All the research says that a community needs stable housing (i.e. you can stay for as long as you like) but this does not necessarily mean home ownership. Along with Tim Keller I'm happy to promote renting and bringing up a family in the city. As a deliberate choice. A good thing.

Of course the one thing that Hugh MacKay is not able to factor in is that 'my place' is not (ultimately) located in the here and now. From Abraham onwards God's people have been temporary stewards of the land because we know our home is in the new heaven and the new earth. This is not some kind of Greek Gnosticism that says that the physical earth is bad - Christ's kingdom will be physical too - but it does drastically alter out perspective. Like Aboriginals have always thought, we view ourselves more as custodians of the land than owners of it. My place will be where God's people are, where Christ is building his kingdom.

No. 1 - The Desire to be taken Seriously

2010-11-02T14:06:00.004+11:00

This is a fantastic chapter. Hugh is very insightful into human nature. I feel as if I could stop and preach a sermon / write an article on every section of the chapter.

As with the book as a whole, so with this chapter, he is much better at diagnosis than treatment.

The desire to be noticed.
The desire to matter.
The desire to be appreciated.
The desire to be understood.
The desire to be valued as a person.
The desire to be accepted.
The desire to be remembered. (p 3)

Hugh is right. The desire to be taken seriously is what drives us all. Both positively and negatively he charts the impact of this desire on Australian culture - ranging from sex to rewarding children - we are driven by the need for personal affirmation. I particularly think he is spot on with his evaluation of the cult of the celebrity. It is not that we necessarily admire these people but we aspire to get the recognition that they do. Indeed reading about their flawed lives encourages us that we are 'just like them' and therefore we could achieve their status too.

In passing it is worth noting his astute observation about religious minorities. When our beliefs are attacked it does create a knee-jerk reaction of strengthening our resolve. Negatively it means Christians can quickly become reactionary and marginalized, but positively even MacKay recognises that it at least means we are being taken seriously. "Religious faith - or any other kind of belief system - is far more likely to erode and wither if it is ignored. Indifference is the real enemy." (p 16) Let us thank God daily for Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens!

But Hugh pulls out just when he is getting to the heart of the matter. On page 15 he observes that human nature is ruled by a Law of Reciprocity. "At its noblest, we call it the Golden Rule. I'll treat others the way I would like them to treat me. But it usually operates less charitably than that: I'll treat others the way they treat me, or perhaps even the way I think they might treat me." He finishes that section with these two sentences - combining a razor-sharp perception with a credulous naiveté ... "History is filled with examples of nations that have reacted violently against the contempt or indifference of others. Eventually, we must learn to accept that if we won't take others seriously, they won't take us seriously either."

Eventually? Eventually? In over 3000 years of well documented human history where is the slightest bit of evidence that we are learning that? Taking the land of my fathers for a moment - South Africa - history shows that the British oppressed the Dutch (Boers) who oppressed the Africans ... who brought in positive discrimination when they got into power. The truth and reconciliation commission was a wonderful glimmer of hope in all that but that brings us to an issue that Hugh MacKay completely ignores. More of that later. For now, "Open the window Hugh!" In the real world we cannot escape the vicious circle of the law of reciprocity - just saying we need to take others seriously makes no difference. How?

So by the time we get to the end of the chapter we are already prepared for the anti-climax. How? 1. Learn to listen to each other. 2. Go to counselling.

That's it.

He's right of course. These things would help Australia. But so would motherhood and apple pie. What's missing is the incentive to make this change. By nature we are selfish and want to be taken seriously by other people. Hugh is correct in saying that we need to treat others that way so that they will, in time, treat others that way too. (I think two guys called Jesus and Paul also said something like this a few years ago.) But how do we change our nature so that we, long term, continuously, learn to put others first?

Philippians 2 would be a good place to start. God has served us first in Christ Jesus as we respond to his self-sacrificing love so we start to treat others the same. The Truth & Reconciliation Committee in SA only works (in my opinion) when you put it in the framework of a sovereign God who will judge injustice and who gave his Son as a sacrifice for us - taking the initiative in forgiving his enemies. Then, and only then, can the vicious circle be broken and the law of reciprocity start working in a positive manner.

So a great first chapter but Hugh needs to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. I think he blinks before taking his excellent observations fully to their logical conclusions.

Why did I do that?

2010-10-28T20:34:00.003+11:00

Right, so Hugh's book contains a list of ten desires that shape us as a nation. I'm going to take them one by one and try to comment on them from a biblical perspective.

To begin with let's look at the introduction - Why did I do that?

As Hugh explains, this book is essentially a secular version of Tim Keller's Counterfeit gods. Although, as one would expect, since it is written from a secular perspective there is some divergence. Generally I think Hugh's observation and diagnosis is spot on, but it is his solutions where the gospel really bites.

The book is all about the powerful desires that drive us. Ones so powerful that 'we sometimes do things that we know will bring misery upon ourselves and others.'
These desires sound a lot like the idols that Keller refers to. Especially so when Hugh explains that every desire has a shadow -

"none of the ten desires is inherently good or bad. Each of them has the power to bring out the best in us, and the worst..."

This is just like Paul's explanation of idolatry in Romans 1. Idols are good, but they are not God.

However, Hugh back tracks at the end of his introduction. He says that he has chosen the word 'desires' "to convey the idea that although these are things we want - sometimes quite passionately - they do not rule us in the same way as our basic bodily needs."

Ummh. They don't rule over us Hugh? Are you sure? I thought you began by talking about desires so powerful that they could make us bring misery to ourselves? Sounds more like an idol to me.

Lazarus Blog entry!

2010-10-28T20:27:00.004+11:00

Okay, so it has been a while ... and if John Howard can make NT allusions then so can I.

The PBC blog is going to crank back into life again with a chapter by chapter look at Hugh MacKay's new book - What makes us tick?

(PS I've sent an email to Hugh MacKay recommending Tim Keller's book Counterfeit gods. My guess is that I won't get a reply but that he may be interested enough to read it.)

(PPS I was wrong - I've got a nice reply from his office saying that he is on tour publicizing his book but will be given my email to look at in mid-December when he gets back!)

Real Families

2010-07-26T18:09:00.004+10:00

I love the writing of G.K. Chesteron. He was such an astute observer of humanity. I came across this gem from an article he wrote on Families recently. Here he is arguing that families are good thing, not because they are "peaceful, pleasant and at one" but precisely because they are the opposite. A very perceptive commentary on the lengths will go to escape having to get to know other human beings:

If we were to-morrow morning snowed up in the street in which we live, we should step suddenly into a much larger and much wilder world than we have ever known. And it is the whole effort of the typically modern person to escape from the street in which he lives. First he invents modern hygiene and goes to Margate. Then he invents modern culture and goes to Florence. Then he invents modern imperialism and goes to Timbuctoo. He goes to the fantastic borders of the earth. He pretends to shoot tigers. He almost rides on a camel. And in all this he is still essentially fleeing from the street in which he was born; and of this flight he is always ready with his own explanation. He says he is fleeing from his street because it is dull; he is lying. He is really fleeing from his street because it is a great deal too exciting. It is exciting because it is exacting; it is exacting because it is alive. He can visit Venice because to him the Venetians are only Venetians; the people in his own street are men. He can stare at the Chinese because for him the Chinese are a passive thing to be stared at; if he stares at the old lady in the next garden, she becomes active. He is forced to flee, in short, from the too stimulating society of his equals--of free men, perverse, personal, deliberately different from himself. The street in Brixton is too glowing and overpowering. He has to soothe and quiet himself among tigers and vultures, camels and crocodiles. These creatures are indeed very different from himself. But they do not put their shape or colour or custom into a decisive intellectual competition with his own. They do not seek to destroy his principles and assert their own; the stranger monsters of the suburban street do seek to do this.

