Deep Conviction

Bible Reading Plans for the New Year

2011-12-31T13:25:00.001+11:00

While Christians know that we can make a fresh start with God anytime, the start of a new year can be a good opportunity to change some of the patterns of life and make the changes that we haven’t felt able to make in the busy-ness of the year. I suggested in a recent sermon that two of the habits and patterns we might seek to establish or re-establish for the new year might be our quiet times and our Bible reading programme. Often these two can (and should) be linked.

One of the challenges of establishing a regular Bible reading plan is working out the plan. I find that it helps to use a plan that someone else has put some time and effort into devising. I recently came across a collection of these gathered by Justin Taylor here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/12/30/bible-reading-plans-2/

Another recent article with a revised Bible reading plan is found here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/12/29/two-year-bible-reading-plan/

I especially recommend the Bible reading plan originally devised by Robert Murray M’Cheyne in 1842. If you read all four readings for each day you read the whole Bible in a year. It can easily be modified so that you read the whole Bible in two years (just read two readings each day). The plan is reprinted in a book by Don Carson, For the Love of God (Vols 1 and 2) which gives a short reflection for each day on one of the readings. Carson’s introduction, which includes a copy of the plan, can be found here: Carson’s Introduction - For the Love of God

It can be helpful to make some notes as you read - especially to write down reflections, response and action points that come from your reading. You can use your own notebook, or you might like to look at the Youthworks REAP journals (for children, youth and adults). (REAP stands for Read, Explore, Apply, Pray).

For those who would like to have access to a Bible reading plan for their mobile device, I recommend Olive Tree Bible Software, which has the M'Cheyne Bible reading plan free - as well as a few free Bibles (eg. the HCSB is free). The free software is available for iPod / iPhone, Android etc. (You can also get the ESV free for your device - look for it on iTunes or in the Android market).

Take the plunge and get into a Bible reading plan this year. I pray that God will bless you richly as you listen to his word.

PS. For a nice online version of the M'Cheyne plan, with links to Biblegateway, check out this page created by Karen & Ben Beilharz. http://hippocampusextensions.com/mcheyneplan/

(This is a revised version of a previous post.)

Archbishop of Sydney's Christmas Message

2011-12-24T09:34:00.001+11:00

The christmas message of Archbishop Peter Jensen - touches on the centrality of Jesus in history, the challenging times we face and the need for generosity - remembering God's generosity towards us in the Lord Jesus.

Christmas message from Sydneyanglicans.net on Vimeo.

Here’s the full text:

Christmas is our big annual reminder of the generous love of God. When Jesus was born, it was God himself entering our story to rescue us from sin.

Some people just can’t stand the fact that he is the most important person in history and our whole dating system revolves around his birth. They even want to change the language to write him out.

It’s sad really. It shows that people are frightened of his influence and will do anything to stop us talking about him.

Sad, because Jesus Christ is the world’s greatest inspiration. We need him in our lives and in our history and in our community.

The signs are that the world is in for a difficult time economically. For some countries it is not just a downturn, they will need to grapple with a breakdown in their economic systems. Already, many people go hungry each day. If times get worse, it will be the poor and disadvantaged who suffer most. We are going to need to be generous, and the greatest inspiration to generosity that the world has ever known is Jesus.

When we celebrate Christmas we are celebrating the generosity of Jesus, who left his heavenly home to live amongst us and to die for us on a Roman cross to reconcile us to God.

When we are reconciled to God, it affects the whole way we think of others. We reach out in care and forgiveness.

It’s a glad and generous season of the year because our God makes us glad with his generosity.

Dr Peter F Jensen,
Archbishop of Sydney,
Christmas, 2011 AD.

May you enjoy the blessing of God's generosity this Christmas.

The King of Assyria, God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

2011-12-08T13:58:00.003+11:00

Detail of wall relief from the palace of
King Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria at Nimrud
c. 875 BC.

We have been looking at the early chapters of Isaiah this term at church and recently came across a passage in Isaiah 10 which highlights the relationship between God's sovereignty and human responsibility.

The big questions many people ask are: 'How can I be responsible if God really determines what happens?' or 'If I have free will how can God be completely sovereign?' These are great questions and worth considering at length, but the Biblical attitude is summed up quite well in Isaiah 10.

In the early chapters of Isaiah the nation of Judah (under King Ahaz) faces firstly the threat of invasion by their northern cousins in Israel and the nation of Syria who have made an alliance and decide to invade Judah to remove Ahaz and place a puppet king on the throne (see especially Isaiah 7). This alliance is all about standing as a united front against Assyria – the great superpower of their day.

Under the reign of Tiglath Pileser III (744-727 BC), the Assyrian empire expanded significantly. From their capital in Nineveh on the Tigris River, they came to rule over Babylon to the south, around the fertile crescent and pushed down toward Palestine and Egypt. By 734 BC the consequences of this expansion led Syria and Israel to attack Judah and forced Ahaz to decide where he would turn for security.
In Isaiah 7 the prophet confronts Ahaz and challenges him not to lose heart because of the invasion of Israel and Syria but to trust the LORD. Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask for a sign and when Ahaz refuses Isaiah tells him that the Lord will give a sign anyway – the sign of Immanuel. The Lord promises that within a few years at most he will "whistle up" invaders from Assyria as if they were insects that will lay waste to the nations of Syria and Israel. He goes on to say that 'In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River – the king of Assyria – to shave your head and the hair of your legs and to take off your beards also.' (7:20) Again in chapter 8 there is the prophecy of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (meaning 'quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil'), that before the child knows how to say mother or father the nations of Syria and Israel will be carried off by the King of Assyria – a prophecy which was fulfilled in 732 BC and 722 BC respectively. The records suggest that the Assyrians overran Judah and surrounded Jerusalem, but withdrew before conquering the city.

The point Isaiah makes is that in all this Assyria is an instrument in the hands of the Lord – fulfilling God's will of punishing Syria and Israel and even Judah. But does that mean they are not responsible for their actions? The answer in Isaiah 10:5-19 is clear:

⁵''Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath!

⁶I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me,

to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets.

⁷But this is not what he intends, this is not what he has in mind;

his purpose is to destroy, to put an end to many nations. . .

¹²When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, ''I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. ¹³For he says: '''By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. . .

¹⁵Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it?

As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood!

¹⁶Therefore, the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors; . . .

The Bible here makes a claim for God's sovereignty – Assyria is an instrument in his hands – and yet the King of Assyria will be punished for 'the wilful pride of his heart'. He is still responsible. Somehow God's sovereignty does not contradict human responsibility – but it over-arches all.

While we may find it difficult to reconcile these two ideas, this is the consistent view of the Bible – we are responsible moral agents who will one day be accountable to God for all we do. Yet at the same time it is God who 'fore-ordains' or 'pre-destines' the rise and fall of nations and kings and all the detail of every human life. Yet we do not become fatalists, because God does not (usually) tell us the details of his plans beforehand – we are left to live trusting his word to us and seeking to respond in the obedience that comes from faith. We also rejoice that when we put our faith in the Lord Jesus we receive forgiveness for our sins and the gift of eternal life.

For an interesting account of the building of Sennacherib's palace in Nineveh early in the 8^th Century BC see this site: http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/palaces/story/sto_set.html

Memorising Scripture - 2 Timothy

2011-10-19T20:39:00.000+11:00

One of the great ways to allow God's word to dwell in us (Colossians 3:16) is to memorise parts of scripture. This video shows two guys from a student Christian group at Harvard University reciting 2nd Timothy (such an awesome book to memorise too!).

You may not be ready for such a big challenge, but why not start with key verses from your regular Bible reading??

(Hat tip to Ray Van Neste at http://www.pastoralepistles.com/)

..

Paul and the Law - The 2011 Moore College Lectures

2011-09-15T17:31:00.000+10:00

In August of 2011 Dr Brian Rosner gave the Annual Moore College Lectures on the Topic of "Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God." (Brian Rosner is a Senior Lecturer in New Testament and Ethics at Moore College.) I only got to one of the lectures, but I have enjoyed listening since they have been available on the Moore College website.

The lectures are a great resource for reflecting on how to understand the role of the law in the New Testament in general and in Paul's letter's in particular. They tie in nicely with previous posts on the role of the law according to the letter to the Hebrews.

Since the files on the Moore College Library site are a little hard to access, I thought I would post the links here (in order). The first lecture was a public overview (which I will call Lecture 0). Each lecture had an accompanying handout which is available as a PDF. The lectures were:

Lecture 0: Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God.   PDF Here.

Lecture 1: Circumcision is Nothing: Paul and the Puzzle of the Law.   PDF Here.

Lecture 2: "Not Under the Law": Paul's Repudiation of the Law as Legal Code. PDF Here.

Lecture 3: "Under the Law of Christ": Paul's Replacement of the Law. PDF Here.

Lecture 4: "Witness to the Gospel": Paul's Reappropriation of the Law as Prophecy. PDF Here.

Lecture 5: "Written for Our Instruction": Paul's Reappropriation of the Law as Wisdom.  PDF Here.

The Moore College Library online resource page is here.

Please let me know if there are any problems with the links. Enjoy ...

The Case For God

2011-08-23T14:57:00.001+10:00

I've recently been doing some preparation for some outreach meetings on campus where we have asked people what questions they have for God. In doing this thinking I find the CPX website invaluable.
I came across a series by Greg Clarke written in response to the Atheist convention held in Australia early in 2010. His article on 'The Case for God' is very helpful (and a good length!)
Here are two (brief) arguments for God:

1. An originating capital-M Mind is the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing, of why the universe is here at all. A more complicated statement that might also hold true is that our observance of the natural world leads us to conclude that it looks like a capital-M Mind was involved in its structuring, and furthermore, rationally, a capital-M Mind explains very well why the conditions of the universe are so finely tuned for life.

2. It is very hard to convince a human being, whether religious or an atheist, that the universe is without meaning, without values and without purpose. We are all pretty much agreed that it is full of these things: meaning (our lives matter), values (we can recognise with some finesse the difference between good and bad), and purpose (history is going somewhere). The hypothesis that there is a God does a better job of explaining these things than its alternative, the naturalist hypothesis, simply because with God these things are then real rather than illusory, as they are in the naturalist worldview. Real meaning, genuine values, lasting purpose. God is the best explanation of these elements of existence.

Greg also makes the important point that very few people are ever argued into the kingdom of God. Much more helpful is an encounter with the Lord Jesus through the scriptures, however this kind of article can be helpful in laying down the philosphical background and framework that helps Christians (and not-yet-Christians) understand the philosophical underpinnings of faith.
It is certainly worth reading the rest of Greg's article, here: http://publicchristianity.org/library/response-to-global-atheism-conference-a-short-case-for-god.

..

John Lennox on Science, the Bible and Belief in the 21st Century

2011-07-28T09:20:00.000+10:00

John Lennox is currently in Australia. He is Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Oxford University. I went to hear him this week speak to a packed auditorium at a school in Southern Sydney. He particularly spoke about the arguments of the 'New Atheists' (who include Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer - all of whom he has debated) and some of the flaws in their arguments.

It was a helpful talk that also presented clearly some of the arguments for Christianity and the basis of Lennox's own belief. Unfortunately it was all-too-brief and has motivated me to continue reading his book (which I have just started): God's undertaker: Has Science Buried God (2009).

This interview from CPX was recorded on a previous visit to Australia, and discusses some of the issues in a helpful way:

Science, the Bible and belief in the 21st Century from CPX on Vimeo.

You can find more Lennox videos at: http://www.publicchristianity.com/lennoxvids.html

...

Being Truly Human - Part 3 - Living as True Humans

2011-07-19T20:12:00.000+10:00

The Conclusion of my talk from MYC 2011.

In my last post I argued that we can only become truly human if we come into relationship with God through the True Human - Jesus Christ.

6. Living as a True Humans

So how do we live as True humans?

What we don’t do is live for ourselves. We are brought out of Adam’s humanity and out of slavery to sin and death, but we are not give freedom to do what we like or live for ourselves. We are set free to serve. We are set free to become slaves to righteousness. As we saw in Colossians 3:

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

We are to put to death what belongs to our sinful earthly nature (3:5), ‘because of these the wrath of God is coming’; and we are to ‘clothe ourselves’ with godliness (3:12); we are to let the Word of Christ dwell among us richly (3:16); and, according to Colossians 3:10 we are to: "put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator."

In our sinful natures we are cut off from relationship with God, but God is at work by his Holy Spirit transforming us to be like Christ, to be more like the image of God that we were intended to be. Of course we will never be perfect this side of heaven – we live in the overlap of the ages. But if we are in Christ we can know that we will finally be perfected in heaven.

But how do we live? => We put off ungodliness, and we put on righteousness and we participate in the Rule of Christ. In other words we work.

