Oh to see the Dawn (The Power of the Cross) - Song for Easter

A great song for Easter by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend reminding us of the power and victory of the cross: "Christ became sin for us; took the blame, bore the wrath - we stand forgiven at the cross."



Lyrics:

Oh, to see the dawn
Of the darkest day:
Christ on the road to Calvary.
Tried by sinful men,
Torn and beaten, then
Nailed to a cross of wood.

CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Christ became sin for us;
Took the blame, bore the wrath—
We stand forgiven at the cross.

Oh, to see the pain
Written on Your face,
Bearing the awesome weight of sin.
Ev'ry bitter thought,
Ev'ry evil deed
Crowning Your bloodstained brow.

Now the daylight flees;
Now the ground beneath
Quakes as its Maker bows His head.
Curtain torn in two,
Dead are raised to life;
"Finished!" the vict'ry cry.

Oh, to see my name
Written in the wounds,
For through Your suffering I am free.
Death is crushed to death;
Life is mine to live,
Won through Your selfless love.

FINAL CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Son of God—slain for us.
What a love! What a cost!
We stand forgiven at the cross.

The Power of the Cross
Words and Music by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend
Copyright © 2005 Thankyou Music

Reasons to Believe the Biblical Accounts of Easter (Videos)

Last week Dr John Dickson visited UWS Bankstown at the invitation of the department of Social Science to speak about Humility. In these videos he looks at the reasons to believe the Easter story in the Bible is historically reliable.




Reasons to believe Part 2:


To talk more about this topic come to CBM (especially in Easter week): Tuesday 1-2pm in 1.1.223 and Thursday 1-2 pm in 1.1.081

Why All Christians Should get Involved with their Campus Christian Group

Notes from a talk I gave at the CBM launch - March 17th 2011:

1. To get to know your brothers & sisters in Christ on campus – and on other campuses. The church is bigger than your local church! When we come into fellowship with God through Christ we come into fellowship with every other believer. You have an opportunity to experience and express that on campus. Meeting with other believers will help you develop a bigger understanding of the church. Your classmates will also be your future colleagues, and you will probably go through many challenges together.

2. To encourage others and to be encouraged to remain Christian - as you hit the dangerous age bracket (of 18-25) and as you go into the workplace. Both are dangerous times for people to fall away from Christ or to water down their faith.


3.  To grow in your knowledge of God and his Word – not just memory verses, but thinking through how God’s word applies to every area of your life at a University level (don’t be content with Sunday School understanding). Need to understand the big picture of the Bible. Need to know at least some answers to the common objections - especially if you are going to be a leader (which you will be expected to be).

 4.  To be trained in Ministry (ministry is service) – through courses and through serving. Expected to be leaders, especially in word ministries – Bible teaching / small group leading, following-up new Christians, apologetics, evangelism – all done with a servant heart. Not taking you away from your local church, but equipping you to go back and serve.

 5.  To reach the campus for Christ. Evangelism is rarely ‘easy’, but it is possibly easier at your age and stage of life. People are thinking about the big issues of life and have time to explore the answers. You can learn to “mission” together and support each other in your attempts at evangelism. We need every Christian to be involved in doing this to give every student a chance to hear the gospel – a chance they might never have again.

 6.  To reach the world for Christ. The world is bigger than just your campus! The gospel is for all people everywhere. Since you have been blessed with such great teaching and training you have a responsibility and an opportunity to impact the world! (When you look at the history of Christian mission and student ministry you see many inspiring examples!)

There is undoubtedly more that can be said, but I thought these were the key reasons. Anyone have any others?

My Response to Draft Diocesan Funding Principles and Priorities for 2013 - 2015

At the Sydney Anglican Diocesan Synod in 2011 the leadership presented a draft of the funding principles they believe we ought to adopt over the next three years. This is a response to the major financial disaster that the diocese experienced after the GFC in 2009. The drafters asked for feedback. Here is what I sent:

SUBMISSION RE. DRAFT STATEMENT OF FUNDING PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES 2013 – 2015

1. I agree that the significantly changed financial situation of the diocese gives us an opportunity to re-think the principles we adopt in budgeting and spending the resources which God has given us, however I disagree with many of the specific recommendations of the paper.

2. I suggest that any principles we adopt must reflect our theology – especially our commitment to the priority of local congregation - while not discounting the value of ministries which serve the network and those missional activities which seek to grow the Kingdom of God without immediate benefit to any one local congregation. I would suggest that we also believe that the Archbishop and his leadership team are servants of the diocese. The diocese is not defined by the existence and ministry of the Bishop(s). To claim that the ministry of the Archbishop is an “Anglican Essential” and should therefore be funded – as a first priority – by the parishes is inconsistent with our theology. If we were to define “Anglican Essentials” I believe we would choose the Word of God and the Doctrine of the 39 Articles and BCP rather than Episcopal Leadership and membership of the national church.

3. The document appears to start with the assumption that the parishes must pay more. The fact that net receipts of the parishes has increased does not mean that the parishes should be required to pay more, but rather that the parishes are already paying for the bulk of Anglican ministry in the diocese. The move to imposing a levy on parishes in addition to ‘parish cost recoveries’ is a significant departure from existing policy and should not be assumed. The change in financial situation: ie. The decrease in funds available to the EOS and the DE, does not in itself constitute a reason to increase diocesan levies on parishes. The case might be made that the parishes are already funding the bulk of Anglican ministry in the diocese and that they are best placed to make decisions about where their money can best be used for mission. The first assumption of those involved in the budgeting process should be the ‘zero levy’ option and this option should always be made available to Synod.

