Just A Closer Bop with Thee

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??

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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?).

__