7. True Humanism

This is where we see that Christians, as true humans (in relationship with God) are the true humanists.

Humanism is seeking the full potential of humanity. The secular humanists are on the quest to advance humanity while rejecting God, but Christians seek the best for humanity in the name of Christ and for his glory. So our work ought to be for that purpose – exercising the rule of Christ by caring for the creation and seeking the good of humanity.

Can you see how being truly human can give you a different perspective on your work? A different purpose? And so any and all work can be done with this motivation:

- Manual labour.

- Providing for the material needs of others in the name of Christ.

- Doing the good works God has prepared in advance for us to do.

- Raising godly offspring has to be part of the work of ‘being fruitful and multiplying’.

- But there is a kind of work that most directly advances the good of humanity, and that is work of the gospel, because that is the work that helps people become truly human as they come into relationship with Christ.

So friends, I hope that you will leave from MYC this year knowing more about what it means to be human. Even more than that, I hope you will leave here as a true human, because you know THE true human – and your identity is found in him.

I hope you will leave here committed to living out your true humanity in relationship with Christ; and I hope you will leave here committed to being a true humanist – using every ounce of your humanity to serve Christ and to making him known – on your campus, throughout Australia and around the world.
. . .

Being Truly Human - Part 2 - Following the True Human

2011-07-15T15:46:00.001+10:00

The continuation of my talk at Mid Year Conference 2011.

I concluded previously by saying that: "To be human means to be a sinner. And like our father Adam we deserve the death that we all face and the judgement that goes with that."

4. The True Human

That is a pretty sad analysis of what it means to be human, but God doesn’t leave us without hope. God sends the True Human into the world. The true human is, of course, Jesus Christ – as the writer to the Hebrews makes clear (Heb 2:6-9), beginning with a quote from Psalm 8:

But there is a place where someone has testified: ‘‘What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 7 You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor 8 and put everything under his feet.” In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

We see Jesus, who according to Hebrews 1:3 is truly God, “The radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being”. God the Son becomes ‘a little lower than the angels’ - he becomes truly human - like us in every way except sin (according to Hebrews 4:15).

According to the logic of Hebrews the Son had to become fully human so that he could be our perfect High priest who offered the perfect sacrifice of himself on the cross, in order that he might ‘taste death for everyone’ cf 2:14-17:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

Only the True Human could do that for us.

Because we are sinners, we are cut off from God, yet through the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross of Calvary we can have our access to the Father restored – we can be truly human again.

5. Being Truly Human
In our natural state we are not truly human. When we belong to the humanity led by Adam we are cut off from God, we are not able to be in the relationship we are made for.

Yet Christ - through his death – makes it possible for us to be forgiven, to be restored, to have access into the relationship with the Father that we are cut off from by our sin.

True Humanity comes from being united with the True Human. So how can we be united to Christ?

Carl showed us that this happens by Spiritual Baptism through faith (Romans 6; cf. Mark 1-10 and Acts 2). When we put our trust in Christ the Spirit brings us into that relationship with Christ that changes everything. We move from being “in Adam” to being “in Christ”.

I loved that illustration he quoted (from The Briefing #393, June 2011, p11 "Union With Christ" by Rory Shiner).

"The key relationship you need with the plane is not to be under it, behind it or inspired by it, You need to be in it. . . Because by being in the plane, what happens to the plane will also happen to you."

Then our destiny will be intimately united with the destiny of the plane.

And if we are united with Christ like this by God’s grace through faith, then His status is our status. If God sees Christ as Holy, he sees us as holy. If God sees Christ as righteous, he sees us as righteous. You can’t get a much closer relationship with God than that – except that now we only experience it in part, we only see as a reflection in a cracked mirror (because we live in the overlap of the ages) – but then we will see him face to face.

And so we are not defined as humans by our looks (whether or not the people at beautifulpeople.com accept us). We are not defined by our wealth or how nice our house is or what suburb we live in. We are not defined by how sporty we are or how sexy we are or what job we are doing or our course or our grades or . . . by anything that is just part of this fallen world.

If we are in Christ then we are defined by being in him. We are defined as being right with God and being seated at God’s right hand. We are defined as being in Christ.

In the same way, being “in Christ” means that we are now seated with him in the heavenly realms, we are now seated at the right hand of God with Christ. We have access to the father because Christ is in the Father’s presence. Our destiny is united with him.The Son becomes truly human in order to defeat the devil and rescue us from our slavery to sin and death. He offers himself as the sacrifice of atonement (the ‘propitiation’) that turns aside God’s anger and makes it possible for us to have the relationship with God that we were made to have.

Being Truly Human - Part 1 - Created in God's Image

2011-07-14T10:59:00.001+10:00

Being notes from a talk which attempted to summarise the main themes of Mid Year Conference.

1. Understanding Humanity

I hope you have found it encouraging to look at ‘Humanity’, because we are getting to know and understand ourselves.

As we study this topic we are not content to understand ourselves as the sum of our parts – 206 bones, 9 metres of intestines, etc. We are not content to understand our physiology or our psychology. We are not going to understand who we are the way the Secular Humanists want us to – rejecting any idea of God. Rather we want to understand ourselves the way that God sees us – the way he unveils humanity in his Word. So we study God’s word to understand what it means to be truly human in relation to God

And what do we see?

2. Created in God’s image

We see that human beings are made by God – we are his creatures and not independent. But we humans are special creatures – the last created – the ‘pinnacle of creation’ - and the only creatures made “in the image of God”.

We have spent some time this week pondering what it means to be made in God’s image. => Remember Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Not just telling us that God has one head, two legs, two arms, eyebrows, kneecaps and so on – not particularly about resemblance.

But it is especially about two attributes: relationship and rule.

(a) Relationship

We do share some of God’s attributes – in particular as creatures made in the image of the triune God (one God in three persons – relational at the very centre of his being), we are made for relationship – for relationship with God our creator; and for relationship with other humans.

As human beings we have such potential for great relationships. Not just male-female relationships, but being made male & female makes possible the closest of human relationships in marriage. But no matter how wonderful our human relationships might be, the first relationship we are made for is with God himself.

(b) Rule

The other key aspect of being made in God’s image is seen in the following verses where the humans are given responsibility to Rule (Genesis 1:28):

God blessed them and said to them, ‘‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

God was even so good to the man that he created woman, also in the image of God, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, to help and complement him in this work. From their one flesh relationship we see how mankind is going to be able to ‘be fruitful and multiply’, to go about that work of subduing and tending the earth – the work of Ruling.

These two are the key elements of being in God’s image – Relationship and Rule. And in Genesis 1-2 it seems so promising, yet we know that’s not the way it is now – our relationships with God are distant (or non-existent); our relationships with each other are strained at best; and our rule over the creation . . . we are failures.

I didn’t have to come up with illustrations of that – my Garden and the youngest member of my family. I enjoy a good garden as much as the next bloke (!) – but I am not a gardener. Over 8 years my wife has transformed the bare patch of ground at the back of our house to a lovely garden. My job is mostly the heavy digging and the lawn. I laid our lawn and I get to mow it and water it to try and keep it alive in drought. To kill off the clover that tries to take over in good times. It is a constant struggle, but I thought I was keeping ahead – until we brought home the youngest member of our family about 16 months ago. The youngest member of our family is nearly two – and she is a chocolate covered Staffy cross Lab named Coco. She is a beautiful dog. But she is psycho! She is enthusiastic and needs lots to do. When she gets bored she loves to help with the gardening – she digs up plants, she digs holes in the lawn. When she gets excited (like when I get out her lead for a walk) she does laps of the garden – and at the end where she turns there is now no grass – just a mound of dirt she has kicked up. I’ve tried to train her – after all, I’m the human, I’m supposed to be the master, but no hope! I can’t control the weeds and I can’t train the dog not to wreck the garden – some ruler over the creation I turn out to be!

If we fail at these small things, what hope do I have of doing something really impressive - like calling up a decent wave when I go to the beach for a surf . . . or even stopping an earthquake and the Tsunami wave that follows? We all fail to rule the way we are made to.

So what happened?

3. The Cracked Image

The answer, as we saw in Genesis 3, is that our humanity has been tainted / marred / broken – by our rebellion against God. The image is cracked.

When the first man and woman took the fruit from the tree they were told not to eat from, they not only disobeyed the one rule they had been given, but they stuffed up everything: their relationship with God; their relationship with each other; their relationship with the creation.

God’s judgement that followed their sin brought death into the world, brought corruption of the creation. Their work of ruling and of multiplying is now going to be much harder, as we see spelled out in Genesis 3:16-19 (NIV):

To the woman he said,
‘‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, ‘‘Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
‘‘Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

We see the consequences of the cracked image in our world – the murders, the wars, the bitterness, the sickness . . . We try to exert our freedom, but we realise we are just slaves to sin and ultimately death.

The Bible tells us that being human means that we are sinners.

The secular humanists – who are trying to achieve the full potential of humanity - keep getting stuck on this point. All the programs for social advancement, all the social workers and every effort to improve humanity keeps on getting fouled up by the sin that lies in the heart of every human.

Even the great intellectuals, the ‘captains of industry’, the leaders of nations use their positions for personal advancement, building their own wealth, for their own pleasure (Silvio Berlusconi …)?

To be human means to be a sinner. And like our father Adam we deserve the death that we all face and the judgement that goes with that.

(To be Continued)

Just A Closer Bop with Thee

2011-06-24T18:02:00.001+10:00

This week I enjoyed a night out with my wife at Venue 505 to listen to some Jazz. The band was 'Transit' - 'an exciting collaboration of Sydney and Melbourne Jazz musicians' featuring Sydney musicians Con Campbell (tenor sax), Peter Kohlhoff (bass), John Morrison (drums) alongside Melbournians Greg Ambroisine (trumpet) and Andy Vance (piano)'. We have heard Con Campbell a number of times at a variety of events - often outreach events put on by Christian groups - but this is the first time we have heard Transit.

Venue 505 in Surry Hills was the 'atmospheric' (read dingy) venue - much of the seating is on ancient lounges. The attendance was reasonable, but nowhere near as crowded as might have been expected from the standard of the music - which was quite brilliant. Even more exciting was the commitedly Christian foundation of the band.

The music was not the usual 1930's and 40's fare often played by Jazz bands, but included adaptations of a number of hymns, including 'All People that on Earth Do Dwell' (1551), 'Crown Him with Many Crowns', 'Be Still My Soul' and 'Just a Closer Walk (Bop?) with Thee'. There were also a number of brilliant Andy Vance originals including 'Baker Man', 'Full House' and 'New Hope'.

We were so impressed we bought the CD, but of course there is something special about a live Jazz concert. The sad news is that Greg is headed to Germany shortly, so live concerts may be in short supply!

You can check out some more music on the website at: http://www.transitjazz.com/en/listen

Or listen to "Just a Closer Walk" here:

Jesus, a Prophet of Islam??

2011-06-20T08:02:00.000+10:00

Diaa Mohamed is the founder of Mypeace, an Islamic organisation seeking to promote understanding between Christians and Muslims and is behind the recent posters around Sydney proclaiming Jesus as a prophet of Islam. He recently spoke with John Dickson in the CPX studio for a conversation about the differences in how Muslims and Christians view Jesus. Helpful in understanding how Muslims view Jesus and all the other Prophets they claim to hold in common with Jews and Christians.

Jesus a prophet of Islam? from CPX on Vimeo.

The video can be found on the CPX website here: http://publicchristianity.org/Videos/jesus_a_prophet_of_islam.html

Receiving the Benefits of Easter and Anzac Day

2011-06-17T17:50:00.000+10:00

The close proximity of Easter (April 22-24) and ANZAC Day (April 25th) this year led many to reflect on the relationship between the two commemorations.

Anzac day commemorates the sacrifice of those soldiers, sailors and airmen (and women) who fought and served during all conflicts to protect and preserve the freedom we enjoy in Australia. We especially remember those who paid the ultimate price and laid down their lives in service of our country.

At Easter we remember the sacrifice of the one man - Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom John called "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Jesus gave his innocent life when he died on a Roman cross and suffered the agony of God's wrath for us. He took upon himself the punishment we deserved and died on a cross so that we might be forgiven and set free from our slavery to sin and death.

You can see how the comparison between the deaths of our military personnel and the death of Jesus can be made. When speaking of our war dead, Jesus words are often spoken: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) While Jesus was undoubtedly looking forward prophetically to his own death 'for his friends', no doubt the general principle still applies.

There is however, a significant difference in how we receive the benefits of these deaths.

If we are enjoying the prosperity and freedom of living in 21st century Australia then we are beneficiaries of the sacrifices of all those who gaves their lives in military conflicts to defend us. We are beneficiaries of this freedom whether or not we appreciate what they gave for us. We are beneficiaries whether or not we honour their sacrifice and commemorate their memory. We are beneficiaries of their sacrifices if we curse their memory and desecrate the war memorials.

