William Cooper - The Aboriginal Man Who Stood Up to Hitler

This post was written by the people at Outreach Media - but was too good not to repost.

William Cooper couldn't be more Australian. He was a Yorta-Yorta speaking, Bangerang man, born by the banks of the Murray River in 1860. A shearer, a writer, a public speaker and, by the time he died in 1941, a political leader who could successfully demand a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister. As a man in his 70s, he started Australia's first indigenous justice movement – the Australian Aborigines' League. This movement would eventually lead to the famous 1967 referendum recognising the place of Aboriginal people in Australia. 

But William Cooper was no communist radical. He was a Bible-reading, hymn-singing, Christian.  And he didn’t just speak up for Aboriginals.  On December 6, 1938, he led a march from Southampton Street, Footscray to the office of the German Consulate in Collins Street, Melbourne.  The protest was over the Nazi mistreatment of Jews that had begun on Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) a few weeks earlier.  On this night of “broken glass” on 9–10 November, 1938, Adolf Hitler’s brown shirts (the Sturmabteilung) rampaged through the streets of Germany looting, burning and smashing Jewish stores, buildings and synagogues.  Nearly 100 Jews were killed and approximately 30,000 were incarcerated in concentration camps.

Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the world's leading Holocaust research centre, says that this protest was the only one of its kind in the world. 

William Cooper's story is celebrated in November’s Outreach Poster. Visit the web address on the poster - www.theaboriginalwhostooduptohitler.com to read the story of this outstanding Australian Christian man.
The cemetery at Cummeragunja where William Cooper was laid to rest has a large stone tablet at the entrance that reads: ‘THEY BEING DEAD, YET SPEAKETH’

The quote, from Hebrews 11, in the Bible is a reminder that people, like William Cooper, who trust in God for eternal life have profound reason to make sacrifices in this life that otherwise wouldn’t make sense.  Such people have reason to fight for justice and against oppression because human life has value before God.  But if people are nothing more than random accidents in space and time and there’s no hope of heaven, then self-seeking is certainly the best course.  Jesus’s trust in God motivated him to sacrifice his life for the sin of the world at the cross.  And it was this example that motivated William Cooper.  Jesus promises eternal life with God in heaven for all those who trust him.

The writer to the Hebrews in the Bible says:"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us."   Hebrews 12:1 

Prayer:  Dear God, Thank you for the inspiring example of William Cooper.

Bible Verse.  "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us."  Hebrews 12:1

Science vs God? Not Necessarily! - David Wilkinson Interview

With the visit of Laurence Krauss to Australia the issue of the 'conflict' between science and Christianity is again in the news. This interview from CPX with Professor David Wilkinson is a reminder that the conflict is often over-stated!

David Wilikinson works in the Theology and Religion department at Durham University. His background is research in theoretical astrophysics, where his PhD was in the study of star formation, the chemical evolution of galaxies and terrestrial mass extinctions such as the event which wiped out the dinosaurs. He is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and has published a wide range of papers on these subjects. His latest book is called Science, Religion and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.



The CPX website is at www.publicchristianity.org.

.

Video: 'The Bible - A Crash Course'

Check out this great video by Karen Beilharz summarising the Bible in 10 minutes!



Watch it here on Youtube.

Here are her notes:

A quick overview of what's in the Bible and where the different books fit in its storyline.

While watching, however, please bear in mind:

1. This is a summary and will therefore be leaving a lot out;

2. This is what I think the Bible is about; don't take my word for it but use this as a jumping off point.

Terms of use:

I'm really happy for Christians to use this in Bible study groups or other contexts in which you're studying the Bible and this would be a useful aid.

However, I do not want this video to be remixed or re-appropriated in any way; please use it as it is;

If you find this video useful or wish to give me any feedback, you can contact me at mrskbeilz@gmail.com.

Archbishop Jensen's Easter Message 2013

In his Easter message for 2013 Archbishop Peter Jensen considers his own self-reflection on leaving office.

“As I think on my time as Archbishop, naturally I look back and try to judge myself – not with much success!” he says. “Like you, I have a real judge. Think how much more God, who knows all the secrets of our hearts, must be able to hold me to account. It should make us tremble.”

But Easter, he says, fills him with hope.

“What happened at the first Easter reminds me of the love of God. Through the death of Jesus even I, and all of us, can have forgiveness as we turn to him in sorrow and trust him for our lives” he says.