4. The financial difficulties now faced by the DE and EOS highlight some imprudent decisions by the trustees of these endowments regarding distributions. Trustees of both the EOS and the DE ought to take a prudent approach and aim to maintain – and if possible increase – the value of these Endowments over the long term. It would not seem unreasonable to assess this by comparing the real value of funds held at the beginning and end of the incumbency of each Archbishop. While diocesan funding ought to be considered holistically it does not seem prudent to merge the EOS and the DE, but rather that expenditure of each endowment ought to be spent on the highest priority items which fall within their purview. It would also be appropriate to make details of expenditure of the EOS open to review by Synod.

5. The position of Archbishop and membership of the national church may be considered Constitutional requirements or essentials and have a high priority in funding, but this does not require that they be funded by a levy on parishes. In fact these expenses (and possibly a number of others) should be the first priority of expenditure of moneys sourced from the EOS and DE respectively.

6. The decrease in real value of the EOS in recent years seems to be preciptitated – at least in part – by the EOS spending more than what is prudent. Such a situation would suggest that, notwithstanding recent cuts, the Archbishops ministry team may need to be further cut. There should be no assumption that funding shortfalls should be made up by levies on the parishes. Fundraising through voluntary contributions for specific ministries should be seriously considered. There is no necessity for the Synod to prioritise spending on regional Bishops / Archdeacons simply because the EOS does not have sufficient funds to maintain current numbers. Genuine consideration ought to be given to creative solutions (including Bishops who are also Rectors and to fundraising). Reducing the number of regions (and Bishops) should not be ruled out. If the Archbishop wished to supplement EOS funds with Synod funds the ministry case would need to be presented in an equivalent way to every other request for Synod funds.

7. The ministries which the Diocese as an organisation is best placed to conduct are those network ministries which:
a. serve the parishes and are best combined (eg. Insurance, property trust oversight, general legal services, Professional Standards Unit)
b. involve ministry recruiting and training (eg. MT & D, and to some extent, Moore College & Youthworks college)
c. involve the development of extra-parochial ministries (eg. tertiary ministries).
d. Involve the development of Diocese wide ‘helping ministries’ (eg. Anglicare)
e. Involve long-term forward planning activities (eg. Mission property Committee)
Other ministries (including support of new ministries) may be desirable to be funded by the diocese (as in the past through regional councils), but may be better funded through a diocesan ministry development fund sponsored by the Archbishop and funded through donations in response to presentation of the specific needs

8. There is no justification to extend the idea of parochial cost recoveries to cover ministries which are not obviously parochial costs. Notwithstanding the above statement, it is likely that a careful review of Secretariat functions may find additional costs that can legitimately be called ‘parish services’. The cost of running Synod could legitimately be argued as a cost to parishes, provided other organisations that are represented are likewise charged (colleges, Anglicare, Youthworks etc.)

9. Serious consideration should also be given to raising funds from non-parochial Anglican organisations in the diocese, including Schools, ARV, Hammondcare etc., where such organisations trade on the name ‘Anglican’ (or even ‘Church of England’) or where they appoint licensed clergy, invite the involvement of the Archbishop’s ministry team, have representation at Synod or use the services of the secretariat.

10. Serious consideration should be given to the Archbishop and bishops leading a fundraising effort to raise funds for mission activities which are not able to be funded by synod allocations. An obvious area would be support for the creation of new ministry positions. (To be determined in consultation with Regional councils).

11. As a matter of principle I believe that any specific ministry funded through Synod grants (which is not a parochial service ministry) should only be partially funded (with the rest made up by fundraising) and for a limited duration. Ongoing assessment of effectiveness of grants should be undertaken. It should be noted that some Synod allocations are to organisations which already incorporate this principle (eg. TEMOC).

Richard Blight
29th February 2012

Sorry for the abbreviations. Any explanation needed just ask in comments.

Atheism for the Incorrigibly Religious

Alain de Botton is a Swiss Philosopher currently in Australia promoting he latest book: On Religion for Atheists.  Dan (who is a philosophy graduate and studying for his Ph D as well as working in University student ministry) went to hear him speak at the Sydney Opera House.


Here is an excerpt from his reflections on the event:

The reason that religions have much to teach atheists, according to De Botton, begins with the insight that humans are basically ‘not ok’: the basic human condition is one of vulnerability, fragility, lostness. For De Botton, this is the fundamental truth behind the Christian doctrine of original sin. And it’s a truth that New Atheism, proclaimed from the High Tables of Oxbridge, abjectly fails to reckon with. The modernist humanistic project has been altogether too quick to leave us to our own devices and what is needed is a thoroughgoing reappraisal of our need for an education in the disciplines of living well. Religions understand this, they understand that education is not about skilling people for tasks, but a process of moral formation and guidance to help us navigate the twin uncertainties of our world and our hearts. The rationalist education produces better hairdressers; the religious, better people.

De Botton’s sampling at the bain-marie of religion is guided by his desire to introduce atheists into these effective practices of moral formation. . . .

Do check out his brilliant review here: Papermind/atheism-for-the-incorrigibly-religious/.

Bible Reading Plans for the New Year

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

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



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!

⁶ I 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.

⁷ But 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. . .

 ¹² When 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. ¹³ For he says: '''By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. . .

 ¹⁵ Does 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!

¹⁶ Therefore, 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