However, we cannot be beneficiaries of Jesus' sacrifice for us simply by virtue of our nationality or family heritage. The benefits of Jesus' death are received by God's grace when we turn from our rebellion against God and turn to him in faith. We receive the benefits of his death when we accept them as OURS by faith.

In some ways it is easier that recognising the sacrifice of our military heroes. We don't have to march in a parade or even go to a dawn service. But just as someone who recognises the sacrifices made to keep our nation free lives in a way that honours those sacrifices, so the person who has received the benefits of Jesus' sacrifice will live in a way that honours him.

So while we remember the similarities between Easter and Anzac day, let's also remember that there is a very signifiacnt difference in how wer receive the benefits of these different sacrifices.

Video: Follow - The Easter Story on Social Media

2011-04-25T18:41:00.000+10:00

I love this video that higlights the drama of the Easter story as it might have appeared on Social Media.

Follow from Igniter Media on Vimeo.

Throughout the course of his public ministry, Jesus knew both the adoration and desertion of the crowds. Today, just as 2,000 years ago, the gospel asks a question that demands an answer: Will we follow?

??

Why is "Good Friday" good?

2011-04-21T19:01:00.000+10:00

Every year people ask why the first day of the Easter Holidays is called "Good Friday". In this video Phillip Jensen explains why:

Phillip Jensen & Kel Richards - 'What's so good about Good Friday?' from Audio Advice on Vimeo.

Does God Care about the Suffering in Japan, New Zealand or Australia?

2011-03-29T17:38:00.000+11:00

The recent earthquake and Tsunami disaster in Japan was one in a string of disasters that have come quite close to home for the people of Australia (even though most Australians have been untouched). Earlier in the year we had the floods in Queensland, Northern NSW and Victoria followed by Cyclone Yasi (a category 5 cyclone) in far north Queensland. These were followed by the devastating earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand where hundreds of lives were lost, and then the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami where up to 20,000 lives have been lost.

It is entirely reasonable that this string of disasters should lead to people asking questions: What does this mean? What does this say about God? Why does God let this happen?

There have been many different answers. Some end-times watchers have said this shows that the end is getting closer. I haven't heard of anyone claiming these disasters were judgements for specific sins - although this has been claimed in the past (eg. the Victorian bushfires). One answer I read from a non-Christian perspective suggested that the earthquakes happened in response to our damaging of the environment through mining, oil drilling and pollution - in other words it was the earth showing its annoyance!

Can I say up-front that I do not claim to be an expert on suffering. I have had some suffering in my life, but it wouldn't be hard to find someone who has suffered more. What I do want to do - as sensitively as possible - is to set a framework for responding to the question of suffering.

I was listening to some interviews of Pastor Rob Bell on US TV. The interviews were about his new book, but two interviewers asked similar questions about the suffering in Japan. This is the question asked by Martin Bashir on MSNBC, and Bell's response:

Martin Bashir: . . . Just help us with this tragedy in Japan. Which of these is true. Either God is all powerful but he doesn’t care about the people of Japan and therefore their suffering, or he does care about the people of Japan but he is not all powerful, which one is it?

Rob Bell: I begin with the belief that, when we shed a tear, God sheds a tear, so I begin with a divine being who is profoundly empathetic, compassionate and stands in solidarity with us. Secondly, the dominant story of the scriptures is about restoration, it’s about renewal, it’s about rebirth, it’s about a God who insists – in the midst of this chaos the last word hasn’t been spoken. So people of faith have clung to this promise, and this hope that God will essentially fix this place. It’s a beautiful hope and we I think we ought to keep it front and centre – especially right now.

Martin Bashir: So which of those is true: He is all powerful and he [doesn’t] cares or he cares and is not all powerful?

Rob Bell: I think that this is a paradox at the heart of the divine, and some paradoxes are best left exactly as they are.

In both his interviews Bell began his answer with the assertion that "when we shed a tear, God sheds a tear". I can understand his desire to emphasise God's understanding and empathy with our situation up-front, but I have two main concerns with his (partial) answer: (1) he doesn't acknowledge that suffering might be part of God's sovereign plan, and (2) he asserts a paradox which the Bible does not really allow, and in so doing misrepresents God.

Let me offer some thoughts on each of these points:

(1) Rather than starting with the assertion of God's empathy with the human situation, the Bible starts with God's sovereignty and his goodness. Genesis 1 tells us that God is the creator (and sustainer) of the world. We also see that God is intimately involved in his world - he knows every hair on our head and no sparrow falls to the ground apart from his will. Without God's ongoing intimate involvement the world would cease to exist in an instant. Nothing happens outside his knowledge and will. This is what we mean by God's sovereignty.

The Bible also tells us that God made the world good - in fact "very good" according to Genesis 1:31. The goodness of the world reflects God's achievement in creating a world that was just as he intended and perfectly good and enjoyable for the people he placed there. Of course the goodness of the world also reflects God's character.

There are many other aspects of God's character we could mention that are important - God is Love, God is Holy, God is Just, God is Merciful . . . None of these should be 'played off' against each other. Rather we seek to find how they are worked out in relation to each other.

The Bible tells us that God expressed his Love and Goodness towards humans by giving them freedom to choose. Sadly their freedom was expressed by rebelling against God when they chose to do what they were told not to do - and in so doing received judgement on themselves and the earth. The judgement on themselves included pain, suffering and ultimately death. The ongoing effect of this rebellion is seen in the evil that is done by humans in their continuing rebellion against God - all too often leading to suffering for others and wilful damage to the creation. The consequence for the earth was the kind of events that lead to 'natural disasters'. In other words, natural disasters are a consequence (sometimes directly, but mostly indirectly) of human sin.

So what does God do about this? He has decided to show mercy!

What we deserve for our sin is death - not only physical, but eternal spiritual death. Yet God makes it possible for us to escape this judgement for our sin through the gift of his Son. As John 3:16 tells us:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should receive eternal life."

God's gift of Love to us was to come into the world in the person of the Son to identify with us, to suffer the judgement we deserve and to offer us forgiveness and eternal life. This can only be received by putting our faith in God.

So what about suffering? Can suffering be a part of God's plan? We see first of all that suffering is central to God's plan - the Son suffered the worst possible suffering so we could receive eternal life. And just as it was the Father's will that the Son should suffer, so also our suffering will have a purpose. Sometimes suffering is to refine our faith. Sometimes suffering comes as judgement (although we ought to be careful to label any instance of suffering as this, according to Jesus in Luke 13:1-5). Sometimes suffering is a warning to us. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: sometimes God uses suffering as a megaphone to get our attention.

Our problem is that we forget that this world is not the end. God has promised a new and 'restored' creation, where there will be "no more death or mourning or crying or pain" (Revelation 21:4). Christians have the hope of 'heaven' - of enjoying the new creation in relationship with God.

(2) Is there really a paradox between God's goodness and the reality of suffering? The short answer is No. God is really sovereign - he has not lost control to some other force that brings about these evil deeds. But God has given us freedom, and our rebellion has brought evil and suffering into the world. Suffering must somehow be a part of his plan.

So is God really good? Doesn't God care? Of course he cares! But God has reasons for suffering that we will never know. All that we do know is that his plans are for the good of those who do and will put their trust in him and in his Son (Romans 8:28) - whose suffering (in God's plan) brings us eternal life and joy.

--

Al Mohler - Refuting those who Oppose the Truth.

2011-03-25T16:07:00.002+11:00

I have recently been reading Titus 1, and as I read a recent article by Albert Mohler a verse sprang to mind:

[An overseer] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it (Titus 1:9)

Al Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In his blog (AlbertMohler.com) he regularly reviews theological writings. He has recently reviewed books by Rob Bell (Love Wins) and Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christianity). McLaren and Bell are leaders in the 'Emergent Church' movement - younger leaders who are seeking to refresh and renew the church for the new generation. Sadly, some of the things they teach need to be harshly critiqued.

Brian McLaren also recently wrote a response to a review Mohler did of Bell's book. That response in itself demanded a response, which Mohler wrote here on his blog. I thought Mohler's response was in the finest tradition of Titus 1:9. Basically he points out that McLaren and Bell represent the (re)emergence of the old Theological Liberalism - albeit with a postmoderm slant.

It is worth understanding this conversation to understand why these books are causing so much stir.

I will reprint part of Mohler's article below.

--------------

A THEOLOGICAL CONVERSATION WORTH HAVING: A RESPONSE TO BRIAN McLAREN

Some theological disputes amount to very little and serve mostly as exercises in missing the point, if indeed there is a point. Other doctrinal exchanges are quite different and deal with matters of central and essential concern to the Christian faith. The first sort of dispute is a waste of precious time and energy and should be avoided at all costs. The second sort of debate is a matter of both urgency and importance. The church cannot avoid and should not seek to evade this kind of theological conversation.

That is why a recent essay by Brian McLaren helps us all to understand what is at stake in the controversy over Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. Beyond this, his argument reveals a great deal about the actual beliefs and trajectories of what has become known as the emerging church. As such, his essay is a welcome addition to this important conversation.

McLaren, perhaps the best known of the leaders in the emerging church, seeks to defend Rob Bell and to act as his friend. He says that he had been waiting for an opportunity to speak in Bell’s defense, and, evidently my essay, “We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology,” afforded McLaren the opportunity he was seeking.

In his own essay, “Will Love Wins Win? We’re Early in the First Inning,” McLaren uses a baseball metaphor to reject my critique of Rob Bell’s arguments. He asserts that I “rounded first base” by affirming a clear understanding of the Gospel as found in the Scriptures and then suggesting that Rob Bell’s proposals fall short of the Gospel. My problem, according to McLaren, is that I assume that a clear understanding of the Gospel is even possible. According to McLaren, the complexities of interpretation render this claim implausible.

In his words:

Now communication is nearly always tricky, as any of us who are married or are parents know. The speaker has a meaning which is encoded in symbols (words) which then must be decoded by the receiver. That decoding process is subject to all kinds of static - for example, interference from the biases, fears, hopes, politics, vocabulary, and other characteristics of the receiver or the receiver’s community. If the receiver then tries to pass the meaning - as he has decoded it - on to others, there is more encoding and decoding, and more static. That’s why, with so much encoding and decoding and re-encoding going on, the challenge of communication across many cultural time zones is downright monumental.

Communication is indeed “nearly always tricky,” but McLaren’s argument leads to interpretive nihilism. Can we really not know what the Gospel is? If this is true, the church is left with no coherent message at all. All of our attempts to define the right form of the Gospel are just human interpretations, he insists, and we must avoid “excessive confidence” in any telling of the Gospel story. McLaren warns that we must avoid “a naive and excessive confidence,” but that we can retain a “humble confidence.” But his argument leaves us with very little idea of how this “humble confidence” is to be found, since “no articulation of the gospel today can presume to be exactly identical to the original meaning Christ and the apostles proclaimed.”

That statement leaves us with only approximations of the Gospel — some presumably better, some worse. And we would in fact be left with nothing more precise or authoritative than that but for one thing — we have the Bible. We are absolutely dependent upon the New Testament way of telling the Gospel of Christ, and the apostles were determined to pass along the Gospel as a clear and understandable message to others. This is why Paul instructed Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” and to “guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” [2 Timothy 1:13-14]

If we cannot know what the Gospel is, then there is no such thing as the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” [Jude 3] If so, we have nothing definitive to say.

The issues of communication are real, and we should never seek to minimize the challenge of interpretation. But the clarity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture are precisely the means whereby the Lord preserves his church in the Spirit and in truth. It is one thing to cite the challenge of interpretation. It is another thing altogether to suggest that we are left with an insurmountable problem and an indefinite message. This flies directly in the face of biblical claims and commands.

....

---------------

You can read the rest of the article here. - and there is plenty more good stuff to be found there.
(Includes links to articles previously referred to)

(Hat Tip to the ACL website.)

_________

Revitalising Struggling Churches

2011-03-20T14:45:00.003+11:00

Michael Kellahan recently posted an article on the Sydney Anglicans website about the value and necessity of revitalising churches. He called it "Fixing our Broken Bikes".

I have done some reflecting on the issue myself, and after posting a comment in response to Michael's article, I thought I would put the reflections on here too. Here is what I said:

--------

Hi Michael, lots of good ideas here! In particular I concur with your point that in many churches that need revitalisation there are “people of good-will” who would be happy for change if it will mean growth.

I have been reflecting on this issue and, in trying to detect patterns, I have noticed that some of the stronger churches in the St George area have been 'revitalisations' - I think particularly of Beverly Hills (now with Kingsgrove) and St George North (formerly Carlton + Bexley + Bexley North).