“Our failures are not the last word over our lives. And, through the resurrection of Jesus I have a great and undeserved hope of my own resurrection and future.” the Archbishop says.

..

An Historian Examines the Resurrection (Video)

In this short clip from the 'Life of Jesus' series, John Dickson explains that while there's no hard proof for the resurrection of Jesus, we do have the sort of historical evidence that a resurrection would leave behind. (Found on the Centre for Public Christianity website). An appropriate reminder for Easter.




See also this post:  Reasons to believe the Biblical accounts about Jesus

How NOT to Raise money for New Churches

I have been a member of the Sydney Synod now for ten years. One of the things I appreciate most about the Synod is that it is generally committed to following the Bible as God’s Word and to considering our theological commitments before making decisions. Which is why I am disappointed with the decision made by the Synod last year to impose a levy on every parish to raise funds to buy land for new churches in ‘greenfields’ areas.

A levy is a tax for a specific purpose. This levy has been charged at 2.24% of each parish’s Gross Operating Receipts meaning that it will raise $2 million in 2013. It is taken in 10 monthly installments (commencing in March) along with Parish Cost Recovery charges and is allocated to the Mission Property Committee. While the initial approval is only for one year it is intended to make this an ongoing charge.

I want to make clear that I am NOT disappointed because we are committed as a Diocese to planting churches in new growth areas. Nor am I disappointed that the Synod decided this project should have priority over many other worthwhile projects. What IS disappointing is that we chose to raise the funds by imposing a levy on the parishes.

Genesis 1 - The Main Ideas

I have recently been doing Bible studies on campus at UWS Bankstown on Genesis 1. Because of the limited time it always seems such a rush and there are often questions from students at the end which we don’t get to answer in full. In this post I will outline some of the main points that ARE made in Genesis 1. In a future post I will try to answer some questions about the relationship of these points with modern science.

It is important to remember that Genesis was written down probably 3,500 years ago at around the time Moses lead the people of Israel out of Egypt. Although it is clearly God’s word to US, we need to remember it was initially directed to THEM. Therefore it is not surprising that many things taught in Genesis 1 directly challenge the common creation stories of the Ancient Near East – from (for example), Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria and Akkadia. While not ‘borrowing’ from these accounts, Genesis teaches about God, humans and the creation in a way that highlights the differences to these alternative accounts - while having some similarities.

The most significant similarity with other creation accounts is the common ‘cosmology’ and ‘scientific’ understanding. Put simply, Genesis assumes the ancient (pre-scientific?) understanding of the structure of the cosmos – using the ‘scientific’ understanding that was common at the time. In particular this assumed the existence of the chaotic ‘waters’ (or deep) which had to be gathered into the seas and still exists above the heavens and below the earth, but is now providing water to nourish the lands. We can perhaps think of ‘the heavens’ as a dome shaped surface above the earth which holds the ‘heavenly objects’. We see many traces of this in the text of Genesis 1. This ought to make us cautious in trying to make the creation account accord too closely with our modern (or post-modern?) cosmologies – especially fixing times and dates associated with the age of the earth, the existence of the first humans and so on.

Verses 1-2 – An Overview. These verses stand as an introduction and overview of the whole chapter. The emphasis is on ‘creation’ by one God (as opposed to the many gods involved in other accounts). The ‘heavens and the earth’ is a term that means ‘everything’ and not simply the sky and the land. Verse 2 seems to describe the state of things before God begins his work. It is worth noticing that the ‘creation account’ does not start with ‘nothing’ but with ‘formless and empty’ – darkness over the surface of ‘the deep’ (chaotic seas?) and the Spirit of God over the waters.

Keller and Carson on Slavery - as pulled together by Andy Naselli

Following up from  my previous post on the issue of Slavery in New Testament times, I came across this post from Andy Naselli addressing the issue of the nature of slavery in the Greco-Roman world.  Here is his introduction:

"Many modern readers assume that slavery in the New Testament is equivalent to the race-based slavery of the African slave trade. While not defending the Greco-Roman institution of slavery, Tim Keller and Don Carson explain why it’s important not to equate it with the race-based slavery that we may be more familiar with."

He is pulling together comments from Tim Keller and Don Carson (via Lee Strobel).

Timothy Keller, Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s Work (New York: Dutton, 2012), 213–14, 280–83.  (This new book looks interesting - perhaps more another time!)

Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 166–69):

This is a great reminder of the importance of not making assumptions about what the Bible writers meant when they use words we think we understand - especially 'hot button' words like 'slavery'.

