You talkin' to me?

Miracles and Christian Ministry #1

2009-04-02T09:27:00.002+11:00

Me: How do you think we can build up attendance at our evening congregation?
Congregation member: Signs and wonders, miraculous happenings…that’ll work.

It was hard to gauge the seriousness of this comment when it was made to me after one Sunday service, but after further conversations I am convinced that for some of my friends, signs and wonders are held to be a valid and expected part of Christian ministry. Recent history teaches us that my friends are not alone in holding these expectations. Back in the 1980’s John Wimber of the Vineyard movement promoted ‘power evangelism’ with its miraculous wonders as a model for Christian ministry; people will come to faith through hearing the word and seeing God ‘show up’ with various acts of supernatural power. Since this expectation is still held by some brothers and sisters (who may or may not be aware of John Wimber’s thought), I think it's time to engage with these views and to provide a way of understanding the place of the miraculous in our weekly ministry...

Leadership lessons from the Kitchen

2009-01-05T13:27:00.003+11:00

I was watching Bloomberg TV yesterday when on came an interview with Laurent Tourondel, executive cheff at BLT Steak, NYC. Interesting to hear this entrepreneur’s reflections about opening a new venture in a tough environment:

1. His first step was to walk around the suburb and get the feel for the place. This was a significant step given the space he was about to put the restaurant in had played host to four failed eateries (yes four!) in the immediate past. The interviewer said "Didn't that history scream out 'don't start up here!'?" Tourondel's response was insightful...

2. He spoke about how many restaurants fail because they are based around a concept which doesn't mix with the area. The space he was looking to start up in was near a business district with lots of men making high powered, high testosterone deals, so he thought a steak house would do well. This was a departure from Tourondel's own seafood background.

3. He mentioned that the other model for success is to become a 'destination' restaurant; a place where people will come despite the distance and immediate surrounds. This approach was much harder, and requires something really special.

Now as I'm listening to this, I was struck by how relevant all this is to those leading Christian ministries, especially those church planting. I was also reminded how many of these observations have already been made by some of our current church gurus; Driscoll and Keller both talk about the importance of walking around your suburb to get a feel for the culture. But the idea of matching a venture's concept with its context is intriguing. The idea of cultural relevance is not new; the homogenous unit principle has been kicking around churches for decades now, and there are growing numbers of us who love to find new ways to use new media to reach new people. But there is something just a little sharper in what Tourondel is describing. Does our suburb/city/country suggest a concept which we can structure our church communities around? Of course the main concept - the gospel - has already been given to us, but is there room for another thread with which we can earmark our church life, a thread which connects with those living around us? Note that Tourondel was also happy to change styles to provide something which would appeal to those around him.

I was also interested to hear of the distinction between a fruitful local venture and a ‘destination’ restaurant. I wonder what that extra something is?

Hi Roger

2009-01-05T13:24:00.002+11:00

The dead shall indeed rise.
Let the readers (all two of you) understand.

The humility of Thomas

2008-04-04T15:59:00.003+11:00

John 20.26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

When I read this story the thing I often wonder is this: How would I feel if I were Thomas? I think I would probably feel embarrassed. I mean, Thomas has been caught out in his skepticism here hasn’t he? He is so adamant that he will not believe unless certain conditions are met—he wants to see the nail marks, he wants to see the hole in Jesus’ side—and Jesus comes along and says “Ok, you asked for it. Here it is.” Have you ever been caught out like that? When you’ve been so sure of yourself only to be shown to be totally wrong? He could have felt quite foolish. Or he could have become quite indignant. “Oh come on Jesus, you appeared to the others, how come you didn’t appear to me? You’ve set me up Jesus. You gave me the harder task of believing without seeing” But look at how he responds, “My Lord and my God!” No protest, no dummy spit. Thomas simply responds in complete humility…“My Lord and my God”.

Sometimes the reason we don’t believe is not so much about evidence but about how we will look if we start believing. Some might think “I’ve been a skeptic for so long, I’m not about to change now. In fact, it’s a little hypocritical to start believing when I’ve lived my whole life in disbelief.” There is no shame in humbly accepting the testimony that Jesus has been raised from the dead. Thomas could have maintained his stubborn disbelief, but in humility he accepted the facts as they were presented to him. No matter how stubborn we have been in the past, no matter how entrapped we feel by our own history of skepticism, it’s never too late to look to the resurrected Jesus and to say with Thomas, “My Lord and my God!”