In both cases the transformation included dynamic new leadership (Tony Galea and Zac Veron respectively), significant diocesan support (including probably hundreds of thousands of dollars of grants for assistant ministers at each place), mergers with neighbouring parishes and (at least initially), some transfer growth of key people. No doubt there were other things needed for growing churches (check Zac's book: "Leadership on the Front Foot" for details), but I believe these things were key.

I'm not suggesting these are the only 'revitalised' churches in the area - but others have generally involved new Asian (Chinese) ministries. Perhaps others have more stories? I know some revitalisations are also happening in the Inner West.

It is interesting to note that a reasonably successful church plant in the same area (Christ Church, St George) is likely to join with St George North this year after about 10 years holding meetings in a local High School.

Some implications of my previous post:
(1) Leadership and faithfulness are important and necessary.

(2) Transfers of key lay people may be vital in the early years.

(3) Money for additional ministry can make a huge difference. (But we are talking about significant amounts of money over perhaps a 10 year period. Given our financial crisis we could give up - or we could look for new ways to find the money.)

(4) Mergers can provide additional resources.

(5) We have people who are experienced in doing this (but are our diocesan leaders listening to them?).

__

Rob Bell's New Book on Heaven and Hell Causing Controversy

2011-03-16T22:52:00.001+11:00

Rob Bell is the founding Pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church and author of a new book called "Love Wins". Watch this interview on America's MSNBC to get an idea of the controversy.

I think I'll have to read the book and make a more detailed response.

For a lengthy but detailed early review see this one by Kevin DeYoung on the Gospel Coalition Website.

BTW - I wish he had answered the initial question about Japan better!

***

Middle Eastern Christians in Australia looking for support as the Left fail to stand up to Muslim Aggression

2011-01-28T12:47:00.001+11:00

This article in the Sydney Morning Herald (by Paul Sheehan, a secular writer) gives some interesting background and analysis of this important issue.

The number of Middle-Eastern Christians in Australia is less than the number of Muslims, but is comparable. This could become a significant voting block if Labour continues in the direction it is going.

The question to ponder is whether other Christians in Australia will see this as an important political issue - and add their voice to that of their Coptic, Macedonian and Assyrian brothers and sisters - I hope they do.

Certainly it seems odd to me that we are accepting significant numbers of Muslim 'refugees' from the Middle-East, when the Christian minorities are the ones being persecuted and are fleeing their countries by the hundreds of thousands.

Expositions For Expositors by John Woodhouse

2011-01-21T12:46:00.000+11:00

Refreshment for preachers. A challenge to would-be preachers and encouragement for all who seek to know God better. This video is the first in a series by John Woodhouse, Principal of Moore College, on the first letter to Timothy. Worth listening to the whole series!

EPE #1 - 1 Timothy 1:1-2 from Audio Advice on Vimeo.

Thanks to the folk at Audio advice. (Check out the Vimeo page here).

Bible Reading Plans for the New Year

2010-12-31T17:23:00.001+11:00

One of the things we often do for the new year is make our New Year resolutions. While we can make fun of people who make the same resolutions each year but never do anything about them, I want to suggest that a little reflection followed by some resolutions can be a good opportunity for all of us.

While Christians know that we can make a fresh start with God anytime, the start of a new year can be a good opportunity to change some of the patterns of life and make the changes that we haven’t felt able to make in the business of the year. I suggested in a recent sermon that two of the habits and patterns we might seek to establish or re-establish for the new year might be our quiet times and our Bible reading programme. Often these two can (and should) be linked.

One of the challenges of establishing a regular Bible reading plan is working out the plan. I find that it helps to use a plan that someone else has put some time and effort into devising. I recently came across a collection of these gathered by Justin Taylor here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2009/12/30/bible-reading-plans-2/

Another recent article with a revised Bible reading plan is found here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/12/29/two-year-bible-reading-plan/

In particular I recommend the plan I am using this year. It was originally devised by Robert Murray M’Cheyne in 1842. If you read all four readings for each day you read the whole Bible in a year. It can easily be modified so that you read the whole Bible in two years (just read two readings each day). The plan is reprinted in a book by Don Carson, For the Love of God (Vols 1 and 2) which gives a short reflection for each day on one of the readings. Carson’s introduction, which includes a copy of the plan, can be found here: Carson’s Introduction - For the Love of God

Take the plunge and get into a Bible reading plan this year. I pray that God will bless you richly as you listen to his word.

PS. For a nice online version of the M'Cheyne plan, with links to Biblegateway, check out this page created by Karen & Ben Beilharz. http://hippocampusextensions.com/mcheyneplan/

A Locust Plague and an Ancient Prophecy

2010-12-15T12:34:00.002+11:00

City-dwellers may not have realized, but as well as drought-breaking floods, 2010 has seen the biggest locust plague in Australia for more than 30 years.

According to the Australian Plague locust Commission the peak time for hatching in New South Wales has been October-November, with plague swarms moving across the state and moving to egg-laying in December. Apparently the conditions that produced potentially the best crops in more than a decade (now significantly damaged by floods) are ideal for locusts.

Hearing about the Australian locust situation made me think of the Old Testament book of Joel, which recounts the invasion of Israel / Judah by locusts and the people's response to the consequent warnings from God passed on by the prophet.

The book of Joel is interesting because scholars have long had difficulty determining the date it was made – unlike most OT prophets there is no dating information based on the reining kings or historical events. The locust plagues Joel speaks of could have occurred at almost any date in the history of Israel – from the time of King Solomon to the time after the exile.

Nevertheless, Joel speaks powerfully on a number of topics, including the need to cry out to God in the face of calamity; the need for heart-felt repentance for those who have sinned; the need for communities to repent together and rejoice together when they are delivered. He also pushes us to understand the Biblical meaning of 'The Day of the Lord' and gives the definitive OT prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit in the 'last days' (quoted by Peter at Pentecost in Acts 2).

The final chapter of the prophecy paints the picture of the end time judgment in the 'Valley of Decision' (Jehoshaphat) on what will be the great and terrible 'Day of the Lord'. Yet the prophecy does not simply end with judgment but points to the fountain that will flow from the house of the Lord. This is picked up in the NT in Revelation 22:1-2 where John sees: 'the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city.' We also ought to remember the words of Jesus (in John 7:37ff), who said: 'If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.'

I am not suggesting that reports of a huge locust plague ought to have us jumping to conclusions about the end of the world being nigh – although some so-called 'end times experts' might want to interpret them this way! In fact, Joel's prophecy teaches us to understand every calamity - such as a locust plague, or a Tsunami or even a financial crash – as a kind of mini 'Day of the Lord' – something that ought to warn us to turn back to God and be ready, for the great 'Day of the Lord' is coming. The NT also calls it the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will return on that day as the judge of the earth. However that day will come 'like a thief in the night' at a time we cannot predict. (Check out 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10.)

The prophecy of Joel reminds us that the 'Day of Decision' is coming – when the world will face judgment. Yet those who have turned to the Lord will escape condemnation on that Day. We have also received the blessing of God's spirit poured out on us and since we live in the day of Salvation, can be part of that blessing flow out to the whole world.
If you would like to check out my sermons on Joel, they are available at our church website: www.padstowanglican.org.au/sermons.
1. Joel 1:1-20 'Cry to God'
2. Joel 2:1-17 'Return to God'
3. Joel 2:18-32 'Rejoicing in God'

4. Joel 3 'In the Valley of Decision'…

PRAY FOR THE PERSECUTED

2010-11-13T10:14:00.002+11:00

In our recent series on Hebrews we spent a week thinking about Hebrews 13:3:

Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.

This Sunday (November 14th) has been billed as the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church.

Whether you spend this Sunday as a special time of prayer or find some other time, I believe it is important to be informed and to pray (regularly) for our brothers and sisters who are persecuted.

As if on cue, this article appeared in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, telling the story of Pakistani woman Asia Bibi (Pictured above), who has been convicted of Blasphemy and sentenced to death.

There are too many similar stories in various parts of the world. Helpful websites to find out more about persecution around the world are:

http://www.persecution.org/ International Christian Concern

http://www.persecution.com/ Voice of the Martyrs

http://www.persecution.com.au/ VOM Aust

Fun and Safe Social Networking for Kids

2010-11-11T09:56:00.000+11:00

One of the challenges most parents face in the 'internet age' is walking the line between 'access' and safety. When we hear the terrible stories of people abused by 'friends' they have met on social media sites we are rightly cautious about what our kids are doing online.

There are of course precautions we can take when kids are younger, including filtering or blocking software, physical location of computers (in the family room, not the bedroom) and parental supervision. But where do we allow them to go online when they want to start using social networking.

In our house the teenagers use 'facebook'. We rely on their maturity and good judgement - but their parents are also among their FB 'friends'. The pre-teenagers are more likely to be interested in Club Penguin, where each person has a penguin avatar that can interact (to a limited extent) with others. They especially like the races against other penguins (that earn them points).

But what if you want something in between? This review by Sarah Kessler of five 'fun and safe social networks for children' on mashable could be the answer. For the record the five are:

1. Togetherville
2. What's What
3. Scuttlepad
4. Giant Hello
5. Skid-e Kids

While none of these will be perfectly safe, there will probably be something here you will find acceptable. Just remember to keep talking with your kids about what they enjoy (or dislike) about the site.

A Christian Response to Global Warming

2010-11-04T16:45:00.003+11:00

I recently took on the challenge of preaching two topical sermons on current ethical issues. The first was Euthanasia (see here) and the second was 'A Christian Response to Global Warming'.

I have to say that the first topic was much easier to tackle - mainly because the Bible has more to say about the topic. But how to tackle the topic of 'Global Warming' (GW)?

I began by doing some research on the scientific views on GW. With some background in science (B Sc in 1986!) I was confident I could get a handle on the issues. What I discovered is that it is not as straightforward as I had thought!

If we accept the argument of Al Gore and friends (from the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth') then an increase in pollution caused by human activity has led to an increase in greenhouse gases - especially Carbon Dioxide. This has led to an increase in the average temperature of the earth by about 0.6 - 0.8 degrees C in the last 40-50 years, or about 1.5 degrees over the last 100 years. The concern is that this increase in temperatures is already having significant negative effects, and that if it continues we could see an increase in the world's temperature of 4-5 degrees in the next 50 years - with catastrophic consequences. (A Short Video by national geographic explaining Global Warming can be found here: Global Warming 101.)

Al Gore claims that the scientific facts are not disputed - which is only partly true. The fact of global warming - the rise in the average temperature of the earth - is generally not disputed. What is disputed more is the cause. More specifically, whether humans are the main cause. There actually seem to be quite a few scientists who have alternative explanations (see for example the arguments of Bob Carter, an Australian from Townsville who does not deny the facts, but the conclusions drawn. His new book is called Climate: The Counter Consenus). The 'international consensus' on human induced global warming is presented here (Australian Government Dept of Climate Change) and here (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change).

In a short period of time I went from being fairly convinced for Human-caused global warming to very sceptical, and then back to cautiously accepting.

Another side of the issue is to consder the political organisations that are pushing the for an integrated international solution - which generally involves heavy taxing of carbon emissions. Led by the beauracracy of the UN, it is strongly supported by many socialist organisations around the world who are keen to see this as a way to redistribute the world's wealth. At this point we can get into any number of conspiracy theories - many of which I consider crazy! However, there is at least a grain of truth coming from those who warn against handing over power to an unaccountable world-wide beauracracy.

Taking all this into account, I then tried to consider the Christian response. I decided that perhaps the most important passages are in Genesis 1 and 2 which remind us that God is creator of our world and he has given us an authority over the creation - not an authority to exploit, but rather an authority that involves caring for his creation. Very important is to remember that we are to worship the creator, not the creation, and that in whatever we do we are to see to love both God and our neighbour.

So, I asked, how should we love our neighbour who is possibly affected by Global Warming? I think the answer is that we as individual and as societies ought to take 'reasonable means' to lessen our impact on the creation. Having said that, I am sure that there are more significant issues of exploitation (of people as well as the environment) and pollution that ought to be addressed as a priority over 'carbon emission'. Nonetheless, I believe that in this we ought to err on the side of caution and begin to implement measures that will reduce our the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Here is the outline of my talk:

Outline

Sunday October 31st, 2010. A Biblical Christian Response to the Environmental Issues of Global Warming and Environmental Degredation.

1. What is Global Warming—and why should I care?

2. Basic Attitudes

a. Confident in God’s word, but not wanting to go beyond what the Bible says.

b. Not afraid of the Scientific evidence

c. Seeking to be Generous in Love.