Definitely worth reading the whole article!  (http://andynaselli.com/keller-and-carson-greco-roman-slavery-race-based-slavery).

(You may also be interested in my post on the struggle to eradicate modern slavery.)

Christmas Message from Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney

Peter Jensen's final Christmas message as Archbishop of Sydney speaks on the topic of reconciliation - an important issue for Aussies. He speaks about our need for reconciliation with God and with our neighbours - including indigenous Australians.



Thanks Peter for taking every opportunity to present the good news of Jesus.

Paul Barnett on Raising Financial Support (2 Corinthians 9)

I was thinking recently about how we should approach fundraising for ministry and took a look at Paul Barnett's commentary on 2 Corinthians. The apostle has a lot to say about this matter in chapters 8 and 9, and there is much in Paul Barnett's commentary that is helpful in understanding the context and the issues. (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997)

While the apostle urges (and cajoles?) the Corinthians to give generously - including using the example of the Macedonian 'beggars' in 8:1-9 - he gives an important rider in 9:7: 

 'Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.'

Paul Barnett comments:

But what criteria does Paul give to assist the Corinthian contributor in deciding the level of his gifts? Paul's guiding principle is that such giving is not made "reluctantly or under compulsion." Here the latter element would contribute to the former; contributions given "under compulsion" would be made "reluctantly". (This would be to "sow reluctantly," as in v. 6.) Such a compulsory contribution would indeed be an "exaction" (v. 5), which to preserve the precious doctrine of grace is the very thing Paul seeks to avoid. God's grace is to be reciprocated "voluntarily" (8:3), "freely" (9:5) and "generously" (9:6); any legalistic impost is inimical to this principle.  (Italics added)

It is interesting that Paul Barnett sees the issue of compulsion in giving as something which can undermine the doctrine of grace and is therefore to be avoided.

What this means in our local situation is that all appeals are voluntary (and anonymous), allowing each individual to respond to God's grace and the particular need as they are able and as they are moved by the Spirit.

I suspect that at the diocesan level we ought to apply the same principles - vigorously promoting the need yet allowing individuals (and churches) to respond as they are moved.

.

Giving Thanks for John Chapman

Anyone who claims to know something about Sydney Anglicans or the strength of the Evangelical church in Sydney in the last quarter of the 20th Century would have to know something about the life and work of John Chapman.

I heard "Chappo" speak many times - including under the big top at Katoomba, at other conferences, in local churches, doing Beach Mission Bible studies and at evangelistic events. John Chapman was one of my teachers at Moore college - teaching the 2nd year preaching subject. More than the lectures I remember his personal feedback sessions after listening to one of my sermons - a real learning experience! He was unique and irreplaceable, but he inspired a generation to be better evangelists, better preachers and better Christians.

It is worth taking the time to watch his memorial service held at St Andrews Cathedral on Saturday 24th November 2012.

The order of service can be found here.

An audio version of Phillip Jensen's sermon can be found here.

The biography by Michael Orpwood, Chappo, For the Sake of the Gospel was published in 1995 and can be ordered from Evangelism & New Churches.

The SydneyAnglicans article about the event can be found here.

Are Sydney Anglicans really Anglican?

There are many Anglicans around the world who would answer no to this question - and there are many outside the church who wonder why we are the way we are. In recent years we have had TV shows, articles and  books that have asked questions, made accusations and painted a picture of a dangerous and deluded sect. Many have suggested we should change our views to conform to the majority or quit Anglicanism altogether! How should we respond? The answer for Michael Jensen was to write Sydney Anglicans: An Apology. (Read the first chapter here.)

Michael Jensen is both a 'son of the Diocese' and a gifted theologian in his own right. He is able to understand  the complaints of the opponents and the views of those inside. He can therefore address the history and the theology of Sydney Anglicans with an insider's knowledge. This 'Apology' is written as a defense of many of the defining features of 'Sydney Anglicanism'.

In his first section on 'the Bible', Jensen addresses whether Sydney Anglicans are fundamentalists, why we read the Bible the way we do, our doctrine of revelation and the importance of preaching. His second section on 'the Church' addresses our doctrine of church, our identity as Anglicans, the church and the world, the ministry of women, lay administration of the Lord's supper and the role of the Anglican Church League.In each chapter he looks at some particular critiques, revises the history, considers the sociology and explains the theology. He also reflects on areas where Sydney Anglicans need to take care that they do not take on the worst aspects of what their critics see.