I think church as family is probably one of the most important NT metaphors needed today. However, that is family as defined by Chesterton. (Remember that he was writing a hundred years ago, what do you think he would say now!)

We need to talk about Kevin

2010-06-24T14:35:00.010+10:00

I have to admit that I'm in shock. With all the hype over the World Cup last night I've only just found out that Kevin Rudd is out and that Julia Gillard is the new Prime Minister of Australia.

We need to talk about Kevin is the title of a novel by Lionel Shriver. Without giving too much of the plot away, it is made up of letters from a Mother trying to come to terms with the fact that her son is a sociopathic murderer. I don't want to be melodramatic but I feel a similar need to come to terms with what on earth has happened to Kevin Rudd. Heralded as the conquering hero in 2007, how can he be booted out before even finishing a first term?

Here's some more heralding (from the SMH):

The move against Mr Rudd was sparked by a report in yesterday's Herald that Mr Rudd had used his chief of staff, Alister Jordan, to sound out the backbench over the past month on the level of support for him. This followed a Herald/Nielsen poll which showed the government would lose if an election were held then.
But Mr Rudd's action was regarded as a sign that he did not trust the repeated assurances by Ms Gillard that she would not stand.
"It was offensive and disloyal," said a Gillard supporter

... and apparently absolutely correct! It is quite possible that there is all sorts of stuff behind the scenes that I don't know about, but it seems incredibly harsh on Kevin.

I wonder what this teaches us about leadership in Australia?

What I like about Kevin is that he seems to have convictions. Politics is a tough game for Christians who have convictions because it is entirely based on compromise. I remember the British Tory Cabinet minister, Brian Mawhinney, being interviewed about how his Christian faith impacted cabinet discussions. He replied, "You can only resign once." In other words there are constantly issues raised with which you disagree, but once you have stated your case and the cabinet decision goes against you, then you have to decide whether you resign over it or not. Resignation may give you a self-righteous satisfaction but it also ends your influence in the running of the country.

Kevin clearly had to let some of his ideals go. That's politics. But generally he stuck to his guns and that is why he was fired! It seems the Mines are just to powerful for him.

What concerns me most is I think this represents a prevailing attitude to leadership in Australia. We want results fast and when decisions prove unpopular we cave in with equal speed.

As a starter for discussion, here are some possible lessons for churches:

1. Let's give our leaders time. It takes years to grow a tree, cress seeds sprout in days. Churches are supposed to have the perspective of eternity - you don't get much longer-term planning than that.

2. Let's support our leaders when unpopular decisions are made. That's not to say that we shouldn't be able to criticise bad decisions; just that we should expect change to be hard work and not give up too easily.

Do atheists care less?

2010-05-09T20:56:00.003+10:00

A recent study in Canada shows that church goers are more generous with their time and their money - they give more to charity and they volunteer more willingly: Do atheists care less?

This is not news. Studies have shown this in the past.

What interests me is the impact this will have on the proposed Ethics classes as an alternative to SRE in schools here in Australia. Where are they going to get all the volunteers from? Here at PBC we have great and committed teachers and we need a team of at least four just for Petersham Public School. All studies show that church goers volunteer much more regularly for this sort of thing.

There is a groundswell of public support for the idea of 'religion free ethics' but (ISTM) no one has thought through how to provide such a thing. My prediction is that there will be a flurry when it all starts but it won't take long until most schools find that they cannot find enough parents willing to come in (during working hours) to teach their kids every week during term time.

Teaching is hard work. Give it a few years and the government will find it has a stark choice: either pay teachers to teach Ethics (but what abut SRE?) or accept that only about 10% of schools can actually carry this off on a regular basis.

SRE & Ethics

2010-04-21T19:26:00.001+10:00

I wrote this letter to the SMH today. Let's see if it gets published!

Joan Bielski (letters April 21st) may have stumbled onto a key issue in the debate over SRE lessons. When she cavalierly dismisses many Christian SRE lessons as ‘amateurish’ she is simply stating a fact – the teachers are amateurs. One wonders if the government is going to pay for the training of Ethics teachers or if they are going to ask current School teachers to do this job – not really fair either way. However, if they ask parents and other volunteers to join in (as for SRE) then after the launch hype has died down (in a year or two) I can hardly imagine kindies skipping home gleefully on a Friday arvo saying, “Yeah, we drew a picture of an ethic again today.”

John Smuts, Lewisham

Handel's Bible Overview

2010-04-03T11:18:00.003+11:00

We headed in to St. Andrew's last night for Handel's Messiah. It was a great performance and the girls seemed to genuinely engage with it ... although were a bit bored by the end!

Two things that struck me:

1. The libretto (I didn't know what that meant either) is basically the Bible set to music. And most of it is from the OT - a little 1 Corinthians and Revelation at the end, a smattering of gospels, but most of it is from Isaiah, Malachi and the Psalms . He changes the odd pronoun here and there but essentially he just puts the OT down on paper and it is obvious (at least to him) how it all points to Jesus. So many Christians today are either scared or bored of the OT, and yet (according to Jesus himself) it is all about the Christ (Luke 24: 27).

We took some neighbours along and Emily helped them (and Sophie) follow in the Bible as Handel took us through the message of the whole Bible. I suppose it is a musical Bible Overview.

2. I didn't know that the audience is supposed to stand during the Hallelujah Chorus. Some research this morning tells me that it might have been started by King George II. But I didn't know that last night. Then I was just another Philistine made to feel an outsider from the club. I guess that is often how non-Christians feel at church.

Did you know Easter was a Christian festival?

2010-03-31T15:54:00.002+11:00

Tomorrow our girls celebrate Easter at school with a 'hat parade'. The ubiquitous images of Easter in the shops are bunnies (?) and Eggs (which point to re-birth more than resurrection).

Now the usual response to all this from Christians is an Easter version of 'bah humbug'. So, how can we redeem Easter as a festival without becoming merely anti-culture?

One thought is to try to redeem some of the imagery...

For example, if we use hollow chocolate eggs as symbols of an empty tomb then we are combating secularism with the gospel and following in centuries of Christian tradition.

Anyone got any better ideas?

Eat Chocolate for Jesus?

The story behind the story

2010-03-11T10:32:00.004+11:00

After recently circumnavigating Gulliver's Travels, Anne of Green Gables, The Hobbit, and Treasure Island, I'm now reading Little Women with my own little women.

Having never read it before (it doesn't have a single 'kapow' in the whole book) I was surprised by the content of the first chapter. The girls' favourite game (in the book) is playing 'Pilgrim's Progress'. Likewise they are each given a copy (of Pilgrim's Progress) for Christmas and promise their mother (their father is off fighting in the war) that they will try to emulate Christian's journey.

So Pilgrim's Progress is the story behind the story. I wonder how many Little Women readers know what that story is all about?

It made me think two thoughts:

1. The Christian gospel has greatly shaped (Western) English literature. Another argument for Christian SRE in schools - learn the gospel and pass English HSC!

2. The OT is essential to understanding the NT. It is the story behind the story.

Happiness

2010-03-02T14:14:00.003+11:00

A popular evangelistic fad at the moment is to piggy-back on the current research into happiness. Since everyone is obsessed with being happy the general idea is that we show them how faith in Christ actually promotes happiness.

1. I like the idea of a soft apologetic, starting with a desire for personal happiness in popular culture and gently trying to turn that towards God. It is absolutely essential that Christians engage with contemporary social attitudes and research.

2. However, I've got questions about the fundamental premise of this approach. Usually it begins with a definition of happiness, with attempts to 'correct' society's defintion. Nevertheless the basic assumption is that the goal of humanity is to be happy and that Christianity is an aid to that goal.

I'm not sure about that. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that the blessed are those who mourn. Paul talks about godly sorrow that leads to repentance in 2 Cor. 7. In other words sometimes being sad is a good thing, indeed sometimes what God wants for us.