3. The Bible On ‘the Environment’

a. God’s Creation

b. God gave man dominion over creation—under Him

c. The World Is Groaning With Sin and Will End

d. Our Rule Over Creation Must Consider Others

4. What Can We Do?

(i) Don’t accept Exploitation of Environment or People

(ii) Seek to Live Simply – Leave a Small Footprint

(iii) Support ‘Reasonable Steps’ to protect the environment

(iv) Proclaim that God is the Creator (- and Jesus is Saviour)

5. Conclusion: God’s servants caring for God’s creation

You can download the sermon on the padstowanglican.org.au website

--

Archbishop Ussher and the Birthday of the Universe

2010-10-27T11:48:00.002+11:00

I was listening to ABC 702 this morning and heard Adam Spencer make the following comment:

"And a happy 27th of October to you all. Perhaps a birthday – an anniversary – the maths extension 1 exam.

Well for some creationists, Oct 27 4004bc is the day of creation itself. I chatted with Dr Mark Harwood from Creation Ministries about what underpins creation theory. Interesting stuff indeed. Hmmmmmmmmmmm."

This was the introduction to an interview (that can be found here) in which Dr Harwood (from Creation Ministries International) did a reasonable job of defending his position as a Young-Earth creationist despite some fairly belligerent interviewing by Adam.

After hearing the interview I checked the facts about Archbishop James Ussher (Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, 1625 - 1656). Adam should have checked his facts, because Archbishop Ussher calculate that the earth was created about nightfall before October 23rd. 4004 BC. According to Wikipedia:

After a 1647 work on the origin of the Creeds, Ussher published a treatise on the calendar in 1648. This was a warm-up for his most famous work, the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650, and its continuation, Annalium pars postierior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC (According to the Julian calendar).

Now, leaving aside Adam's error, how important is this date? Should we celebrate it as the birthday of the world? Do we have to accept that the world is about 6000 years old if we want to uphold the authority of the Bible as the Word of God (as Dr Harwood implied)?

I would suggest that Archbishop Ussher made an overly literalistic interpretation of the date of the creation. Even if the ages given in the genealogies of the Bible can be calculated accurately to give dates for Noah or for Adam, this still does not imply that we can calculate the date of the creation of light to six days before. I would argue that the first two chapters of Genesis are intended to tell us more about the purpose of creation and the nature of the creator rather than the exact order and date. I am therefore prepared to accept the label of 'Old-Earth Creationist' and to accept a possible date for the creation of the earth at over 13 billion years ago.

Of course I would still want to argue that the Bible is the word of God that should be read literally. Yet I find the Young-Earh creationists to be a little disturbing in their dogged adherence to such an early date in the face of very significant scientific evidence.

While we should not accept everything that scientists claim as 'proven fact', neither should we be scared of science when done within its proper bounds. While the YEC's claim to have rebuttals to much of the 'scientific evidence' for an old earth, it does appear to me to be 'special pleading' bound by a dogmantic and literalistic reading of Scripture. These are the kind of arguments that are usually called 'fundamentalist'.

A helpful article by Michael Jensen on 'Fundamentalism' was also released this week on the ABC religion website. Michael warns against the person who claims that their view is purely objective and rational - whether based on Scripture or something else (like Science). Such a person is not prepared to consider the alternative argument. A humble Christianity will always be prepared to consider the merits of the alternative argument - even when it might contradict certain cherished presuppositions or conclusions.

Unfortunately the conversation on the radio this morning sounded like a conversation between two different kinds of 'fundamentalists' - although I do think that the Christian was a bit more polite.

Synod Vox Pops

2010-10-20T08:07:00.001+11:00

This video by Anglican Media gives you an idea of what attenders think about Synod.

AND Check out this post by Nigel Fortescue for a taste - in fact a highlight!

Synod Vox-pops from Sydneyanglicans.net on Vimeo.

Peter Jensen on 'Being Human in this Glittering City'

2010-10-16T17:28:00.000+11:00

In the last week I have been attending the Annual Synod of the Sydney Anglican Diocese. One of the highlights is always the Presidential address given by the Archbishop. This year the address by Peter Jensen was on the topic of 'Being Human in this Glittering City'.

He began by suggesting that this 'glittering city' of Sydney began as an experiment in human nature. "One of the architects of the whole [transportation] scheme was the Home Secretary, Lord Sydney. For him, transportation was not a penalty in itself, and even convicted felons did not lose all the rights of an Englishman. He thought that after a relatively brief settling-in period under the rule of military authority, the new colony would be self-governing, run by morally improved convicts."

In what sense can humans be 'improved' or even 'perfected'? He then goes on to talk about the dream of improving people, including convicts and aboriginals; the education of the early children in the colony before making the point that our view of humanity will have direct implications for how we treat people - like the first Australians, Prisoners, the needy, the dying and the young. He provided a reflection on the trial of so-called "ethics classes" as a challenge to Special Religious Education (Scripture) and challenged us to rethink our vision for Christian education. He then went on to speak about the financial situation of the diocese and - more importantly - the progress of our mission.

It was a great encouragement to think Biblically about human nature ('Anthropology' for the academics) and to make sure we stick to the gospel mission. For me the address is the highlight of Synod. Well worth a read or listen!

The full text is available here.

The Audio Version is available here,

and the video is available in two parts on Vimeo, Part 1, and Part 2.

. . . . .

Euthanasia Debate Gathering Steam

2010-10-08T10:00:00.004+11:00

I have previously mentioned the warped priorities of the newly empowered Greens to promote Bills to legalise Euthanasia in the Territories and in the NSW Parliament, here.

Andrew Cameron (pictured), of the Sydney Diocese Social Issues Executive has written an article in the Sydney Morning Herald called "Euthanasia Question Needs Wider Discussion" which highlights the shaky basis for the claims made by the pro-euthanasia lobby and calls for a proper debate.

Another approach was taken by Michael Jensen, who wrote a controversial and deliberately provocative piece in Punch called "Who is Euthanasia really For? A Letter from a Loving Son". Worth looking at here.

Another interesting and moving contribution comes from Nikki Savva in the Australian: "Fight for Life to the Last Breath". Niki calls herself a 'conservative leftie' and is not, a far as I know, a Christian. It is a good example of how deeper reflection on the issue can lead to an anti-euthanasia stance. Her article can be found here.

Here is the first part of the article by Andrew Cameron:

Australians are overwhelmingly in favour of euthanasia. Who can resist the will of the people? So goes the pro-death argument for this sweeping social change.

A much quoted 2009 survey, commissioned by the pro-euthanasia group Dying with Dignity, reports 85 per cent support for the practice. As is always the case, support is more muted among the over-65s: the prospect of death, it turns out, does concentrate the mind.

Even so, the survey elicited more than 80 per cent support among each age bracket of its 1201 respondents.

There is just one problem: it consisted of a telephone poll asking a single leading question. Interviewers emphasised the syllables as printed: ''If a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing unrelievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose, or not?''

Try answering that while you are cooking the dinner or bathing the kids. The question is wildly emotive (''hopelessly'', ''unrelievable suffering'', ''absolutely no chance'').

We hate the thought of death and pain, and in the moment, most of us would simply respond out of shock and without much thought. The question leverages our preference to politely say ''yes'' instead of ''no''.

Its assumptions are also completely contestable. Illness does not have to be ''hopeless'', and suffering is often very relievable. Where euthanasia is legal, more ask for it due to loneliness than pain, or so as not to burden another. The survey therefore distracts us from other options.

It does not ask, ''Would you change your mind if the lonely had companions, and the fearful someone to listen?'' Nor does it ask, ''What would enable people to accept care without shame?'' Nor does it ask, ''Would you like to see more funding for pain management research and practice?''

We are seeing a deliberate blurring of the lines at the very time society needs clarity on such a serious and far-reaching measure. The deliberate killing of a person in euthanasia must be distinguished from the withdrawal of treatment, and from management of symptoms at the end of life. . . .

The rest of the article can be found here.

Muslims Respond to 'Attacks' on Islam - in Sydney

2010-09-22T22:05:00.005+10:00

I recently heard about a rally planned for a local park (in Lakemba) for Sunday 19th September organised by 'Various Muslim Community organisations'. Here is what the flyer said:

BANNING THE HIJAB
SLANDERING THE PROPHET (PBUH)
BANNING OUR MINARETS
BURNING THE QUR'AN
ATTACKING OUR MOSQUES

The hijab and niqab have increasinly been under the spotlight in the West and are the subject of attacks by Western media, politicians and academics who portrayed them as being tools of oppression to suppress women. After gaining momentum in Europe, the debate has emerged in Australia with the introduction of a bill into the NSW Legislative Council to criminalise the public wearing of face coverings such as the niqab.

The attack on the niqab does not occur in isolation. It comes at a time in the West when all things Islamic have been, and continue to be, targetted, attached and questioned: Our Prophet (saw), Islamic schools, mosques, the teaching of the Quran in schools, halal food, minarets and Islamic values and practices. Thus the attack on the niqab is not about the niqab itself but is an attack on it as a symbol of Islam. It is Islam itself that Western policy makers and media seek to challenge.

The Muslim community must not, and will not remain silent while matters concerning us are debated by the rest of society. We ask all men, women and children to join us at this important event to defend the honour of our sisters, the sanctity of our Deen, and the adherence to our Islam.

The front of the flyer declared:
It's time to UNITE & STAND WITHOUT FEAR!
STAND UP FOR YOUR ISLAM!
ALL MUSLIMS MUST ATTEND!

The rally was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald HERE. Apparently about 2000 people attended. The event was reported in the following terms:

Islamic values are superior to ''flawed'' Western secular values and non-Muslims are in no position to lecture Muslims about the oppression of women, a speaker said yesterday at a Sydney rally against proposals to ban the burqa.

''Despite the intense negative propaganda against Islam and in particular the lies about its treatment of women, the number of Western women embracing Islam continues to rise at a rapid rate,'' said Fautmeh Ardati, a member of the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir. ''By turning their backs on this flawed way of life, it is testament of the superiority of Islamic values over Western values.''

Women did not wear Islamic dress out of freedom of choice, Ms Ardati told the Lakemba rally.

''Because to use freedom of choice as a justification, then we are also accepting of women who undress out of this same freedom of choice, and we can never do this as Muslim women. We dress like this because it is the command of Allah, not any man.''

Women had two options, she said. ''The Western secular way of life, which robs a woman of her dignity, honour and respect, where she is considered little more than a commodity to be bought and sold, or the option of Islam, where a woman's dignity, respect and honour are priceless.''

Later she cited high rates of rape and domestic violence and said: ''They are in no position to be lecturing us about oppression and subjugation.'' Ms Ardati was one of five speakers at the rally, held at Parry Park, in reaction to a recent unsuccessful attempt by the NSW MP Fred Nile to introduce a bill banning the burqa.

The Premier, Kristina Keneally's recent statement re-affirming the right of Muslim women to wear the burqa was welcomed but Ms Ardati said the support of key politicians did not mean Muslims could ''relax''.

''Even if this bill is not passed in NSW now, who knows what will happen in one week, one month or one year?'' Ms Ardati said.

There were about 2000 people at the rally, with men and women segregated by a row of plastic markers. Male speakers spoke to the crowd from a podium at the front. The two female speakers spoke from the women's section, meaning most of the men had their backs turned to them.

Sheikh Shady al-Suleiman said Muslims loved Australia but rejected interference in the practice of their religion. ''Keep away from our affairs,'' he said.

Umm Jamaalud-Din said Mr Nile's ''un-Australian'' bill had ''open[ed] the floor to racist elements that exist within Australian society'' who would now feel they could vilify, abuse and possibly assault Muslim women.

''I feel empowered by the knowledge that I am in control of displaying my beauty to whom I choose,'' she said.

''I can move freely throughout society without being subjected to the eyes of every Tom, Dick and Harry and not be judged on face value but rather for who I am as a person.''
Earlier, organisers had told people not to speak to the media. One woman wearing a burqa said she would have to ask her husband before speaking to the Herald. When asked if she needed her husband's permission to speak, she said: ''We are allowed but we choose not to.''

It is interesting to observe the perceptions that Islam is being attacked. In reality the recently enacted prohibition from France has no chance of being passed in Australia. However, it is enough that someone (Fred Nile) is proposing to introduce legislation to the NSW Parliament.

There are some pretty strong statements here about how corrupt and debauched Western society appears to be. I wonder if many Western women feel this? I wonder if Christian women could have somethng to say on the matter about how different it is for them?

I wonder what would be appropriate responses to this from a Christian point of view?

I suspect that it won't be to support any legislation to 'ban the burqa', but to uphold the muslim freedom to worship as they choose - while politely engaging in discussion about how Chrsitainity is different from Islam and from modern Western culture.

Any thoughts or comments?

PS: You may be interested to check out what is said at the Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia website: http://www.hizb-australia.org/

and an information site for Christians at: http://www.engaging-with-islam.info/

First Priority for Bob Brown and the Greens: Euthanasia Laws!