What I love about this book is the way that Michael ties in the history with the theology. The book is not a simplistic summary of the issues but lays a solid foundation in understanding what is at stake. In this way it serves to advance our theological understanding on many important issues. This is a book that will have a much longer-lasting value than any of the criticisms that prompted the author to write - and for this I think we can thank the critics that have prompted such a helpful 'apology'.

Broughton Knox on Denominations and Churches

I have recently been thinking about the relationship between churches and denomination and was interested to (re-) read some of the writing of Broughton Knox. Definitely worth a read is his article 'Church, Churches and Denominations of the Churches', originally published in The Reformed Theological Review, Vol 48, 1989, pp. 15-25. Reprinted in D. Broughton Knox: Selected Works. Volume II: Church and Ministry. Kirsten Birkett (ed.), Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2003. p85-98. (For a fuller assessment of the 'Knox-Robinson' doctrine of church see Mark Thompson's article: 'Knox-Robinson for Today'.)  I thought I would share this extract is from pp.95-98.

       These days, structures naturally arise to assist the fellowship within the congregation and to assist the fellowship between congregations. When these structures are more than one in any areas they are normally called denominations. But whether one or many, or whatever their name, these structures are not churches or part of the church. They are 'parachurch' organisations, for they exist alongside the churches to facilitate fellowship within and between churches, each one of which is a full and true visible expression of the one holy catholic heavenly church, the fellowship around Christ of all his saints (Heb 12:22-24), for Christ is present and his people are present. Nothing more is needed for a full expression of the gathering, or church, of Christ.

      This parachurch organisation must not exercise the duties of the congregation on behalf of the congregation, for this takes away the responsibilities of the congregation, and so weakens instead of strengthening its fellowship. In particular, a denomination must be careful not to exercise jurisdiction within the congregation, for it is outside the congregation and not in personal fellowship with those in dispute, so its jurisdiction may well lead to schism within the congregation, and obscure the visible unity of the church.

        Instead of elaborate denominational amalgamation, what is needed as a first step is denominational  simplification by handing back to the congregations those functions and responsibilities they had in the New Testament and the early centuries. Then it would not be difficult to unite into one these simplified denominational structures.

        Both Christians and congregations need fellowship to grow in Christ-likeness. The denomination expresses fellowship beyond the congregation. Members and ministers of congregations need to know and consciously remember that they are part of the larger heavenly church of Christ, and to experience that wider fellowship.This is the contribution that denominations make to the spiritual growth and joy of the Christian and the congregation.

Centralised control outside the congregation extinguishes the gospel within the congregation in due course. History confirms this truth abundantly. Even the smallest degree of control has this effect in the long run, for experience shows that the centre, when given a control of the congregation, over the decades increases it, aiming at uniformity and obedience. But the gospel rocks the boat of the denomination! The centre finds this uncomfortable and increases its power until it controls the boat, not by the word of God and prayer, but by organisational rules backed by secular sanctions, so that the word of God and the Spirit of God will hardly be found any more in the denomination, for it will not create nor hold the spiritually minded members.

        Denominations are called 'churches', and this nomenclature misleads many into thinking that they are part of the one holy catholic apostolic church. But the denomination is not a church, inasmuch as the denomination never gathers. Gathering is the only meaning of the word 'church' in the Old and New Testaments. The church building is also called a church. This is the most common use of the word. But no-one confuses the building with the church of Christ. The difference is clear in the English language. 'To go to church' means to go to the local gathering of the church. 'To go to the church' means to go to the church building. The church building is a physical structure to facilitate the fellowship of the church by keeping out the wind and the rain. The denomination is an organisational structure to facilitate the fellowship of the church with Christians in other churches. To call the denomination a church is strictly inaccurate, and in furtherance of clarity of thought ought to be dropped, and the word denomination always substituted.

   . . .   