Therefore I assume that you'd need to end up by challenging the overall assumption that God wants us to be happy all the time. (NB I'm NOT saying that God wants us to be sad all the time!) Hence instead of pointing everyone to Christ this strategy might, however unintentionally, encourage some to pursue happiness as their goal in life. Instead the gospel teaches us that true contentment and satisfaction in life is found when we pursue Christ as our goal in life.

Introverted Church?

2010-02-12T19:16:00.003+11:00

Here is a blog post that has been drawn to my attention about how introverts react to church.

It is a timely reminder on how our personalities affect the way we process what happens when we meet together. I particularly liked one of the comments which pointed out that extroverts tend to be good at enaging with a lot of people (but rather superficially) and introverts often are good at developing deeper relationships with a very small number of people.

This perspective is helpful because ...

1. It stops us comparing personality types. Extroverts are not more godly per se than introverts.

2. It doesn't allow personality type to become an excuse for un-Christlike behaviour. (e.g. trampling over other people's feelings or ignoring visitors.)

3. It reminds us that, in Christ's body, we need all types to function well.

Test of Maturity

2010-02-04T17:46:00.002+11:00

Went to a great MTS training day today with Tim and Gus.

Worth the entry fee alone was this from Marcus Reeves, "a maturing person is easily edified... if you've reached the stage when you'll only listen to Driscoll at his best, then you're already in deep trouble."

Ouch.

Even at the end of a long and humid day that hit me right between the eyes.

How to wreck your church in three weeks

2010-01-26T11:25:00.002+11:00

The thing about blogging I've noticed is that everybody copies everybody else's stuff. So I came across this great post today. I read it on someone's blog but noticed that he had got it from someone else's and finally that he had taken it from a third party. So let's just go for the source! It's originally from Christ Is Deeper Still.

How to wreck your church in three weeks

Week One: Walk into church today and think about how long you’ve been a member, how much you’ve sacrificed, how under-appreciated you are. Take note of every way you’re dissatisfied with your church now. Take note of every person who displeases you.

Meet for coffee this week with another member and “share your heart.” Discuss how your church is changing, how you are being left out. Ask your friend who else in the church has “concerns.” Agree together that you must “pray about it.”

Week Two: Send an email to a few other “concerned” members. Inform them that a groundswell of grievance is surfacing in your church. Problems have gone unaddressed for too long. Ask them to keep the matter to themselves “for the sake of the body.”

As complaints come in, form them into a petition to demand an accounting from the leaders of the church. Circulate the petition quietly. Gathering support will be easy. Even happy members can be used if you appeal to their sense of fairness – that your side deserves a hearing. Be sure to proceed in a way that conforms to your church constitution, so that your petition is procedurally correct.

Week Three: When the growing moral fervour, ill-defined but powerful, reaches critical mass, confront the elders with your demands. Inform them of all the woundedness in the church, which leaves you with no choice but to put your petition forward. Inform them that, for the sake of reconciliation, the concerns of the body must be satisfied.

Whatever happens from this point on, you have won. You have changed the subject in your church from gospel advance to your own grievances. To some degree, you will get your way. Your church will need three or four years for recovery. But at any future time, you can do it all again. It only takes three weeks.

Just one question. Even if you are being wronged, “Why not rather suffer wrong?” (1 Corinthians 6:7)

I've only got one other question to add - how come it takes a full three weeks? I'm sure it would be easy to get it down to two!?

Joseph's Son on Podcast?

2010-01-25T15:50:00.002+11:00

On Sunday morning we were looking at Luke 4 and I was struck by these few verses in particular:

“All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips.” "Isn't this Joseph's son?" they asked.” Jesus said to them, "Surely you will quote this proverb to me: 'Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum. "I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown.'" (Luke 4: 22-24)

One applications springs to mind about internet sermons. Everbody thought Jesus' sermons were great, apart from his own hometown. They did at first, but then it began to sink in who was speaking - Joseph's son, you know, the carpenter's boy.

I listen to podcast sermons all the time (I'm listening to one by Alister Begg at the moment!?) so I think they can be a really useful resource. However, the reaction Jesus gets in Luke 4 shows why they are becoming so popular.

Here's some thoughts from Luke 4:

1. This is all about Jesus right? Perhaps I'm just jealous that people only google 'smuts' for all the wrong reasons.

2. There is distance involved. In Nazareth they loved what Jesus had said all over Galilee. So too it is great to listen to Matt Chandler (or whoever) giving to the Village Church (or wherever) right between the eyes. Scripture is testimony itself to the fact that we can be challenged by overhearing God's messenger speaking to someone else. Nevertheless in listening to a sermon via the internet extra distance has been placed between speaker and hearer. It is so much easier to listen to X preaching to them, than to listen to my Pastor preaching to me.

3. It is less personal. It is easier to take a challenge from someone you don't know and will never meet. For a start it tends to stay in the abstract. Secondly, I'm totally in charge in how I apply the sermon to my life. The speaker has no come back to me. He can't point out that I've completely ignored the main theme of the passage. It is one thing when Mark Driscoll looks all of Seattle in the eye and gives a clear call to commitment and service. It is quite another when your Pastor asks you to teach in Kids' church.

4. It can encourage a cult of celebrity. This can happen in large churches as well as with the internet. I noticed this a bit in Scotland where roughly a thousand people would turn up on a Sunday morning. Even in Cheltenham I discovered that some wouldn't bother coming when I wasn't preaching ... or was that when I was preaching? When the sheer size of the number of people listening produces too much distance between preacher and listener it is very easy to put the preacher on a pedestal.

However, in a small or medium sized local church the preacher is close enough to touch - you get to know him week in and week out. All his faults and weaknesses. He's just like you really. Suddenly he's not so impressive. Why bother listening to him? He's just Joseph's son.

That's not to say that those things must happen when you listen on line. Just things to be watch out for.

Making the most of Holidays

2010-01-11T17:26:00.003+11:00

Here's something that we thought about on Sunday morning ...

Everyone looks forwards to their holidays – but have you ever thought about how to get the most out of them? God has made us physical, emotional and spiritual beings and so we need physical, emotional and spiritual refreshment. Clearly the balance will look different if you go alone and will also vary depending on who goes with you, but the principles remain the same.

It is tempting to view holidays as the time to let all routine slip - we think we owe ourselves time to be lazy? I even remember one Baptist Minister telling me that he left his bible at home when he went on holiday! I don't get this approach - we manage to factor in time to eat and sleep on holiday, why don't we plan the rest of our time with the same care? I'm not talking about some kind of facist regime timetable that runs in bondage to the clock. Of course there is room for spontaneity and flexibility. Nevertheless you will get so much more rest and refreshment from your hols if you spend time planning them beforehand.

Here are some suggestions of things to take / preparations to make:

- Swimmers / walking shoes (to exercise your body)

- a good book to read (to exercise your mind)

- THE good book to read (a different Bible reading scheme?) As a Dad I think it is especially important to encourage my family to grow spiritually. Holidays are not a rest from Christian discipleship.

- Some sermons on CD / MP3 for the journey

- details of church services where you are going. A holiday is not a break from church (imagine what that would communicate to your children or friends about how important church is to you.) Instead holiday is a great opportunity to encourage another Christian fellowship and also to be stimulated by a different congregation. The internet is great for this. In a matter of minutes you can find out the time and location of a good church near to where you are staying.

- details of what’s on in the area … we try to do a mixture of things - e.g. beach / museums / walks etc. so that everyone gets to do something they like and are stimulated by.

- rest for the cook? If one person usually cooks the meals how can we give them a holiday from that too?

Any other ideas / comments?

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.

'the worst natural disaster ever'

2009-02-10T23:47:00.003+11:00

What is a Christian response to a disaster of this magnitude?