2010-09-19T14:39:00.004+10:00

Not long after the Greens in the NSW Parliament have gained an amendment to the Adoption Act to allow gay couples the 'right' to adopt (in preference to the 'rights' of a child to have a mother and a father), federal Greens leader Bob Brown has announced that his first legislative priority in the new Federal parliament will be to change laws which currently prevent the Territories from introducing 'voluntary euthanasia' laws.

Euthanasia was legalised in the Northern Territory, by the (so-called) "Rights of the Terminally Ill Act" in 1995. Soon after, the law was voided by the Commonwealth government by amending the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. Before the Commonwealth government made this amendment, however, three people had practiced euthanasia, aided by Dr Philip Nitschke. Brown's goal will be to amend the Northern Territory Act and the corresponding Act for the Australian Capital Territory.

With an increased representation in the federal parliament the Greens are more likely to be able to advance their ultra-progressive and anti-Christian agendas, including Gay rights, Euthanasia, removal of all censorship, removing rights for Christian organisations to prefer to employ Christians and ultimately limiting the ability of Christian groups to proclaim the gospel.

Here is what the article says:

Greens reignite right-to-die debate
SMH September 19, 2010 - 9:57AM
One of the Australian Greens' first parliamentary priorities will be to try to overturn laws which stop the territories from legislating around euthanasia.

Greens leader Bob Brown said today that after ensuring there was more time to debate private member's bills in the new parliament, he would turn his attention to euthanasia laws.

Senator Brown wants to overturn laws that stop the ACT and Northern Territory from legislating on the controversial issue.

"That was a taking away of the democratic rights of the people of the two territories," he told Network Ten.

"This won't bring in euthanasia but it will restore the rights of the territorians to be able to legislate for euthanasia the same as everybody in the states."

Senator Brown said his move was less about discussing the right to die and more about instigating a "full on" debate about territory rights.

A conscience vote on restoring the territories' right to legislate on euthanasia was an option, he added, but that would be fleshed out during upcoming talks with the major parties.

Senator Brown later said in a statement that he would use the first extended private members time in the new parliament to reintroduce a bill extending territory rights and legalising euthanasia.

"My bill would restore the right of territory parliaments to pass laws that would allow terminally ill people to choose a death with dignity," he said.

"This right was taken away under the Howard government.

"While this bill is about territory rights, a huge majority of Australians support voluntary euthanasia and it is time for federal parliament to openly debate the issue."

Senator Brown first moved the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation) in 2008.
A spokesman for a national coalition of pro-voluntary euthanasia groups said it was ''appalling'' that the federal government had removed the NT's right to self-legislate.

''Bob Brown's bill is an important milestone in the nation's maturity towards recognising your last right,'' Neil Francis, representing groups such as Dying With Dignity Victoria, said.

''(It's) a right that 85 per cent of Australians want.''

Former NT chief minister Marshall Perron, who was integral to the right-to-die fight in there, said the territories were not colonies and should be given the same powers as the states.

''The NT will one day become the seventh state of Australia and citizens who choose to live, work and die there are entitled to the same rights as those who live in the states,'' he said.

''When, not if, a state passes voluntary euthanasia laws the Commonwealth will be powerless to stop it. Territorians are entitled to the same standing.''

The original article is HERE.

Radical Islam Challenges Notions of Freedom

2010-09-17T19:18:00.002+10:00

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali was bishop of Rochester in Britain, a member of the House of Lords and bishop of Raiwind in Pakistan. Below is an extract from an article published yesterday in the Australian. In the article he gives a strong but thoughtful challenge to the idea of accepting Sharia in parrallel with Australian (& British) law. At the present time he is in Australia and is giving a number of public addresses.

Challenging Islam Challenges Notions of Freedom

IT is often thought the main threat of radical Islamism to the West and, indeed, the world, is terrorism. It is also said to be the isolation of Muslim communities, which allows extremists to recruit people to their cause.

Such views are not mistaken but they confuse effects with causes. What the world has to recognise is that we are not simply dealing with faith, but with a political, social and economic ideology. Radical Islamism is a worldview. Its nearest parallel, despite many differences, is Marxism.

Radical Islamists claim their all-encompassing program for society is rooted in fundamental Islamic sources. They reject the interpretations of Koran and sharia law offered by reformist or moderate Muslims. We must, of course, respect the faith of ordinary Muslims, but the ideology has to be met in a different way.

It is basic to Western societies that there should be one law for all. This idea emerged from the Judaeo-Christian tradition that all humans are made in God's image. It has been mediated by the Enlightenment, which emphasised not only dignity but also liberty.

The radical Islamist vision is absolutist. It applies to every area of human life, including politics, business and, above all, law itself. Recent demands by British and some Australian Muslim leaders for the recognition of aspects of sharia law should be seen in this light. Western clergy and jurists who advocate such demands fail to recognise that acknowledging aspects of sharia in public law will lead to a greater involvement with Islamic law.

He Concludes . . .

While we should all be committed to civility in public discussion, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights already provides protection from incitement to religious hatred, which leads to discrimination, hostility or violence. To go beyond this has implications for free speech.

Muslims, like anyone else, should be free to practise and propagate their faith. They are free also to contribute to public debate. The principle of one law for all, however, cannot be compromised. Freedom of expression and the right to change one's belief must be maintained. So must easy access to the courts and police.

The rest of the Article can be found HERE.

Stephen Hawking's new book critiqued by Alister McGrath

2010-09-16T15:56:00.001+10:00

Stephen Hawking, the internationally respected scientist, has published a new book, The Grand Design, which famously (already!) declares, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."

There is a substantial review and critique by English theologian Alister McGrath (whose first doctorate was in Molecular Biology). I have published some of this review at the GodTalkatUWS blog.

The original article can be found HERE.

The Wrong Way to Do Muslim Outreach: An Appeal to Dove Outreach Centre

2010-09-08T14:11:00.004+10:00

Dear ministry team at Dove Outreach Centre,

I appeal to you as a fellow pastor and servant of the Lord Jesus Christ not to go ahead with this misguided exercise of burning the Quran.

I also recognise that any worldview or religion that does not accept Jesus as Lord or recognise the Holy Scriptures as the final authority in matters of faith is captive to the devil. However I believe it is incredibly unhelpful to outreach around the world to antagonise Muslims by burning their holy book.

I serve in a part of Sydney, Australia where there is some outreach to Muslims happening and numbers of Muslims becoming disciples of Christ. I want you to understand that your misguided public event is likely to cause greater antagonism between Muslims and Christians and slow the cause of the gospel among Muslims. I am also concerned for friends who are serving in Muslim-majority countries who will be placed in increased danger by your actions - and also for the damage that you will do to the cause of Christ in these lands as outreach work is attacked more vigorously.

I call on you to preach the salvation that is found in Christ alone and to model the peace and forgiveness that can only be found in him.

I will be praying that you repent of this ill-advised intention and that instead you offer your own prayers that we may all live 'peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good and pleases God our saviour, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth . . .' (1 Tim 2:2-4).

I appeal to you in Christ,

Richard Blight
Minister, Padstow Anglican Church,
Sydney, Australia

The contact page for Dove outreach centre (where I sent this appeal) is here. (You might like to add your own).

The SMH article is here:

Richard Dawkins debates John Lennox on 'The God Delusion'

2010-08-28T10:26:00.006+10:00

I have recently been thinking about the relationship between Science and Christianity in seeking to answer the question of 'hasn't science disproved Christianity?' (See http://www.godtalkatuws.blogspot.com/.) One of the most famous debates in recent times on the topic was between Professor Richard Dawkins (of Oxford) and Profesor John Lennox (also of Oxford). Held at the University of Alabama in Birmingham in 2008. The topic was specifically the title of Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.

The video can be found here. The whole debate goes for an hour and 40 minutes (153 MB!). Let me know what you think.

You may be interested to have a look at some of the other work Dawkins is doing. Here is a report on Dawkins' crusade regarding Faith Schools. A series of videos called Faith Schools Menace was released on August 18th.

His own website is here, and his related founndation: "The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering." Sounds like a crusade to me. No wonder people are calling him a 'fundamentalist'!

How To Protect Our Children Online

2010-08-11T11:46:00.001+10:00

I recently came across this very helpful page by Steve Kryger of 'communicatejesus.com' which provides advice and resources to help protect our children while using the internet. I'm sure you'll find it useful.

Peter O'Brien on Hebrews

2010-08-09T11:41:00.003+10:00

We've recently been studying the letter to the Hebrews at church. Here is an 'interview' from the Gospel Coalition website with Peter O'Brien - one of my college lecturers and author of a fantastic commentary on Hebrews. In answering a few short questions Peter gives great insight into the main themes of the letter.

(The sermons can be found at on our church website: www.padstowanglican.org.au/sermons)

The Goodness of Sex in God’s Plan vs the Sexualisation of Girls

2010-07-31T15:23:00.017+10:00

I was interested to see an article this week on the Age website reporting on a conference in Melbourne. The conference was on 'Religion in the Public Square' - an opportunity to consider issues that impact on our wider society.

In some ways it was not surprising that the issue the writer (Barney Zwartz) picked up on was sex. But it was encouraging to see the way that he reported positively on what two of the presenters said.

Barney reported on the presentations made by Melinda Tankard Reist and by mother and son team Patricia and Kamal Werakoon. Melinda Tankard Reist (picture above) is a prolific writer and social commentator with a particular interest in women's issues and bioethics. Among her published works is Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls. Patricia Weerakoon is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney, and the Coordinator of the Graduate Program in Sexual Health. She is a sexuality educator, researcher and therapist, and has developed a media profile as a sexologist. Kamal Weerakoon is the minister of St Mary's Presbyterian church and a Presbyterian chaplain at the University of Western Sydney (Parramatta Campus). Kamal had an adaptation of his presentation published this week in the Age & SMH (The good book's guide to great sex).

This article is great for a number of reasons. It promotes a positive Christian attitude to sex - something which many people think is impossible. It tells us that we are likely to be happier and healtier when we follow God's plan - which is a great apologetic argument! It also highlights some of the more disturbing consequences of moving away from the Christian standard – namely, the increasing sexualisation of girls - and draws attention to the campaign against this damaging trend.

This is such an important issue because of the damage that can be done when the 'community expectation' of unrestricted sexual expression is carried to a younger and younger audience. Unfortunately the media is not often interested in talking about this serious issue, so it was encouraging to see Zwartz write it up.

Melinda Tankard Reist is one of the few figures speaking out about this issue, although thankfully she is being heard by more and more people, including many larger Christian ministries. For her troubles Melinda has been attacked by many 'feminist' and atheist groups (see, eg., this article on unbelief.org). I want to encourage anyone who is concerned for the wellbeing of our society, whether or not you are a Christian, to check out and support her work.

For Christian parents this is an important issue, but we can't protect our daughters from these pressures by retreating into our ghettoes. This is another reminder of how important it is for parents to be aware of the issues confronting our children. We also need to be prayerful, to be wise in protecting them from the worst examples, and above all to be talking with them about what they are seeing and hearing, so that they will have the wisdom to be critical and to know when the world and the devil are at work leading them from God's way.

Here is the Barney Zwartz article in full:

WOMEN'S and girls' magazines are full of advice on better sex, from how to catch and hold your man down to detailed instructions on sexual techniques. Now it seems the oldest written recipe, the Bible's, might be the best.

Neuroscientific studies suggest that ''life-long heterosexual monogamy'' is most likely to provide both sexual satisfaction and excitement, a Melbourne conference heard at the weekend.

While women's activist Melinda Tankard Reist complained that Dolly magazine, aimed at 10 to 13-year-old girls, provided instructions on oral and anal sex without any context or warnings, Sydney University sexologist Patricia Weerakoon said biblical sexual ethics were healthy and life-affirming.

In a joint paper with her son, Sydney Presbyterian minister Kamal Weerakoon, she said non-religious people expected the church to be fearful, ignorant, defensive, repressed and hypocritical with only one message about sex: don't do it.

But a biblical understanding of sex was deeply positive - ''do it, God made us for it'' - while also being honest about human imperfections and limitations.

Mr Weerakoon told the national conference on religion in the public square that neuroscientists working in sexology - which studies gender and sexuality - showed that sexual activity had three stages: lust, love and bonding.

Each stage had its own particular hormones, including ''feel-good'' at the second stage, and ''cuddle'' hormones at the third.

In the lust or desire stage, the dominant hormone was testosterone. In the second stage, involving attraction to a specific person, the ''feel-good'' hormones of dopamine, serotonin and adrenalin came into play.

In the third stage, of long-term bonding, the ''cuddle hormones'' or oxytocin and vasopressin, played a bigger role.