      The denominational structure exists to facilitate this wider fellowship beyond the congregation as opportunities arise for it to be expressed. It links congregations with one another. It creates and provides facilities to the congregations in matters concerning fellowship, such as suggested liturgies, finance for buildings, superannuation for its ministers, and opportunity from time to time for fellowship in congregations drawn from a wider area than the locality, and so on. Congregations should be in fellowship with one another. They should not  act independently of other congregations. Independency is not a Christian concept. It is contrary to God's nature and to our nature as he has created it. Independency is a contradiction of Christian fellowship. Congregations should not act without respect to other congregations. Denominational structures assist the interdependence of congregation. These links are a natural creation of the fellowship of the Spirit of God. The denomination and its officers have a ministry which is common to all Christians, that is to help, advise, encourage and exhort the congregation and its members. It should not apply sanctions to the congregation or to any of its members, beyond the sanction of severing links of fellowship with that congregation. Coercion destroys fellowship, and a congregation should be free to sever its links with a denomination without penalty, for example, without loss of the property it uses. Coercion is contrary to the character of God and the rule of God, and to fellowship in Christ.

Of course, there is a lot of Biblical and theological background to what he is saying here. . . I hope to give some reflections on what Dr Knox says in a future post.

Would You Stand Up for (the Biblical View on) Slavery??

I was recently reading some comments about the issue of submission - specifically about wives submitting to their husbands - and noticed that several writers seemed to consider the issue of slavery to be a key to the interpretation of the passages, ie. the Bible seems to support slavery, but nowadays we know that slavery is wrong. So if the Bible is out of date about slavery it can be out of date about wives submitting too. (see, eg. Matt Hounslow's blog, and this article by Dorothy Lee on the Melbourne Anglicans website).

It got me thinking about the Biblical teaching on slavery - a subject I have looked at recently in 1 Peter and Ephesians. These thoughts came to mind:


The command for slaves to submit to their masters is found in both Ephesians (6:5ff) and 1 Peter (2:18ff). In the first century most slavery was parallel to imprisonment rather than the kind of chattel slavery we imagine from 18th century American History. Slaves may have been prisoners of war or bankrupts or other kinds of criminals. Many slaves were freed after their allotted time was complete. No doubt there was too much abuse of slaves, but this does not make the system an absolute wrong.

While Paul encourages Christian slaves to gain their freedom if they can (1 Cor 7:21) he also tells them to remain in the situation they were in when they were called. He sends runaway slave Onesimus back to Philemon (with the request that Philemon send the bill for his punishment to Paul and a hint that Philemon should let him go!)  Slavery as such is never outright condemned.

What is condemned in the Bible is 'slave-trading' or kidnapping. (See 1 Timothy 1:10). If we recognise that most 'slaves' were kidnapped and / or sold illegally then this will give us the Biblical argument against institutional slavery.

A very helpful read on first century slavery (and the biblical imagery of slavery) is Murray Harris’ book ‘Slave of Christ’.

This is not to say that I am a supporter of modern slavery - in fact I pray and seek to do what I can to end such slavery - especially sexual slavery. If we define slavery as the denial of freedom and other 'rights' then prisoners fit into that definition - yet I don't hear many people arguing that imprisonment of criminals is wrong per se.

The significance of what I am saying is that I believe we cannot say that the Bible condemns slavery outright. Nor can we say that we condemn everything included under the Biblical category of 'slavery'. If this is so then we can't use the argument outlined above as a 'clincher' in the arguments on submission.

Interested in your comments . . .

Jesus According to John the Baptist.

John the apostle makes a great deal of the testimony of John the Baptist who came to bear witness to the light (1:7).  In the two passages where John the Baptist appears in the gospel (1:19-34 and 3:22-36), John testifies some significant things about the 'coming one':

     1.  He is much greater than John (1:27). John denies that he is the Messiah or Elijah or 'the prophet'. He is merely the voice of one calling in the wilderness 'make straight paths for the Lord'. Despite John's fame as a fearless and genuine prophet, he is not even worthy to untie the laces of his sandals. This is also implicit in his statement that the one who comes after him 'has surpassed me because he is before me' (1:28)

     2.  He is 'the Lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the World' (1:31). This is quite different to the expectation that he will be the Messiah. There are a number of 'lambs' in the background of Israel's history (the sheep that took the place of Isaac, the passover lamb, the 'scapegoat' of Leviticus 16 that takes away the peoples sin, the guilt offering of Lev 16 and Numbers 4 and the lamb lead to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7). While the reference is ambiguous it seems clear that the idea is of a lamb that dies to pay the penalty for sins. This theme will reappear in the gospel.

     3.  He is the One who baptises with the Holy Spirit (1:33).  John insists that his baptism is only with water, but that the coming one - on whom the Holy Spirit descended at his baptism - this one will baptise with the Holy Spirit. While we must wait to fully understand its significance, we can assume that the washing with the Holy Spirit involves both the forgiveness of sins and the beginning of the indwelling of the Spirit which assures us of his presence and our connection with him (14:16-17).