"No one is blind in heaven..."

2007-11-25T00:23:00.000+11:00

That's the quote of the evening, from Maxine McKew, who at this point looks like she might take the federal seat of Bennelong, making John Howard only the second serving Prime Minister to lose his seat in an election. Yikes. The quote comes from a 90 year old blind nun in McKew's electorate. Not a great deal of context was given as McKew recalled the very true words of hope from the elderly woman; they were part of a speech where McKew related some of her personal highlights from the campaign. But it was a nice reminder of the 'second kingdom' of which we are a part.

It's been a while since posting but I blame the following things:

- A new girlfriend (Jasmine herself says "I've replaced the blog! I've replaced the blog!");
- Facebook;
- College exams;
- Martin Luther (on whom I was writing a project/thesis thing).

So now that I have finished that enormous trial of mental endurance and godliness which is Moore Theological College, what am I going to do? Get back to blogging of course. Issues to write about include:

1. Some things which were stimulated by the hundreds and hundreds of pages of Luther which I read over the last 4 months;
2. Some thoughts on singleness which were actually stirred by some ethics lectures we had at college last year;
3. Some stuff on my College experience;
4. A theology of happiness (what the heck was I thinking? Goodness me...)

But its been a while, so I might still be talkin', but is anyone listnin'?

On the couch with St Paul #1

2007-08-11T14:13:00.001+10:00

Interesting article in the Good Weekend today. All about 'positive psychology', a developing practice where psychologists and therapists are focusing their energies on uncovering those attitudes and environments which lead to feelings of happiness as opposed to feelings of sadness and depression. Kinda like a preventative psychology, a move away from the common practice of dealing with the problem (like finding treatments for depression) and instead helping people create lives where happiness and contentment are fostered in an effective and ongoing way. Their initial findings indicate that helping others (surprise surprise) is an important element in becoming happy, although the ultimate measure of ones approach to life is still centred on the self: I help others because it makes me feel good. Still, it got me thinking...

As the article pointed out, the pursuit of happiness has always been a focus of psychology; it's just that now some practitioners are being a little more proactive in helping people 'learn happiness' rather than just helping them to not be as sad as they might be. But the fact that happiness has always been a concern of psychology (and philosophy) indicates that it has always been a concern of humanity. So reading this article I was left wondering: "Surely as the Church we must have profound and helpful things to say about happiness and contentment. Surely we can provide some kind of answer to the questions that are driving those looking for answers in 'positive psychology'". It was interesting to note that those interviewed in the article didn't want to provide a 'religious' answer to happiness (even though religious ideas formed part of their research data). But can't we afford to be a bit more positive about what a NT faith can offer the individual and society in terms of ideas about happiness?

I suspect that many churches have failed to really hit this squarely on the head. Some speak a lot about happiness and fulfilling your potential but do so in a theologically naive way. It is my contention that such an approach only causes damage in the long run. Others seem to view NT faith in a way which uses lots of negative expressions "The Gospel is about our sin; the first thing to say about humanity is about how sinful we are; church is all about service and duty". It is fast becoming my view that this approach is also theologically naive, and can truncate our enjoyment of the Christian life while exposing the sad fact that we don't actually have much too say about happiness.

So this is what I'm planning to do. I want to start to explore and build up a theology of happiness. I feel that in doing so not only will we enrich the spiritual lives of our churches but we will also open up another avenue into the world of those outside our communities. People want to be happy. Surely we can say something to them which goes beyond the glib soundbites of an underdeveloped theology. The first step will be to put some theological pegs in the ground...

10 points for the first to tell me what this picture is of.

Church and Spirit #5

2007-07-25T22:53:00.001+10:00

Not only is a Spiritual church guided by the word of God and bound by the Spirit of peace, but a Spiritual church is also equipped by God with people who have various abilities; abilities which are empowered by the Spirit and used by Christ to care for and guide his Church.