''Biologically, we are wired to desire sex, to fall in love with the person we desire sex with, and for that love to develop into deep attachment. Our bodies are wired to operate best with one sexual partner for life,'' he said. ''Both academia and pop culture assume that biblical, Christian sexual ethics are at best outdated and irrelevant, and at worst repressive and harmful. We are seen as legalist, repressed, hypocritical killjoys who spend all our time trying to stop everyone from having a good time.''

But a biblical sexual anthropology and ethic was the church's gift to the world, he said. ''Christians should be out and proud.''

Ms Tankard Reist told the conference that despite talk of ''girl power'', girls lived in a pornified world, bombarded with sexual imagery before they were psychologically ready. Parents had to object when they saw T-shirts for pre-teens proclaiming ''It's not rape if you shout 'surprise''' or ''Save a virgin. Do me instead''.

''The standard you walk past is the standard you set,'' she said.

Satisfying God’s Honour?

2010-07-16T10:32:00.009+10:00

My Apologies for not posting in more than a month!

Stott has shown that in explaining the cross, theologians went through periods where different theories took priority. The early Greek church Fathers explained the cross in terms of Christ's satisfaction of the rights and claims of the devil. The early Latin church Fathers explained the cross in terms of satisfying God's law. A third theory of the atonement was first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century. (Anselm was an Italian, but became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093 AD.)

Anselm's great work was Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God become Man? Completed 1098.) His work is seen as a leading example of medieval 'scholasticism', which was an attempt to reconcile philosophy and theology, Aristotelian logic and Biblical revelation. While Anselm does include some Biblical quotes and considers the Bible a 'firm foundation', his prior commitment is to be 'agreeable to reason'.

Stott summarises Anselm's argument:

In Cur Deus Homo?, Anselm's great treatise on the relationship between the incarnation and the atonement, he agrees that the Devil needs to be overcome, but rejects the patristic ransom theories on the ground that 'God owed nothing to the devil but punishment' (ii.xix). Instead, man owed something to God, and this is the debt which needed to be repaid. For Anselm defines sin as 'not rendering to God what is his due' (i.xi), namely the submission of our entire will to his. To sin is, therefore, to take away from God what is his own', which means to steal from him and so dishonor him. If anybody imagines that God can simply forgive us in the same way that we are to forgive others, he has not yet considered the seriousness of sin (i.xxi). Being an inexcusable disobedience of God's known will, sin dishonours and insults him, and 'nothing is less tolerable . . . than that the creature should take away from the Creator the honour due to him, and not repay what he takes away' (i.xiii). God cannot overlook this. 'It is not proper for God to pass by sin thus unpunished' (i.xii). It is more than improper; it is impossible. 'If it is not becoming to God to do anything unjustly or irregularly, it is not within the scope of his liberty or kindness or will to let go unpunished the sinner who does not repay God what he has taken away' (i.xii). 'God upholds nothing more justly than he doth the honour of his own dignity' (i.xiii).

The question is then 'What can be done'?

If we are ever to be forgiven we must repay what we owe. Yet we are incapable of doing this, either for ourselves or for other people. Our present obedience and good works cannot make satisfaction for sins, since these are required of us anyway. So we cannot save ourselves. Nor can any other human being save us, since 'one who is a sinner cannot justify another sinner' (i.xxiii). Hence the dilemma with which Book 1 ends: 'man the sinner owes to God, on account of sin, what he cannot repay, and unless he repays it he cannot be saved' (i.xxv).

Near the beginning of book 2, the only possible way out of the human dilemma is laid out (as summarized by Stott):

'There is no one . . . who can make this satisfaction except God himself . . . but no one ought to make it except man; otherwise man does not make satisfaction.' Therefore, 'it is necessary that one who is God-man should make it' (ii.vi). A being who is God and not man, or man and not God, or a mixture of both and therefore neither man nor God would not qualify. 'It is needful that the very same person who is to make this satisfaction be perfect God and perfect man, since no one can do it except one who is truly God, and no-one ought to do it except one who is truly man' (ii.vi).

This conclusion leads Anselm to introduce Christ. Christ was and is a unique person, since in him 'God the Word and man meet' (ii.ix). He also performed a unique work – giving himself up to death. Jesus' death was not given as a debt (since he did not sin and therefore did not need to die). Rather Jesus is seen to give himself freely for the honour of God. Serious as our sin might be, the life of the 'God-man' was so good, so exalted and so precious that its offering in death 'outweighs the number and greatness of all sins (ii.xiv), and due reparation has been made to the offended honour of God.

One of the great strengths of Anselm's argument is the seriousness with which he takes our sin as a willful rebellion against God. He also upholds the unchanging holiness of God and the unique perfection of Christ. However his presentation seems to overly reflect the attitudes of the feudal age, where society was rigidly divided, and each person stood on the dignity which was owed to them – especially the honour which was supposedly owed to the lords of a nation and to the king. Upholding the honour of the superior would require that satisfaction be made to that person.

It is a concern when God is portrayed as a feudal overlord who demands honour and punishes dishonour. While God certainly deserves our 'honour' it is questionable whether this approach does justice to the Biblical perspective. In particular there does not seem to be enough emphasis on either the question of justice or of the relational aspect of the consequence of sin (ie. the need for reconciliation). God willing, we will look at these in later posts.

Modern Slavery? CPX Interview with Baroness Caroline Cox

2010-05-28T15:03:00.001+10:00

Baroness Caroline Cox of Queensbury is a nurse, lecturer, author, advocate, humanitarian and cross-bench member of the House of Lords in Britain. She has lead a rich and full life that would fill the pages of an adventure novel. For decades she has worked to provide relief to people suffering in countries across the globe. Determined not to pontificate from afar, her policy has always to go where the people are and the trouble is at its worst. Her commitment and bravery in the face of real threat and deep discomfort is extraordinary.

This interview focuses on the reality of modern slavery. It is sad to think that despite the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain led by William Wilberforce, that slavery is such a significant issue around the world - and even in Australia. Check out this video from CPX, then pray and think about what you can do:

Baroness Cox: Modern Slavery from CPX on Vimeo.

SATISFYING THE LAW??

2010-05-26T15:59:00.004+10:00

In Chapter 5 of The Cross of Christ, Stott continues in the discussion of who is satisfied by the cross by asking the question 'Is it the law that is satisfied'?
He summarises this argument succinctly:

Sin is lawlessness (1 Jn 3:4), a disregard for God's law and disobedience to it. But the law cannot be broken with impunity. Sinners therefore incur the penalty of their law-breaking. They cannot simply be let off. The law must be upheld, its dignity defended and its just penalties paid. The law is thereby 'satisfied'.

The strength of this argument is that it recognises the justice or righteousness of God – in that His law is right and true demands an appropriate punishment.
A convenient illustration of the argument is often cited in the story of Daniel (Chapter 6), where King Darius is tricked into issuing a decree that no-one was to pray to any god or man other than the king for a period of 30 days. Having the law written down made it binding 'in accordance with the laws of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked.' When Daniel is revealed as a transgressor the king searches for a way that he might evade the punishment of the lion's den, but is reminded by his advisors that 'according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, no edict that the king issues can be changed.'
Stott goes on to say:

Many are the preachers (myself among them) who have used this story to highlight the divine dilemma. Darius respected Daniel and laboured long and hard to find some way of saving him, but the law must take its course and not be tampered with. So God loves us sinners and longs to save us, but cannot do so by violating the law which has justly condemned us. Hence the cross, in which the penalty of the law was paid and its sanctity vindicated.

This argument gains strength by comparison with our constitutional monarchies in which the King or Queen, like their people, are subject to the laws of the land and must submit to the law when it is proclaimed. In the case of human sin it is claimed that God is bound to allow and uphold the just penalty for the violation of the Divine law.

Now there is Biblical warrant for this kind of language. In Galatians 3 Paul quotes Deuteronomy to show that every lawbreaker is cursed, and then goes on to claim that 'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.' (Gal 3:10,13) Stott goes on to say that "if Paul was not afraid to use an impersonal phrase like 'the curse of the law', then we should not be to either."

Stott reminds us that 'satisfying the law' was found among the early church fathers like Tertullian, who was the first to use legal terms like 'merit' and 'satisfaction' with regard to the Christian's relationship with God. The fourth century Fathers Hilary and Ambrose went further when hey expounded texts such as Romans 3:13 in terms of the Roman public law. The reformers of the sixteenth century took this further again. They rightly emphasised the importance of Christ's obedience to the law for our salvation, speaking of his active obedience (during his earthly life) and passive obedience (bearing the penalty of the law by his death). Whether or not these terms are accurate, they point us to the significance of Christ's of Christ's obedience to the law in both life and death.

Yet the question remains as to whether the idea of 'satisfying the law' does justice to Christ's work on the cross. We cannot imagine, for example, that God gets himself in the bind of King Darius where he is trapped into obeying his own law. Nor can we say that there is some mechanical requirement that breaking a Divine law must result in punishment. As Stott says: "The real reason why disobedience of God's moral laws brings condemnation is not that God is their prisoner, but that he is their creator."

We must remember that the law of God is an expression of his character and being, and his moral being is always self-consistent. Quoting Nathaniel Dimock, Stott concludes: "Whatever is due to the law is due to the law because it is the law of God, and is due therefore to God himself."

While it is true that the Bible teaches that disobedience of God's law deserves punishment, the concept of 'satisfaction' is requires a more relational subject. Consideration of whether it is the law that is satisfied pushes us to consider whether it is God himself that must ultimately be satisfied.

Can a 16 Year-Old Girl Really Do Anything?

2010-05-19T14:24:00.009+10:00

It was remarkable to see the reception that 16 year-old Jessica Watson received on her arrival in Sydney on Saturday. Tens of thousands of people turned out to welcome the girl that our Prime Minister called our "newest hero". As someone who has sailed around the world (HMAS Sydney, 1990, 450 foot ship, crew of 225, 6 months, lots of stops!) and experienced some of the challenges of being at sea in rough weather, I have nothing but respect for Jessica's efforts to sail around the world, solo, unassisted in a 34 foot boat in seven months!

Of course Jessica received a great deal of support from her parents and sponsors and was able to be in regular contact through the wonders of satellite communications. Nevertheless she had to face the challenges of solo sailing with all its inherent dangers, including huge seas which apparently knocked her boat over 7 times. It takes a special kind of mental toughness to tackle such a huge endeavour and to persevere to the end.

We might be thinking differently if there had been some accident or disaster. Many more experienced round-the-world sailors have failed in their attempts. Remember Tony Bullimore and Thierry Dubois – rescued by HMAS Adelaide from the Southern Ocean in 1997? Bullimore had to wait 5 days in his upturned boat before being rescued. Another competitor in the same race, Gerry Rouffs, lost his life.

But Saturday was all about celebrating Jessica's success. When the Prime Minister called Jessica a hero, she said:

I'm going to disagree with the Prime Minister. I don't consider myself a hero. I'm an ordinary girl who believed in her dream. You don't have to be someone special, or anyone special to achieve something amazing. You've just got to have a dream, believe in it and work hard.

They are inspiring words, but are they true? They certainly are a great encouragement to young people to dream great dreams and work hard to achieve them. While it is true that not everyone who dreams a dream and really believes in it will achieve their goal, it is also true that people who dream big and work hard to achieve their dream are more likely to achieve something!

This leads me to reflect on what young Christians dream about. Do we encourage our young people to dream great dreams for God and work hard to achieve them? Or are we happy to let them continue on with the same ambitions as the world around them? It is great for the 'old folks' to dream of reaching our city, nation and the world for God – when in reality our capacity to do the new things needed for such a mission are much more limited. But what if our young people started to dream big and started working on being and doing what is necessary to proclaim Christ to everyone around us? What if they were prepared to give up the small ambitions of the world and continue their whole lives working in God's strength to see His kingdom grow? Then we might indeed see great things done for God's kingdom in our own day.

SATISFYING THE DEVIL??

2010-05-14T09:16:00.007+10:00

In Chapter 5 of The Cross of Christ, Stott examines a number of traditional views of what 'satisfaction' is achieved on the Cross. Was Jesus satisfying the devil?

The idea that on the cross Jesus satisfied the devil was apparently widespread in the early church. Stott suggests that the early church fathers were sometimes 'extremely injudicious' in the way they presented the devil's power and how the cross deprived him of it.

It is true that the Bible tells us that since the fall, mankind has been in captivity not only to sin and death, but also to the devil. Some of the (post-apostolic) early church fathers therefore thought of him as the major tyrant from whom Jesus came to liberate us.

Stott suggests that, with hindsight, we may detect three errors made by the early church fathers:

First, they credited the devil with more power than he deserved. "Even though they portrayed him as a rebel, a robber and a usurper, they tended to speak as if he had acquired certain 'rights' over man which even God himself was under obligation to satisfy honorably. Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century was one of the few theologians who vigorously repudiated this idea. He called it an outrage."