Most of all pray. Then pray some more. When terrible stuff happens make like a Psalmist and stop talking about God behind his back and start talking to him instead.

Here are some jumbled thoughts going through my head at the moment:

Worst natural disaster? But if it was started by arsonists then how is it natural?

Worst natural disaster ever? What about all the Aborigines who died through small-pox etc. when the Settlers arrived?

Pastor Danny Nalliah? says that it is God's judgment on Victoria for passing abortion legislation

Oh dear. While it is true, according to Romans 1: 18, that God's wrath is being revealed against godlessness in our present age, Jesus also made it clear that there is not always a direct consequential link between sin and suffering in this age. (See John 9.)

Therefore these terrible fires do act as a warning of God's righteous judgment but not in the way that Pastor Danny means. In a society full of sinners, those who play with fire get burnt. At this moment we should be looking to the arsonists. Besides, shouldn't it be the Victorian parliament burning if this was God's judgment on those who passed the legislation?

The human story. All in all the bush fires in Victoria are the human story writ large in bright burning letters. We are terrible sinners and our sin (of arson in this case) has terrible consequences - it destroys all those around us. Humans are capable of wonderful acts of kindness. God's common grace is evident here too. It has been touching how quick the Australian public are to help out in times of trouble.

The Christian gospel. Only Christ makes sense of all this. Only the gospel makes sense of a scene like this one. Adam and Eve, created in God's image and yet fallen. The first Adam made to be good, but in desperate need of redemption by the second Adam. The worst natural disaster ever is known as the Fall. The best supernatural disaster ever is known as the Cross.

I found Jesus, and lost ten pounds!

2009-02-09T21:05:00.002+11:00

I know it's not really the title of a Christian dieting book, but it should be.

For example there's Gwen Shamblin and her Weigh Down Diet that sold more than a million copies, making her the bestselling Christian weight loss author of all time. Her second book, Rise Above, recycles the same thinness is equal to godliness theme and emphasizes submission to a scary extreme.

On Sunday morning we were thinking about feeding on God's Word and Greg asked a good question - shouldn't we distance ourselves from all these books on the market which view the bible as ... a diet manual ... a parenting manual ... a Scientific textbook etc.?

As usual, my response is 'yes, and no.'

There are two equal and opposite dangers to avoid here. Both dangers are extremely prevelant in modern Christianity.

1. The Manual approach - typified by the dieting book above. The bible is seen as some kind of textbook on every possible practical subject under the sun. Supposedly we can deduce good diet tips from the OT food laws and learn about controlled crying because 'no crying he made' ... er, that's from a carol anyway ... oh, well, never mind. However, the diet for nomads in the middle east is not going to be the same for us living where we do. Likewise, the bible doesn't actually tell us anything about different birthing methods.

2. The religious approach - is just as common. Here the bible is only seen as relevant to our religious life. God's word teaches us all we need to know about how to behave in church, how to pray, and how to evangelise. But wait a minute. Didn't Paul have a lot to say about greed? (Their gods are their stomachs!) Isn't the bible full of principles concerning parenting? (What about all those proverbs?)

Seems to me that we need to reject both approaches. The bible applies to all of life and we should be encouraging one another to apply it. But that doesn't mean that it is meant to be used as a 'one size fits all' instruction manual for these kinds of areas.

Which is a shame really. I was hoping I could make millions with my 'Drink more beer diet.' (But just remember that you heard it from me first.)

The elephant in the room

2009-02-03T14:14:00.002+11:00

Population.

John Feeny from the BBC discusses the question of global over population - here .

Is the environmental disaster we seem to be heading into due to too many people? These questions always come to the fore in a recession. It raises questions for any Christian:

What about Genesis 1? Aren't we supposed to be 'fruitful and increase in number'?
What about Australia? Is the water shortage just going to get worse with increasing immigration?
What about immigration? Do we really want Pommies coming over here to our churches?

Church is for sinners

2009-01-20T22:58:00.002+11:00

I came across a discussion of church discipline recently on a web forum and the penny dropped. (There isn't a one cent coin so I hope I'm safe to talk about pennies.)

As usual a popular position in the debate was that of the MYOB (mind your own business) camp. Some went further - church discipline was un-Christian since Church is for sinners. Apparently it is only the self-righteous who engage in this sort of thing.

But hold on a minute? Isn't the sign that someone admits they're a sinner repentance? The whole point of any church discipline is that it only becomes necessary when someone refuses to admit that they are sinning.

Repentance has come up a few times lately at PBC - from the lips of John the Baptist and of Jesus. It occurs to me that repentance needs to be specific. May the Lord guard us from that culture that says 'we are all sinners' in a general sense but never in particular. If I am a sinner then I must have sins regularly to repent of. Yes, that's right, specific actions and attitudes that are wrong. I quite often meet Christians who are sinners but never actually sin, or so it would seem.

What sin have you repented of recently? (I can think of two for me today.)

Mea Culpa

2008-12-15T12:20:00.002+11:00

Oh dear, it really is something when your own parents read your blog. It turns out I need to apologise to them for this quote:

"As far as my parents were concerned sexual ethics and abortion were the deciding issues - justice trumps mercy, as it were."

Turns out they don't quite remember it like that. Sorry Mum and Dad.

It also turns out that learning to repent is a life-long process. Who would've thought? Don't you just get it taped by your 20s?

Here's a great quote from Mark Twain... hopefully I won't have to apologise for this too!

“When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years.”

It's all my fault

2008-12-08T14:22:00.007+11:00

It may surprise you but I am not alluding to a poll of the most unlikely things for politicans to say.

Instead it comes from my musings on atonement models - i.e. different pictures we use to explain what Jesus achieved on the cross.

Over the past few years, even among evangelicals, PSA (Penal Subsititionary Atonement) - the view that Jesus suffered God's righteous punishment in the place of sinners - has taken a bit of a beating. This debate was at its zenith in the UK about 3 years ago and centred around a book written by a Baptist called Steve Chalke.

Anyway, I have followed the arguments closely over the past few years and here are a couple of comments:

1. While it is crucial to demonstrate how faithful to scripture any model is, I'm not sure that proof-texting is very constructive in this particular discussion. By definition any model will involve reading back into the text an abstract system as much as reading it out from the text. Of course there must be a place for careful exegesis (which IMO demonstrates just how biblical PSA is) but trading verses doesn't gain much ground at the popular level.

2. One key issue is responsibility. PSA is the only atonement model that makes sinners completely culpable for their sin. The model gaining ground in popularity is known as Christus Victor and can be found in passages like Colossians 2: 15. Here Jesus is portrayed as a mighty warrior who defeats the enemy of the devil for us, who cures the disease of sin. Now all of this is biblical and quite appropriate as just one model among other biblical pictures.

However, what happens when we put CV front and centre? What happens to our accountability? Sin is the fault of the devil, it is the sad consequence of the sickness I have. But what about me? When it comes to sin the bible teaches us that it's all my fault. No one made me do it. Romans 6 and 7 do teach us that we are slaves to our sinful nature, but Paul still holds us fully responsible for our actions.

Any view of the atonement needs to put together all of scripture's teaching on the subject. And that is precisely why I think it is so important that we hold onto PSA, along with the other biblical metaphors. It is when we see that God holds us accountable in Christ on the cross, that sin and its power can really be dealt with. Sin is a disease, but I am responsible. Rather like anybody under the age of 40 who gets lung cancer from smoking. Ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. Sin. It's all my fault, I'm blaming no one else.

Dawkins vs. Lennox

2008-12-01T10:24:00.003+11:00

No, it's not boxing.

After looking at the views of Richard Dawkins on Sunday I thought people would be interested in seeing him in live debate with John Lennox.