     4.  He is the Son of God (1:34). The term 'Son of God' is equivalent to Messiah, making this a claim that Jesus is the one the Jews have been waiting for - the one they looked for to restore their nation and to rule over God's people forever. (There is a textual variant which makes the reading 'the chosen one of God' - but this would likely point to the same idea in different language).

* When John is questioned at a later time about about Jesus ('why does he baptise?') he again emphasises his priority: 'He must become greater, I must become less' (3:30). He also testifies that:

     5.  He is the One who Comes from Above (3:31). 'The one who comes from above is above all' (3:31) John here implies what has already been said in 1:1-2 and 14, that the Word was with God and was God and that the Word became flesh in the person of Jesus. This is a claim for the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus. This ties in with his statement of 1:30, where John says of his (younger) cousin: 'A man who comes after me is be has surpassed me because he is before me.'

     6.  He is the One who Speaks the Words of God (3:34). If Jesus is the one who 'comes from above' it is not surprising that he speaks the words of God, for he is God the Son and the father has given him the Spirit without limit.

     7.  He is the Beloved Son (3:35). 'The father loves the Son and places everything in his hands'. In 1:14 and 1:18 the word is called the 'One and Only' or the 'only begotten'. Whatever else this phrase means it emphasises the uniqueness of the Son and his special relationship with the Father. The Son is his Father's beloved and God the Father has placed 'everything' in his hands. He rules over all things!

     8.  He is the One who determines our Eternity (3:36). Our response to the Son therefore determines our eternity. If anyone rejects the Son, he will not see life 'for God's wrath remains on him', but anyone who believes (trusts / follows) the son already has eternal life (Having had their sins forgiven and being baptised by the Spirit).

How do we respond to John's testimony? Do we accept what he says? If so, then how will we respond to Jesus - will we believe and have eternal life or reject him and receive God's wrath? 

Reflections on the Levy to Purchase Land for New Churches

On Wednesday night our diocesan Synod decided to impose a Levy (a tax for a specific purpose) on every parish in the diocese of 2.24% of Gross Operating Receipts in order to provide $2 million per year to fund the purchase of land in new growth or 'greenfields' areas of the diocese. (Another article from the decision is on the Sydneyanglicans website.) The money will be given to the Mission Property Committee to purchase land for new churches when it becomes available. While I agree that we should be seeking to buy (at least some) land in these areas, I think the levy was the wrong thing to do for a number of reasons:

1.  A Levy is a blunt Instrument. Although we might say that it is fair because each church pays an equal percentage, it cannot take into account the different situation of each parish – the fledgling versus the established; those that have significant incomes from rentals or trusts versus those that have large debts; those that have good numbers of relatively wealthy members versus those that have a large percentage of unemployed or working poor. There is currently NO provision to exempt or to help those churches that will struggle to pay the levy. While 2.24% might not seem like much it will represent at least $2,000 in the smallest churches and obviously much more in larger churches. All this is extra money that has to be put in the plate!

2.  It will hurt the smallest churches.  There were a number of comments from very small churches - some of which struggle to pay their ministers already (one admitted to only paying their minister 65% of the recommended / minimum stipend) that this could be the last nail in their coffin. Whether a small church is shrinking or growing, if they are struggling to pay their bills already, this will be a cruel blow. It is worth remembering Paul's words in the context of the appeal to the Corinthians for support for the churches of Palestine: 'Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.' (2 Cor 8:13)

3. It will have a negative impact on churches trying to grow. Almost every church has to increase its budget a few percent (perhaps 4 to 5%) every year to cover cost increases (salaries, power bills etc.) Churches that are seeking to grow are often seeking to increase their budget more - especially when they are creating new paid ministry positions or have some other special project. This can often mean an increase of 10% or more from year to year. The extra 2.24% on top of this will make it that much more difficult to reach budget (ie. pay staff) and has (anecdotally) already led some churches not to seek to grow their staff and in some instances not to replace staff that are leaving.

4.  Has the MPC considered alternative models for church planting and land purchases? The MPC did present some examples of what has been achieved, but they seemed to present a simple model of one church per suburb, with a large (350 seat) auditorium and associated spaces. + one residence. The question is whether this is a realistic or even an appropriate model. Should we aim for a few smaller and a few larger churches? Or space the church buildings out more and aim to plant smaller congregations in school halls in between? Or just build a school which will have a community church? Or a retirement village? The models they use will determine the amount of money they need. We at least need the MPC and others to do the research and consider alternatives.