Ephesians 4.11-13
11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Often these abilities are referred to as the “gifts of the Spirit”, because as we learn in 1 Corinthians it’s through the Spirit that Jesus grants these abilities to people as gifts for the Church. Much could be said about these gifts, and in our remaining time we cannot do justice to all that the Bible has to say on the matter. So I just want to point out one thing from verse 11 about these gifts of the Spirit: different people have been given different abilities. Jesus has granted some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers. Earlier in Chapter Four, in verse 7, Paul writes that:

to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.

Jesus grants each of us a certain role to play. We won’t have the capacity or ability to everything, but we will have the opportunity to do something. Jesus has given each of us a portion to play in his ministry through the church and because each of us has a portion, that means there are two mistakes we can make. Either we can think that it’s up to us to do everything, or we can think that it’s up to someone else to do everything. Some of us need to let go of holding all the responsibility within our congregation. The Holy Spirit doesn't work through just one person, he works through all of us. Alternatively some of us need to get on with the job of picking up various responsibilities. The minister can’t do everything, the church committee can’t do everything, but we all can do something. If you’re wondering what that thing is, then speak to John Hooton,* he will tell you! But this is the way the Church works: it’s through the Holy Spirit that Jesus guides us, unites us and also quips us to work effectively as his Church.

So what church should our new immigrant look for? A church where the members are each taking a part in the ministry of the church. A church where the twin evils of egotism and apathy are replaced by teamwork. What church should we be? A church where we each accept the portion of the Spirit’s work which we have been given. A church where we put that portion into action. A church not unlike the church that Richard Johnson started back in the first days of the colony.

We started by talking about what it would have been like going to church back in the days of early European settlement when Richard Johnson was the only chaplain. From what historical evidence we have it seems that Richard Johnston tried his best to build a church which was Spiritual in the way we have seen this morning. When he arrived he brought with him 500 bibles to give away; it seems as if he knew that the Spirit authored Scriptures were an essential part of doing church. And one of the convicts who experienced the ministry of Johnson wrote about the sickness endured by the convicts of the colony, reporting that:

few of the sick would not have recovered if it was not for the kindness of the Reverend Mr Johnson, whose assistance out of his own stores makes him the physician of both soul and body.

It seems as if Johnson knew that the church ought to live by putting others first. And Johnson himself wrote about his plans to raise other workers up to teach the children of the young colony; he knew that the church’s work was a team effort, with each member bringing something to the community. In short Richard Johnson knew what a Spiritual church looked like: It was a church guided by Scripture; it was a church focused on others; it was a church where each person receives and gives back their portion. May Christ mould us into a church like this through the power of his Holy Spirit. Amen.

* John Hooton is the minister with special responsibility for Emmanuel Church Glenhaven, a church within the Anglican Parish of Castle Hill where I work on Sundays.

Church and Spirit #4

2007-07-19T17:24:00.000+10:00

Our newly arrived Australian should not only look for the central place of Jesus ruling through Scripture, she should also look for a church which is united by the Spirit.

Ephesians 4.2-3
2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

Let’s think back to the body metaphor for a moment. The image of the church being a body teaches us that Jesus is our head, our leader. But it also teaches us that as a church we are all connected. We each have the same Holy Spirit dwelling in each of us. To extend Paul’s image we could say that if Jesus is the head then the Spirit is like the central nervous system, coordinating all the parts of the body so that they work in unison. And one of the symptoms of a properly functioning church body is whether we are maintaining peace within our relationships:

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

I remember hearing a story about a church undergoing a building project, and this church ended up divided over the issue of where to put the port-a-loos for the workmen. One party within the church thought that the port-a-loos should be out the front where the workmen could access them; the other group thought it was just too ugly to have the toilets out the front and they wanted them out the back. This dispute divided the parish council for up to six months. People left the church over that matter and it became really quite tragic in the end. In a spiritual church issues such as where to put the port-a-loos should never reach that stage – that’s the very opposite of living at peace – and if we recognize that the Holy Spirit is in each of us, then it should be a top priority to demonstrate that unity in our relationships with one another.

And Paul knows that this will take some work. Have a look at verse two:

completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.