This is is not the recent debate in London in October. This happened last year. The format is rather disappointing because it is not really a debate (they are only allowed to give one response at a time). Therefore I think Dawkins is treated a little unfairly here - Lennox is always given the chance to 'attack' without Dawkins being allowed to respond properly. Nevertheless it is interesting. And you can watch it all for free via this site...

Debate between Dawkins and Lennox last year in Birmingham, USA

What's natural?

2008-11-23T13:49:00.002+11:00

The question of what is natural to us has been rattling around my head since Trevor Cairney spoke last week on 'True Freedom'.

This comes to the fore in current debates over sexuality. For example, in the row over homosexuality both sides want to claim that their position is based on what is natural. Some say that homosexuality is 'unnatural'; others that same-sex attraction (for some people) is natural. (Usually the debate rages over what 'para phusin' means in the Greek of Romans 1.)

However, Paul's ethics cuts right through this debate - e.g. in Romans 6. According to the apostle there are only two default positions for all humanity: slaves to our sinful nature or slaves to God. Christ sets us free from what is natural to us, in order that we might live according to what is natural for our redeemed humanity. This is not re-packaged gnosticism. It is earthy and gritty humanity; but it is redeemed humanity instead of fallen humanity.

The Dream of Gerontius

2008-11-19T22:10:00.004+11:00

Tonight we were treated to tickets to the Opera House - to enjoy Elgar's famous rendition of Cardinal Newman's poem The Dream of Gerontius.

Since Newman was a famous convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism it should be no surprise that the poem is about the prayer of a dying man as he faces his own mortality, God's judgment and (interestingly) purgatory.

Let me quote from what the Angel sings almost at the end:

Angels, to whom the willing task is given,
Shall tend, and nurse, and lull thee, as thou liest;
And Masses on the earth and prayers in heaven,
Shall aid thee at the Throne of the most Highest.

So, a few thoughts about this, and about purgatory...

1. It completely undermines the work of Christ as sufficient for salvation. The Book of Hebrews is clear - His sacrifice is enough; we don't need Masses on earth or prayers in heaven.

2. The Bible is not clear about what happens to those who die before Jesus returns and the Last Judgment - we are 'asleep', but what does that mean? As early as Tertullian most of the Church Fathers had some pretty funny ideas about what happened after death. (I don't think there is anything there to justify purgatory but there are common place references to some form of remembering the dead which I find disturbing and confusing.) Having just finished the book of Revelation I'd rather stick with the few things Scripture is clear about and leave the rest up to God.

3. Our society and culture doesn't like tackling the issue of death head on anymore. We'd rather not think about what happens when we die. We are all the poorer for that.

Moving to the left

2008-11-09T15:20:00.002+11:00

Having had time to think about Obama's triumph, I've been chewing over Trevor's comment on my last post.

I've always used Micah 6: 8 as a good biblical foil in thinking through political issues:

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Being horribly reductionistic justice has been the war cry of the right where as mercy was the preserve of the left ... and humility has no place in politics!?

With this in mind I think Trevor is on to something. When I was first becoming aware of politics (in the UK in the early 80s) Christians voted Conservative. As far as my parents were concerned sexual ethics and abortion were the deciding issues - justice trumps mercy, as it were.

But the times they were achanging. As I became a teenager, church youth groups were increasingly concerned with compassion to the poor and loving the stranger - mercy came to the fore. The right of centre Conservative party was considered to be individualistic and selfish. This gained momentum until finally the Tory party imploded and Tony Blair swept NuLabour to power in 1997. I was at Theological college in 1997. By then most Christians at college seemed to support Labour. Mercy trumps justice.

Are we seeing that now happen in the US? (Or am I just enjoying saying that Britain leads America in something?)

The western world is fed up with the Republican party at prayer. They are seen as being anti-gay, anti-women's rights and extremely hypocritical. All justice, no mercy and definitely no humility.

The message is clear - the political climate is changing. As usual that is both a good and a bad thing. No longer can Christianity be used as a pragmatic way to win votes. We cannot, no must not, appeal to the instinctive right wing agenda of justice unless we visibly demonstrate mercy at the same time, and all of this with a humble attitude. People will not listen to our position on abortion without seeing our care for pregnant teenagers. Our stance on homosexuality is easily dismissed without visible compassion shown to the gay community.

The bottom line is that votes are not cheap - the only way people will listen to us again is if we live the gospel we preach.

Baracking Obama

2008-11-07T14:16:00.002+11:00

There seems to be a trend in Western Politics. The politically conservative party gets in for a long time and gets so unpopular that any change is greeted with open arms.

NuLabour in the UK, Kev07, Barack Obama.

Questions, questions.

- Did Obama win the election or did McCain lose it?

- Does this also represent a backlash against the right-wing Christian moral majority?

- What impact does the answers to these previous two questions have on the world wide Christian church?

I'll do some thinking and post later.

But in the meantime, anybody got any thoughts?

The earth is the Lord's

2008-10-24T11:49:00.004+11:00

This is something that has been bothering me ever since we came to Australia. At this stage it is just random musings but I'd be interested to know what Australians think about this:

"We'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on Gadigal land."

So starts every school assembly at Petersham Public... and pretty much any formal gathering I've been to in the inner-west.

But not in church.

We never acknowledge Aboriginal claims to the land when we meet on a Sunday. Why not? Now I can see issues in that actually the land belongs to God and is merely entrusted to any human being as a steward. However, surely there could be ways to acknowledge this. For example we could start services sometimes with Psalm 24:

The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it...

or do you think that would be seen as yet another snub to the Aboriginal people?

What do you think people read into the fact that we don't make any reference to this issue? Does the silence speak even louder than saying something?

New Ways to Live

2008-10-20T10:23:00.004+11:00

Okay, here's another challenge (as well as coming up with a one sentence summary of the book of Revelation) - how about coming up with a new version of Two ways to Live?

2WTL is a great tool which I have used on many occasions but I think it is time to come up with something else. 2WTL is simply the gospel so it is not that we need to change that or improve on it. What I mean is that we need something that weds systematic and biblical theology together and tells the story of the Bible as it does so.

2WTL is great at teaching the doctrine of the gospel systematically. But it doesn't give the plotline of the Bible and therefore people today will tend to pick and mix the bits they like. Also, in a culture where biblical literacy is plummeting we need simple evangelistic tools that also teach something of the story of God's historic dealings with humanity - i.e. not just in the abstract.

If you want an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about then here are the titles of talks that Don Carson usually uses at Uni. missions:

1. The God who makes everything: Genesis 1 & 2
2. The God who does not wipe out rebels: Genesis 3
3. The God who legislates: 10 Commandments + bits of Leviticus
4. The God who becomes a human being: John 1: 1-18
5. The God who declares the guilty just: Romans 3: 21-26
6. The God who is very angry: Revelation 21-22
7. The God who triumphs: Revelation 21-22

Do you see how he teaches the same systematic points as 2WTL but that he puts them in the context of salvation history - telling the story of God's great rescue plan in biblical order?

So, the gauntlet has been laid down. Who can come up with a new version of 2WTL that explains the gospel by telling the story of the Bible?

The Task ahead

2008-10-13T09:22:00.003+11:00

The heart of atheism appears be in the inner west. Residents of Camperdown, Erskineville, Enmore, Newtown and Annandale are more likely to shun religion than any of their other Sydney neighbours.

That's from Linda Morris writing in the SMH here.

Looks like it's time to roll our sleeves up and start praying and sharing the gospel with the people of the inner-west.

There is one thing that did make me smile in this though - presumably their research included Moore College in Newtown too!?

The End of the Book

2008-10-13T09:19:00.003+11:00

This is really for PBCam.

So we've finished the book of Revelation and on Sunday we tried to come up with a one sentence summary of Revelation.

Why not add your summary as a comment to this post - there will be a great prize, in heaven, for the winner!?