5.  Taxing Churches to support an external ministry vision is un-Biblical. A key passage here is 2 Corinthians 9:7 'Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.' While Paul is trying to urge the Corinthians to give he also emphasises that it should not be under compulsion. Christianity is a religion of grace! Leaders ought to lay the vision and the need before the people and allow them to give out of a generous heart. I wonder if the apostles ever thought of getting Matthew or Zaccheus to use their skills as tax collectors to collect the offertories of the early church? What we ought to have is an appeal done properly with the full support and zeal of our diocesan leadership!

6.  We Need More Money than Can be Raised by this Levy.  We actually need to raise more than $2 million dollars per year to fund not only the purchase of land, but to support church planters, re-vitalise existing ministries, build new church buildings and much more. We haven't yet addressed the fact that our losses in the GFC mean we are now spending at least $2 million per year spread around the diocese (through the regional councils) LESS than we were five years ago!  I think we ought to aim for $5 million per year - and I think that is more likely to be raised through properly coordinated appeals than through levies.

And a late addition:

7.  It Puts Property Before People.   The levy is all about prioritising the purchase of land in new areas. Although we have recently lost much of the money that was being applied to growing ministries (through regional councils etc), our first response at raising new funding is not being applied to people but to property. I for one think it is a bad look!

I would love your feedback - anything here I've got wrong / misunderstood / overstated?

How to Hear God's Word - Video by Andrew Heard

How can I really hear God's voice? How can I really hear him speaking?

This talk by Andrew Heard is part of the Bible Society's 'Live Light in 25 Words' promotion of Bible reading. Very helpful to help us understand (or remind us) why reading the Bible is so important to Christian living.

.
Check out other videos on the Bible Society website.
.

Speaking Lovingly about the impacts of Homosexuality

Following the appearance of Archbishop Peter Jensen on the ABC Q and A program this week there has been a great deal said about his comments on the health risks of the homosexual lifestyle - specifically that he did not repudiate the claim by ACL's Jim Wallace that the homosexual lifestyle has more health risks than smoking.

Today this incredibly brave and loving letter from Haydn Sennitt was published in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is worth a read:

Jensen spoke words of love not homophobia

I am a pastoral worker for Liberty Christian Ministries. I once identified as a gay man and lived actively as one for about five years. In that time I went to Anglican churches where Dr Peter Jensen was the archbishop, and I was frequently warned against living in sin. Though I resisted hearing that at times it never once made me feel suicidal or depressed: rather, I felt loved and safe (Letters, September 12).

I knew living as a homosexual was wrong even independently of what the Bible said because I had to have regular health checks to ensure I hadn't picked up hepatitis, AIDS, or blood toxicity from the things I was doing. That is what the gay life involves - risky sex that puts life on the line. It diminishes life quality and life expectancy.

Health research bears out the reality of the risks of gay sexual practice. The 2010 national STD conference run by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the US produced evidence that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men and that the rate of syphilis among this population is more than 46 times that of other men.

Peter Jensen's words on Q&A were reasoned, reasonable and said in love because he wants, as I do, people to have freedom in Christ and live life to the full now. That's not homophobic, that's love.

Haydn Sennitt East Balmain

There is probably much more to be said and considered on the issue of health impacts of living a non-Christian lifestyle with regard to sex (ie. all sex outside marriage) - including psychological heatlth - but I think Haydn gives a valuable personal testimony.

more can be found here: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/slashing-funding-undermines-states-wellbeing

Do We Need More Parishes?

In the May edition of the Southern Cross (published by Sydney Anglican Media) there was an article by Paul Davey arguing the need to plant more parishes to reach our rapidly growing city. I thought there was a flaw in the argument, so I sent the following response to the editors:

I agree with Paul Davey's analysis of the need for church planting but disagree with his solution ('Church Planting or Bust', Southern Cross, May). The need for new churches is clear, but I thought we had moved past the idea of equating church planting with creating new parishes. In our Anglican system the overheads of being a parish (administrative, financial and ministry) are too high to expect a parish in every suburb. While a congregation may only need a single pastor, parishes should ideally have team ministries with a number of specialists (such as children's ministers) as well as 'generalists' and trainees. Our 'parishes' should be the administrative hub of a number of congregations and other specialised ministries. Parishes will need to be bigger - as we can clearly see when we look at the more successful parishes in our diocese. The most effective size for parishes will be such that they can effectively reach out to their community and plant new congregations as needed with minimal outside assistance.