Secondly, they therefore tended to think of the cross as 'a divine transaction with the devil'; 'the ransom price demanded by him for the release of his captives', and paid to him 'in settlement of his rights'.

Thirdly, some went further and represented the transaction in terms of a deception. 'Theologically, they pictured the devil as having over-reached himself. Although in the case of us sinners he 'holds the power of death' (Heb 2:14), he had no such authority over the sinless Jesus, and in hounding him to death he shed innocent blood. Therefore, having thus abused his power, he was deprived of it.'

Some fathers added that in doing this the devil did not realize what he was doing, either because he did not recognize who Jesus was, or because, catching 'Godhead in human form' he thought he had a unique opportunity to overpower him. But in this he was deceived. Stott then highlights how this played out in a number of the early church fathers:

Origen was the first to teach unequivocally that the death of Jesus was both ransom-price paid to the devil and the means of deception and overthrow. Gregory of Nyssa, a shy Cappadocian scholar of the fourth century, further developed these ideas in his Great Catechism or Catechetical Oration, using vivid imagery:
God, . . . in order to secure that the ransom in our behalf might be easily accepted by him (sc. The devil) who required it . . . was hidden under the veil of our nature, that so, as with a ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of the flesh, and thus, life being introduced into the house of death, . . . (the devil) might vanish. [From the Catechetical Oration 22 -26]

So we have the 'fish-hook' analogy. Stott then goes on to tell us of the 'mouse-trap' analogy used by Augustine. The same idea was used by Peter Lombard centuries later who said that 'the cross was a mousetrap baited with the blood of Christ'. While these analogies were being used as a concession to 'the popular mind', the theologians also saw a certain justice in the idea that the 'great deceiver' should himself be deceived into defeat. However the problem is that this attributes the 'fraudulent action' of deceit to God. Even if this is for a good purpose, such a claim is unworthy of God.

The positive side of these theories is that they take seriously the reality, power and 'malevolence' of the devil, and that they proclaim his decisive defeat on the cross. (cf. Luke 11:21-22) The problem with these theories is their implication that the devil has rights over humanity which God is obliged to satisfy. In the Bible the devil is an accuser, an adversary and 'the father of lies'. There is no necessity for God to make any transaction with him, let alone to deceive him (which would be playing the devil's game). What happened on the cross was the beginning of the end for the devil because it was the beginning and foundation of the victory of Christ over him. This victory is finally completed when Christ returns as judge of the world and the 'great serpent' is cast into the pit (cf. Revelation 19:10).

The Cross – Who is Satisfied??

2010-05-07T10:44:00.004+10:00

Chapter 5 of John Stott's The Cross of Christ is on 'Satisfaction for Sin'. As Stott says, there are no words more likely to cause offence in discussions of the atonement than 'satisfaction' and the related term 'substitution'. He quotes Sir Alister Hardy, former professor of Zoology at Oxford and researcher into religious experience who describes his inability to come to terms with the 'crude' beliefs of many 'orthodox churchmen. Quoting from The Divine Flame (c. 1965) he says:

I feel certain that he [Jesus] would not have preached to us of a God who would be appeased by the cruel sacrifice of a tortured body. . . I cannot accept either the hypothesis that the appalling death of Jesus was a sacrifice in the eyes of God for the sins of the world , or that God, in the shape of his son, tortured himself for our redemption. I can only confess that, in my heart of hearts, I find such religious ideas to be among the least attractive in the whole of anthropology. To me they belong to quite a different philosophy – a different psychology – from that of the religion Jesus taught.'

Stott reminds us that opponents will often caricature the Christian understanding of the Cross in order to more readily condemn it. "The real question", he says, "is whether we can hold fast to the saving efficacy of the death of Jesus, and to its traditional vocabulary (including satisfaction and substitution) without denigrating God". His answer is "I believe we can and must."

While the words 'satisfaction' and 'substitution' are not strictly Biblical terms used for the atonement, Stott argues that they are indeed Biblical concepts. He says:

There is, in fact, a Biblical concept of 'satisfaction through substitution', which is uniquely honouring to God, and which should therefore lie at the very heart of the churches worship and witness. That is why Cranmer included a clear statement of it at the beginning of his Prayer of Consecration (1549). In consequence, for 400 years Anglicans have described Jesus Christ as having made on the cross, by his 'one oblation of himself once offered', 'a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world'.

He then goes on to say that the way that theologians have developed the concept of the satisfaction depends on their understanding of the obstacles to forgiveness that need to be removed.

What demands are being made which stand in the way until they are satisfied? And who is making them? Is it the devil? Or is it the law, or God's honour or justice, or 'the moral order'? All these have been proposed.

Stott goes on to look at each of these in turn, with a historical review of the theologians that have argued for them. But in the end he will argue that the 'primary obstacle' is found within God himself. He must 'satisfy himself' in the way of salvation he devises; he cannot save us by contradicting himself.
It is helpful to consider each of the possible responses to the question of 'who is satisfied by the cross', because there are good arguments for each of them, yet most of the 'answers' fail in significant ways. Stott helps us navigate each of these answers to come at last to the Biblical teaching about why the cross provides the means by which God 'satisfies himself'.

What do you think? Who or what needs to be satisfied for us to be saved?

Professor John Lennox on the Problem of Suffering and Evil

2010-04-29T17:08:00.001+10:00

At a recent outreach at UWS we raised the question of suffering and evil by asking: 'Is God Really Good'

I found this helpful resource at the Centre for Public Christianity (CPX). Professor John Lennox (of Oxford University) discusses the arguments for God's goodness - at both an intellectual and emotional level. I hope it is helpful.

A good God? from CPX on Vimeo.

More videos can be found here: http://www.publicchristianity.com/Videos/lennox.html

The Problem of Forgiveness - Reflecting on Stott's The Cross of Christ #2

2010-04-24T14:43:00.003+10:00

In part two of The Cross of Christ, Stott begins talking about ‘The Heart of the Cross’ by thinking first about ‘The Problem of Forgiveness’. As he says near the beginning of the chapter:

In particular, our insistence that according to the gospel the cross of Christ is the only ground on which God forgives sins bewilders many people. ‘Why should forgiveness depend on Christ’s death?’ they ask. ‘Why does God not simply forgive us, without the necessity of the cross?’

He then goes on to quote the cynical French phrase which translates (roughly): ‘The good God will forgive me; that’s his job.’ This is not far different from the Muslims who wonder why there should be any difficulty in God deciding to forgive sins.

In answering this question he quotes Anselm (in Cur Deus Homo):

If anybody imagines, he wrote, that God can simply forgive us as we forgive others, that person ‘has not yet considered the seriousness of sin’, or literally ‘what a heavy weight sin is’ (i.xxi).

He adds:

‘The second answer might be expressed similarly: ‘You have not yet considered the majesty of God.’ It is when our perception of God and man, or of holiness and sin are askew that our understanding of the atonement is bound to be askew also.

He goes on:

The crucial question we should ask, therefore, is a different one. It is not why God finds it difficult to forgive, but how God finds it possible to forgive at all. As Emil Brunner put it, ‘Forgiveness is the very opposite of anything which can be taken for granted. Nothing is less obvious than forgiveness.’ (Mediator, p.448). . . . The problem of forgiveness is constituted by the inevitable collision between divine perfection and human rebellion, between God as he is and us as we are. . . . How then could God express his holy love? – his love in forgiving sinners without compromising his holiness, and his holiness in judging sinners without frustrating his love? Confronted by human evil, how could God be true to himself as holy love? In Isaiah’s words, how could he be simultaneously ‘a righteous God and a Saviour’ (45:21)?

The thing for us to reflect on is whether we sometimes forget that there is a ‘Problem of Forgiveness’? Do we downplay the significance of human sin or perhaps forget the depths of God’s holiness? Do we ‘expect’ God to forgive us and forget what a huge thing it is for God to send his Son into the world to bear the punishment we deserve in order to bring us the forgiveness we do not deserve?

The One Who Meets Our Need (Hebrews 7:26)

2010-04-22T00:14:00.009+10:00

Last week I was preparing for a sermon on Hebrews 7 (go here for MP3) and was particularly struck by these words:

²³Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; ²⁴but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. ²⁵Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. ²⁶Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. ²⁷Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. ²⁸For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

It seems that the writer to the Hebrews draws these conclusions from Psalm 110:4 – which he quotes twice in the chapter – and the fact of Jesus' resurrection. To the writer, the resurrection shows that Jesus is the one to whom God was speaking in Psalm 110. In fact, he sees those words as the oath which guarantees Jesus' priesthood (v20-21).

He then draws a number of implications from these observations:

1^st: Because Jesus lives forever, he has a 'permanent priesthood' (v24). Not that Jesus needs to offer his sacrifice over and again, but that he acts as our mediator and advocate before the throne of God on an ongoing and eternal basis.

2^nd: Because of his ongoing intercession with the Father on our behalf, he is able to 'save completely' those who come to God through him (v25). The Greek translated 'completely' is eis to panteles which can be read qualitatively, ie. 'completely' or temporally ie. 'forever'. The context seems to suggest that 'forever' or 'eternally' is the best meaning, but if we are saved eternally, then that implies that we are saved 'completely' as well!

3^rd: Such a high priest meets our need: 'one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens' this all emphasizes his difference to the human Levitical priests – a point which is again made in verse 27 (he does not need to offer the sacrifice for himself, but offers himself); and in verse 28 (the high priest of the oath is not weak like the priests of the law).

This all highlights for me that we sometimes believe we know what we need, but it is God who really knows what we need! In this case we are told that what we really need is a High Priest who is holy, pure, blameless and set apart. I wonder if we don't see this need because we forget the reality of our separation from God – the separation that in the OT law was shown by the physical separation of the unclean and un-sanctified from entering God's presence as signified in the Most Holy Place. In other words, we forget that we are sinners and that God is Holy, and that there is not normally any way for us sinners to approach the Holy God. The only way we can even begin to contemplate such a possibility is because we have Jesus, the Son, as our High Priest who has offered himself to God for us.

How much more amazing then does that make the statement back in Hebrews 4:16

Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

How amazing to be able to approach God with confidence through faith in Jesus – knowing that God will give us mercy and grace!

Perhaps we might think of this next time we sing the last verse of Charles Wesley's great hymn 'And Can It Be':

No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th'eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

John Stott on the Cross of Christ

2010-04-17T08:51:00.014+10:00

In preparation for Mid Year Conference I have been re-reading John Stott's classic book The Cross of Christ. It's not just a classic because it was published in the 80's! (It was first published by IVP in 1986). It is a classic because it is a clear yet profound study of the central doctrine of the Christian faith - Jesus' work on the cross (also called the atonement).

You can read some reviews written for the Twentieth Anniversary edition here. The book is also a classic because it has been constantly in print for over twenty years - being reprinted almost every year! If you aren't sure about buying your own copy then just ask an older Christian -they are likely to have a copy on their shelves. But I warn you, this is a book you will want to own yourself and re-read a number of times. In re-reading the book I have found it still fresh and very relevant.

The book is divided into four main parts:

Part 1 is on Approaching the Cross, and has chapters on The Centrality of the Cross; Why Did Christ Die? and Looking Below the Surface.
Part 2 is on The Heart of the Cross and has chapters on The Problem of Forgiveness; Satisfaction for Sin; and the Self-Substitution of God.
Part 3 is on the Achievement of the Cross and has chapters on the Salvation of Sinners; the Revelation of God; and the Conquest of Evil.
Part 4 is on Living Under the Cross and has chapters on the Community of Celebration; Self-Understanding and Self-Giving; Loving our Enemies; and Suffering and Glory. The Conclusion is on the Pervasive Influence of the Cross.

I hope to post a number of quotes from the book, but I will begin with a quote from the preface on the significance of the topic:

Evangelical Christians believe that in and through Christ crucified God substituted himself for us and and bore our sins, dying in our place the death we deserved to die, in order that we might be restored to his favour and adopted into his family. J.I. Packer has rightly written that this belief 'is a distinguishing mark of the world-wide evangelical fraternity' (even though it 'often gets misunderstood and caricatured by its critics'); it 'takes us to the very heart of the Christian gospel'. (page 7)

The misunderstandings and caricatures continue (both from within and outside Christianity), but the importance and centrality of this topic remain. It is therefore essential for every generation to gain a deep understanding of this central doctrine of the Christian faith

Welcome

2010-04-16T10:40:00.006+10:00

Welcome to my new site "Deep Conviction". I hope to be able to encourage my readers with reflections on the Bible, practical theology and Christian living, ministry and mission in suburbia – in my case in the Suburbs of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The name comes from 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5. Paul says:

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction.

The goal of my blogging is that the gospel might impact both myself and others with 'deep conviction' that effects and challenges every area of our lives.
If you find anything interesting, encouraging or even disagree, then please feel free to comment!