Merchant Bankers

2008-10-11T20:03:00.005+11:00

Despite the crash at the end of the last Millennium the world is found weeping and wailing again. The current global financial crisis should not suprise anyone at PBC though - especially PBCam. Our studies in Revelation have prepared us well for this. Indeed chapter 18 has special relevance:

The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment.They will weep and mourn and cry out: "Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!" (Revelation 18: 15-17)

My point is not that Washington or Sydney is the prostitute city of Babylon. Rather look at the response of the Merchant Bankers - this is what Paul would call 'worldy sorrow' (2 Corinthians 7: 10). They are mourning because they have lost all their money, not because their greed has been exposed. They are sorry that they got caught, not repentant of their sinful idolatry.

Let's pray for some genuine godly sorrow in the face of this disaster. May we actually learn something from the boom-bust of capitalism ... 'cos we obviously didn't last time. As I said to the guy who cut my hair on Friday, "It's only money". I won't repeat what he said.

Son of Scripture Teaching

2008-09-29T17:42:00.003+10:00

Okay, thanks for all the comments to the SMH article. This is where I'm up to with this:

SRE lessons are supposed to be provided by Schools.
This is not state funded - we pay for it ourselves.
We live in a secular country and so we have no 'right' to compel the reluctant to learn about Jesus Christ.
If they want their children to learn about Islam, Humanism, Bahai or whatever let them provide the teachers and organise it themselves.
We have a great opportunity with those who are interested.
General apathy in Australian society means that churches are likely to be the only organisations (or at least one of the few) to be able to deliver SRE on a regular basis.
The only way to communicate to a Post-Modern society is to preach to it. People will not accept our presuppositions. There is no view from nowhere (as far as they are concerned); but that means that everyone should have a fair-go at communicating 'their truth'.

So, let's support our SRE teachers in the fantastic job they do. Don't waste time on comparative religion or other contemporary sensibilities. Simply teach those who want to come the gospel. The level playing field means that it is just our story and our truth. However, in so doing all these young people might just meet with Jesus Christ who is the way, the life and THE truth.

Let's pray for those who go into Petersham, Lewisham and Summer Hill Public Schools, and those who go to Dulwich Hill High School. What a great job they do - thank God for them!

Scripture Teaching

2008-09-22T17:31:00.002+10:00

Thanks to Greg for drawing my attention to this article in today's SMH.

snotty article about Scripture lessons

Now I'm after help from all of you out there (yeah, both of you!) because I don't know the legal position of Scripture classes. So please put me right.

I thought that it was mandated by the government for all schools to provide scripture, but that they only had to do it if there were churches etc. who were willing to do it.

Therefore there seems to be a double-edged sword here. True, if Muslims, Hindus, Humanists, Atheists want to provide Scripture I can't see why they would be prevented from doing so. However, doesn't the article give the game away that many schools do not provide scripture at all ... and therefore if churches were to approach them offering their services the Principals would be technically disobeying the law.

Help me out here. What am I missing?

Persuasive arguments

2008-09-18T19:57:00.006+10:00

I've just been given the opportunity to sit and reflect upon persuasive arguments. At an important Baptist meeting a whole lot of us had to sit and listen to people speak for and against the motion and then make a decision.

It was a fascinating example of people trying to summon up the 'killer' blow, administer the coup de gras, make the decisive plea. I won't get into the issue of the motion itself here (that is a post in itself) but rather think about the powers of persuasion used.

The two men who proposed the motion represented different generations. The were both agreeing with each other but their style was markedly different. The younger (middle-aged) guy had done his homework on his opponents. His approach was to allay fears, to present his proposal in a way that would win over those who disagreed with him. The voice of experience and years spoke next. He simply made an appeal. He stated their position clearly and forcefully.

I realise that this may be me becoming a grumpy old man but is this where politics and the media have led us?

I think there are two lessons to learn from all this:

1. In our modern world how you say something is as important as what you say.

2. There is an even more desperate need for integrity and honesty in how we present the truth.

"we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
2 Corinthians 4: 2

What is a 'real' man?

2008-09-10T09:44:00.003+10:00

What does Biblical manhood look like in the 21st century?

That is a question that has been rattling around my head for a few weeks now. Mark Driscoll banged a drum. I went to a seminar by Don Carson which was on a similar theme. Everyone seems to agree that there is a crisis in masculinity, but what's the answer?

With this in mind I came across an interesting reflection on the US Presidential campaign on a BBC News site - Why rednecks may rule the world. The article says that 'rednecks' in America may be key in deciding the outcome. What struck me was the list of things that define redneck values. Here's one:

A love of guns and tremendous respect for the warrior ideal. Along with this comes a strong sense of fealty and loyalty. Fealty to wartime leaders, whether it be FDR or George Bush.

The implication behind that scares me. Let's not be reactionary here. If one danger is that we let modern Australian society (influenced by feminism) determine what it means to be 'men', then the other danger is that we retreat into reactionary right-wing politics.

We do need men to 'front up'. We do need to recapture that 'warrior ideal' and sense of fealty and loyalty. But I also feel the burden of the stereotype that comes with the 'redneck' image - namely big guns, monster trucks and steak for dessert ... Rambo without the culture.

Instead let's build a new generation of Christian men - ones who are leaders, faithful and loyal - but who don't all look the same.

Double Driscoll

2008-09-01T14:29:00.004+10:00

'Wally' has just plucked enough courage to leave a comment and it is a good one - thanks Wally - I agree with you but thought that you raise such an important issue that we must chew it over a little longer. (So sorry Wally, I'm not picking on you ... honest :-) )

What I've appreciated very much is Mark Driscoll's willingness just to say it how it is. He doesn't try and "dress up" the truth to make it more palatable...his confidence is in Jesus and His gospel.

It depends on what you mean by 'dressing it up'.

If you are referring to things like gushing about God's love and forgetting to mention his holiness and wrath then I fully agree with you.

If by 'say it how it is' you mean literally that all he did was articulate the truths of the gospel then I'd have to disagree.

There were two things that Mark did to make the message more palatable:

1. Humour - not so much jokes as observational humour. There is no doubt that people will let you get away with more if they are laughing.

2. Apologetics - Mark is very, very good at anticipating the questions non-Christians will have. In his talks he anticipates them and answers those questions. Again this is something he does to make the message more palatable.

Now, I want to make it clear that I am in no way criticising him for doing either of these things. I think he's great and have learnt loads from him. (Not least about parenting!) Mark is a great example to follow - but I fear what would happen if the lesson we took away was: just tell it like it is. Our job is preserve the gospel, and not to water it down; but our job is also one of contextualisation too.

Driscmania

2008-08-28T17:35:00.003+10:00

Well it happened. Mark Driscoll packed out the Sydney Entertainment Centre last night. It was great - 10,000 people hearing about Jesus.

Now, before I make any comment, for the record I need to state that I left home when I was 18, I got a job straight after Uni., and I got married at 27.

As a Preacher I always reflect upon what is it (humanly speaking - I'm not talking about the work of the Spirit here) that makes a speaker really good. Here are a few reflections on the great MD:

* He is very entertaining. I've watched several stand-up comics and he was in the same league - Ricky Gervais does a similar routine where pictures are flashed up on the screen to move the show along. This is not a criticism of Mark. It is a comment on our culture. In order to win an audience you have to be engaging.

* He engages with popular culture. Boy had he done his homework. I've lived in Australia for about 9 months now but he packed all that research into just one month! This communicates powerfully that the speaker knows about my life and his message connects with the real world I live in.

* He is simple and clear about the implications of the gospel. The jokes may sweeten the pill, but it is a bitter one of commitment and self-sacrifice.

* He is honest and self-effacing. It is very hard to present an uncompromising message without coming across as self-righteous. However, Mark was honest about his own failings and able to laugh at himself. That is very disarming.