In reality we probably have 40 parishes that, in the next two decades, will need to amalgamate with others to allow revitalisation and to effectively minister to their local areas. Perhaps we should aim to replace these with new parishes in growth areas - and possibly add another 40 - but I believe our goal for new parishes should be more modest. Surely most of our church plants should exist under the umbrella of a supportive parish rather than expecting them to be independent from the start? Let's aim to re-develop our parishes into effective ministry units and allow new parishes to develop organically so that they start strong - rather than drawing lines on maps and expecting a healthy parish to appear from thin air.

Richard Blight
Padstow

Don Carson on the Personhood of the Spirit

I have recently been reading Don Carson's Jesus and His Friends: His Farewell Message and Prayer in John 14 to 17. It is a very helpful work on this important passage that not only expounds the text but also draws out some of the implications and applications.

In a 'note' at the end of chapter 3 (On the Coming of the Spirit of Truth, John 14:15-24), Don Carson outlines reasons for believing the Holy Spirit is a person (rather than a force or 'thing'). This is more than a theological exercise, since our understanding of the Spirit will affect how we think about God and this will affect our prayers and our worship. I think it is worth sharing in full:

In the exposition of this passage I have assumed that the Holy Spirit is a person, and that traditional trinitarian formulations are both biblical and true. I have not attempted to defend the doctrine of the Trinity (except perhaps implicitly), nor have I attempted to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. This is because the passage before us does not have such matters as their chief concerns, even though, in my view, it presupposes their essential ingredients.

It may be helpful to list a few reasons why I believe the Scriptures teach the Holy Spirit is both a person and divine. This list is neither exhaustive nor detailed; but it reflects several quite different lines of reasoning which, combined, are convincing.

First, both in this passage and in many others, the Holy Spirit performs personal actions. The Paraclete is a person who comes as Jesus' successor and, in many respects, substitute: a mere influence, or anything less personal and less divine than Jesus Christ himself, would necessarily be something of a disappointment.

Second, the Holy Spirit enjoys both the distinctness and the oneness with the Father that the Son enjoys. The distinctness (e.g. the Father sends the Spirit in response to the Son's intercession) ensures his separate personality; his oneness (e.g. by the Spirit's indwelling in the believer, the Father and the Son also make their home in the believer) ensures his deity.

Third, according to Mattew 12:31-32, a person may sin against the Holy Spirit. Contextually this is more than sinning against the light, or the like. It suggests again (though it does not prove) that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Fourth, the trinitarian formulae in the New Testament are virtually inexplicable if the Holy Spirit, like the Father and the Son, is not both a person and divine. I refer to such expressions as 'baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' (Matthew 28:19) and 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all' (2 Corinthians 13:14). To construe the Spirit as less than person and less than divine when the texts put him in the company of deity and speak of his name would be as foolish as to say, 'I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of lovely influences.' The thought approaches blasphemy.

Fifth, although the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father, such 'sentness' does not reduce the counsellor to the status of a thing. After all, John's Gospel makes much of the fact that Jesus himself was sent (e.g. 3:17); and the Gospels do not think of Jesus as impersonal. More to the point, the new testament writers regularly distinguish between the Holy Spirit and his gifts (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11). Concerning these gifts, Paul writes. 'All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each man, just as he determines' (1 Corinthians 12:11).

Sixth, older theologians sometimes point to embodiments of the Holy Spirit. At Jesus' baptism, for instance, 'the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove' (Luke 3:22). It is possible, I suppose, to think of God sending a dove to represent a divine blessing or influence or the like; but the language suggests something more: the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove. It is difficult to predicate such a thing of an influence. The most natural way to take the passage is to think of the Holy Spirit as a person who normally has no bodily form.

Seventh, there are many isolated passages which do not easily fit into one of the previous categories, but which make the best sense if we presuppose both that the Holy Spirit is a person and that the Holy Spirit is God. One example must suffice. In Acts 5:3-4, Peter asks Ananias, 'Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit . . .? You have not lied to men but to God.' The parrallel is obvious.

from Jesus and His Friends (Leicester: IVP / Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), p64-66

I love the way that Don gives his reasons from scripture. While the broader theological debates are valuable, our theology always needs to be grounded and controlled by the Biblical text.