* He quoted most of his Scripture references from memory. Like the Psalmist he has hidden God's Word in his heart.

* His message is all about Jesus. Not about religion, or lots of how tos. Just Jesus.

What are we doing to our kids?

2008-08-23T11:16:00.004+10:00

Thanks to Gordon Cheng for noticing this one first - he must read his SMH early!?

SMH article about Michael Phelps and ADHD

Apparently Michael Phelps was originally diagnosed with ADHD and had to take Ritalin until he was 11. At that age he told his mum he wanted to stop taking the drug ... and look what the discipline of swimming has done to his hyperactivity!? 8 gold medals isn't bad.

It is a bizarre contradiction that in the western world of consumer choice we treat everybody the same. Instead of taking great care to properly diagnose problems we do tend to go for the blanket cure ... especially if it is marketed as a 'quick fix'.

When this happens everybody loses out. This is a very painful issue. Parents with kid's who have been correctly diagnosed understandly feel that they are being stigmatised.

Sometimes to treat everyone equally, we don't have to treat them all the same.

Good and Bad arguments

2008-08-19T12:13:00.003+10:00

Tonight is the big show down. I mean we're talking even bigger than PBC Winter school - no! Yes bigger than WS!

TACKLING life's big questions head-on has become a feature of the IQ2 debate series, and they don't come much bigger than the existence of God and the creation of the universe. This is what the SMH has to say about it here

Early shots have already been fired over tonight's proposition that "we'd be better off without religion". A piece by Professor John Lennox in yesterday's Herald, in which he framed the topic in terms of competing world views, drew a sharp response from one of his opponents tonight, Professor Victor Stenger. "I want to correct some of the misstatements made by the Christian apologists," said Professor Stenger, who worked as an astrophysicist before moving into philosophy. "They deliberately misled the public by telling them that there are scientific arguments for the existence of God. "And they are basing this on an incorrect interpretation of the data and the theory." The Christian theorists, Professor Stenger said, wrongly claimed that the universe had to begin at a certain point and with a single cataclysmic event. "They'd like to make the flawed argument that everything with a beginning has to have a cause, and that's where they bring in the existence of God," he said. "Their arguments just aren't supported by physics - there are many phenomena which have neither a beginning nor a cause, and we don't need God to explain them. The purely material process of evolution by natural selection fully explains the development of life."

Obviously I'll miss the debate due to PBC Winter School but I'm interested in how it goes. Actually both of the heavy-weights have a point. Too often well meaning Christian apologists overstate their case. Professor Stenger is right in a lot of what he says. Christians too quickly jump on the bandwagon of the latest Scientific theory claiming it 'proves' God only to look foolish when new evidence comes in. A little humility and uncertainty is called for here I think.

However, that humility cuts both ways. Stenger is being disingenous in his response. What he means is that there is lots of stuff where we simply don't know how it happens (Scientifically). And then when he tries to claim that natural selection fully explains the development of life he is simply wrong. It's our current Scientific working hypothesis, no more, no less. Stenger is engaging in exactly the same overstated rhetoric. All he is saying is that it is possible to live as if God doesn't exist. I think somebody has said that before:

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14: 1

The problem is 'we don't really know' doesn't sell newspapers.

The IQ2 series is sponsored by the Herald and the St James Ethics Centre. Tonight's debate will be streamed live on the Herald's website.

Not much Soap

2008-08-14T12:07:00.002+10:00

"Great Britain may have been in lane seven and eight but, um, they seemed to be getting there for a country that has very few swimming pools and not much soap."

Aussie Olympic chief John Coates wades in after watching Rebecca Adlington win gold for Britain in the pool.

I first came across this Aussie view of Poms about six months before coming to Australia. Apparently we don't wash very often (outside baths once a week) and thus our personal hygiene leaves something to be desired.

Does anybody know where this 'urban myth' originates from? It probably won't surprise anyone to hear that the stereotypical Aussie male (a la Crocodile Dundee) is viewed in pretty much the same way by Brits.

Watchblogging

2008-08-08T14:21:00.003+10:00

I learnt a new word today - watchblogging.

Apparently it is a pejorative term for 'heresy hunters'. I can see some truth in it. Evangelicalism does seem, even if inadvertently, to encourage a kind of reactionary response to culture. Hence lots of blogs set up simply to 'watch' the church and the world and to keep us informed as to what they've done wrong now.

As we have seen in the book of Revelation, deception is one of Satan's main methods of attack. Therefore watching out for false teaching is a good thing. Nevertheless, discernment implies sifting the wheat from the chaff, not just scorching everything!

So, my new month resolution is to try and to be positive about what is good as well as to criticise...

... here's something good about the Orthodox church - its corporate emphasis on the church, but not as an institution, as believers in Christ. A healthy corrective to western individualism.

Are you orthodox enough?

2008-08-07T11:09:00.004+10:00

It is amazing what difference an O makes.

Forget the RC church - I know WYD made a big splash but I don't think that RC is really the future of the Western World. No, Orthodoxy (with a capital 'O') is the new black. I haven't noticed the trend so much in Australia but it is certainly catching on in the UK. In the past the Orthodox have kept to themselves, largely in ethnic groupings - e.g. Greek. My hunch is that, while that cultural isolation will continue, some Orthodox ideas will become increasingly popular.

Here are a few reasons ... and I might come up with more in future posts:

1. Orthodoxy is old. Note that the Orthodox don't like to be called Eastern Orthodox anymore - that geographically marginalises their claim to be universal. In our rootless post-modern world, ancient traditions are cool... especially when they are somehow 'new' and exciting while still being old (!?)

2. Protestants are trying to shed their 'modern' past (doesn't that sound weird) and Orthodoxy has all the pictures and smells they could wish for ... plus it is a step forward from where they are, as opposed to a step backwards to nassssty old Rome.

3. Orthodoxy is (well sort of) anti-authoritarian. There is plenty there that appeals to a western pluralistic world view.

4. Orthodoxy places a much greater stress on being rather than doing. It is not a very strident prosleytising religion and therefore it won't spread rapidly, but I think it's influence over western Christianity is going to increase.

I could go on. In fact I might later.

The bottom line is that Protestants have spent so many centuries fighting with the RCC that I'm not sure if we are ready to engage with this very different form of Christianity. Do we even know what the questions are to ask?

Rights and Responsibilities

2008-08-04T16:33:00.004+10:00

Oh dear, the federal government seems to have got a bit confused over rights and responsibilities.

People thinking of moving in with a partner have been warned to read the fine print on a bill before Parliament that will treat de facto relationships in exactly the same way as marriage.

see here at smh

In the mad topsy-turvey world in which we live, people who have chosen not to get married (and accept the responsibilities that go with that) want to receive the rights of the thing that they have chosen not to do. You work it out. I can't.

Church is a dangerous place to be

2008-07-28T10:51:00.004+10:00

It seems to be becoming a common place tragedy in America today. You can read about it here - a gunman goes beserk and goes into a church shooting.

One person was killed and several wounded when a man armed with a shotgun opened fire in a church in Knoxville, Tennessee, US television reported on Sunday.

How do we respond to such news? Well, what we looked at on Sunday can help us to make sense of this senseless event.

At PBCam we looked at Revelation 13. There we saw Satan's twin strategies of conquer and deception against God's people. The first beast was active in this tragedy - trying to intimidate Christians by force.

Then at PBCpm we learned a different lesson from 2 Samuel 1. The right response to sin is this world is grief. This is a terrible thing and, as we pray for those effected, we cry out to the Lord in anguish.

But both passages push us still further forward. To Jesus. He has fatally wounded the beast, he has decisively defeated Satan. Jesus is THE Messiah, THE Lord's anointed, the one who gives us hope for the future. For his kingdom we pray and we serve. Longing for the day when there will be ... "no more death or mourning or crying or pain."

When sorry seems to be the hardest word

2008-07-21T17:43:00.007+10:00

So WYD is finally over, the Pope has left the building, and Sydney businesses are still arguing over whether they are dollars up or dollars down.

One issue that has been hanging over WYD was the dark cloud of abuse by Priests in the RC church. Pope Benedict XVI has obviously learnt from the impact of Kevin Rudd's public apology earlier in the year. Generally the event seems to have been great PR and the Pope's apology a good thing.

However, I use the term PR advisedly. It could be sour grapes (Baptist youth days don't get quite as much media coverage!?) but the 'sorry' doesn't seem very sincere when it is so stage managed. Even today when the Pope conducted a mass with four sexual abuse victims, the victims were carefully chosen and are anonymous. Melbourne man Anthony Foster, whose two daughters were raped by a Catholic priest when they were in primary school, was pointedly not invited. Mr Foster said the last-minute meeting with the as-yet unnamed victims was "sneaky, underhanded and disappointing" and was designed as a PR stunt. (According to the SMH.)

Now, if I was the leader of an international charity which faces billion dollar lawsuits I would choose my words carefully. And yet, and yet, is he truly sorry?

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

That's what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 7 verse 10. I don't know anything about what is going on behind the scenes at the Vatican... but it is still food for thought. What would godly sorrow, true repentance look like ... when sorry seems to be the hardest word to say?

Ratzinger Rules

2008-07-15T21:36:00.002+10:00

"Ratzinger Rules". The message, spray-painted in red on the war memorial at Hyde Park overnight showed the Pope's historic visit to Sydney has even touched vandals.

It got me thinking about the last Working Bee when I had the job of removing the graffiti from the church walls. Vandalism like this is a pretty good picture of sin. We all want to leave our mark in life, and we don't really care about what we have to write over to do so. After all it is really about seeing me and what I've done. God has given us all gifts to use, but we don't want to listen to him, we want to show them off for maximum effect; we want centre stage.

Thank God for graffiti remover then. A super-strong solvent that washes it away. Wipes it clean so that we can start again.

Cardinal Pell's address was preceded by a welcome from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tonight. Mr Rudd said it was a time to speak about all that was right in Christianity and the church:

It was the church that began first schools for the poor, it was the church that began first hospitals for the poor, it was the church that began first refuges for the poor and these great traditions continue for the future.

Right on Mr Rudd. And as a church we can think of PACC and the Op Shop likewise. Good deeds done in the name of Christ. But don't forget the graffiti remover Kev, only Jesus can do that.

Paint them Ugly

2008-07-14T13:01:00.005+10:00

Those who were at PBCam on Sunday will be interested in the following article in the SMH. It is all about parenting and is very relevant to the theme of Sunday's sermon.

Paint them ugly

Son of WYD

2008-07-10T10:27:00.006+10:00

But what if you end up chatting to a keen, convinced RC? (Not just someone who is culturally RC but someone convinced about their faith.)

Well I think it is helpful to acknowledge our differences and also to admit where we get it wrong.

For example, many RCs will have been told that Protestants don't have to live good lives, they just have to 'believe'. And we need to take that on the chin. There is a popular misconception around that faith in Jesus is just about getting your ticket stamped for heaven and then you can get on with living your life how you want to.

So hold your hand up to that one. Just as there are nominal RCs so there are nominal Prots. Jesus does call us to live godly lives. As Tim Blencowe likes to say, "sometimes it seems as if our only theology of good deeds is that they are bad!"

This is where we get down to the nitty-gritty. Where does our righteousness come from? We believe that it is a gift from God, through Jesus - that it is imputed to us as we are united to Christ by faith. Since we are 'in Christ' we receive what is his, his righteousness.

RCs. on the other hand, believe that we are infused with this righteousness. In other words there is a co-operation here. God gives us an injection of his goodness so that we can be good in our strength.

Now, I hope, we can see why RCs think we don't believe in being good. However, that is a misunderstanding. We believe that faith does not include good deeds, but that it does produce them. "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works,which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2: 10)

Ephesians 2 is a great passage to read with a RC. We are saved by grace, not by works, but for works.

What a challenge all of this is for us! If our lives do not display God's glory in good works then we undermine the gospel. The acid test of WYD will be whether glory goes to Christ Jesus and whether good works come as a result. However, that is our test too. If our RC friends cannot see good works in us then we confirm all their prejudices.

WYD strikes back!

2008-07-09T14:40:00.006+10:00

There is something else we can learn from the RC view of church - it is a corporate image. While we do not accept that the 'tradition' of the church trumps what the Bible teaches, there can be dangers lurking in the Protestant view too.

When we talk about Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) we do not mean (likewise as the Reformers did not mean) that my personal interpretation of the Bible trumps everything else. We come together as a body of believers and we study the Bible together.

We are proud of our Protestant heritage and quick to reject anything 'just because the church / tradition says so'. That is good and we must always go back to God's Word to see what that says... but did you notice the 'we' in the above paragraph?

It is a little too easy for Protestants to ape the individualism so prevalent in our society. We turn up at church and the Vicar says something we don't like, but that's okay because I don't think the Bible says that. I just accept the bits I agree with. I go home. Watch TV. End of.

This explains why PBC places such an emphasis on sermons and Bible study groups. These are deliberately corporate experiences (e.g. morning tea and pm supper) so that we have our own personal interpretations of the Bible challenged by others. We all have blind spots and church is the place where we help one another to follow God together - this is just as true for myself and Tim as for anyone else.

Of course, all this assumes that when we meet together we do so with the aim of getting to know God's Word better (in the Bible) so that we can better follow Him.

WYD

2008-07-08T10:32:00.003+10:00

The countdown continues ... less than a week to the Roman Catholic World Youth Day (WYD) comes to Sydney.

To get our PBC blog off the ground I'd thought I'd do some posts on WYD. This is not meant as a 'pop' at Catholics but rather as a resource to encourage PBC folk to utilise this event for the gospel. Everyone in Sydney is talking about it. How can we turn these conversations towards Christ?

Okay, I'll start with some background. A couple of month's ago I went to a seminar at SMBC by David Shead (the Sheads used to be out in Slovenia with the Groombridges) about Roman Catholicism. Below are a mixture of his points and my musings:

The Biggest issue for Roman Catholics = the church. You meet Christ in the church, you hear Christ speak to you from the church, there is no salvation outside of the church.

Therefore while a Protestant might talk about what they believe, a RC will talk about the institution to which they belong.

Of course these are generalisations, but they are at least a good starting point. All of this is useful to bear in mind when talking to someone who comes from a Roman Catholic background. RC is much more of a cultural background than for us Prots. Therefore even those who no longer 'believe' will probably still identify themselves as RC. So, how should we tell them about Jesus?

Don't over generalise - not all RCs are the same. It would really annoy you if people treated you like that!
Don't criticise the RC church.
Don't assume they know what 'they' believe. They may just turn up to Mass occasionally. If belonging to the institution is all that really matters then what they believe is not so important. (See above.)
Don't just argue doctrine ... for the same reason as above.
Introduce them to Jesus - focus on the gospels.
Introduce them to your church ... no, really :-)
Pray for them.
Understand how tough it would be for them to think of themselves as anything than RC.

Howdy doodly

2008-07-07T10:36:00.004+10:00

Hi everyone,

I thought it was a good idea to start up a PBC blog.

It has been suggested to me that it might be helpful if we (John & Tim) gave out regular thoughts on topical issues from a Christian perspective. Hopefully this would encourage us in our faith and act as a resource to stimulate gospel conversations with friends or at work.

The original idea was a 'thought for the week' in the church email, but I think a blog would serve the purpose better. This way we can get a bit of a conversation going too!?

So, let's get blogging for Jesus ... or something like that, anyway.

Yours in Christ,

John.