Maintaining the bond of peace will mean being patient with each other, it will mean overlooking those things which irritate us, that’s what it means to bear with one another in love. Sometimes it’s so easy to become frustrated with people: “That person over there, she’s always voicing her opinion. That guy is so unreliable. This woman only ever thinks of herself, and he is just plain rude…” But a Spiritual church will always seek to maintain the bond of peace, recognizing the unity which have: a unity given by the Holy Spirit, a unity which sees us bearing with one another in love and patience.

There’s a story about General William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army. The story is set at the end of the General’s life when he was due to make one final public appearance at the North American Salvation Army Convention. But when the time came for the General to give his address, he’d become ill and so he couldn't deliver his speech, so he sent a telegram instead. And so word spread that the General was sick, but that he’d sent one last telegram to the convention; a final message containing his last words to the movement which he had founded. And so on the last day of the convention the chairman opened up the telegram and read out the General’s final charge. The telegram contained just one word: Others. General Booth knew what a Spiritual church looked like. A Spiritual church is a church with is other-person centered. A church which is humble and gentle. A church which is patient. A church which bears with one another in love.

What should our new immigrant look for in a church? A church where disputes don’t drag on, and where forgiveness and reconciliation flow freely. What kind of Church should we be? A church which strives to be patient. A church where we have each determined to overlook the irritating habits of others; where personality faults are no barrier to fellowship. A church demonstrating the unity which the Spirit brings.

So a Spiritual church is ruled by Christ through his Spirit-authored word and it’s seeking to live out the unity created by the Spirit. However there’s one other thing we’ll say characterises the Spiritual church…

Church and Spirit #3

2007-07-17T16:55:00.000+10:00

This is where our main theme emerges. Remember when Jesus was saying goodbye to his disciples. “I will not leave you as orphans” he promised them (John 14.18). And so at Pentecost (Acts 2) the Holy Spirit came and the enabled the church to stay faithful and to proclaim Jesus’ name. Jesus stayed with the disciples through the Holy Spirit. And so the way Jesus rules and guides the church is through his Holy Spirit. In particular we can say that Jesus rules through the Bible which is a product of the Holy Spirit’s work; 2 Peter 1.20-21 describes the Bible's content as men speaking from God as they are carried along by the Holy Spirit.

So these leather bound words not just mere human words; they’re the words of Jesus as spoken by his Holy Spirit, they’re words of power, they're words which change lives. I’m not sure whether you still expect things to happen when you read the Bible: whether you expect to be comforted; whether you expect to be changed as people. I think we should! Scripture is a divine word which is transforming. Expect that you will be affected by it. Pray that you would be affected by it. It’s a powerful word and it’s an authoritative word. As the word spoken by the Holy Spirit it’s the word by which Jesus still rules his church today. Jesus is the head of the Church, and he exercises that headship through the Scriptures.

So what Church should our immigrant choose? A church which is ruled by the Christ through his Spirit-authored word. What church should we be? A church whose Bible studies remain just that: Bible studies. A church where we avoid the temptation to start considering other books in our small groups apart from this one. A church where the Bible is explained and applied in its sermons each week. A church where direction is taken from Jesus in his word. That’s the kind of Spiritual church we should be.

But of course, hunger for and submission to the Bible isn’t the only mark of a Spiritual church…

Church and Spirit #2

2007-07-16T13:00:00.001+10:00

Now when I say Spiritual gathering, that doesn’t mean we dance around like a bunch of drugged up hippies, trying to connect with some kind of vague “meta-Spirit”. What I mean is that as a church we are ruled, guided, united and equipped by God’s Holy Spirit. It’s the presence of God’s Holy Spirit which sets us apart. So to answer the question about which church our newly arrived immigrant should attend, we can say that he or she should seek out a Spiritual church.

But that raises another important question: What does a Spiritual church look like? If I were to ask someone from Hillsong for an answer and then someone from St Andrew’s Cathedral in the city, followed then by someone here at Glenhaven I could get three very different answers, so our poor immigrant isn’t out of the woods yet. But this is where Ephesians 4 will help us. This is a great chapter for figuring out what church is and also for discerning the type of gathering we should seek out and in turn be a part of.

Starting in the middle of the chapter, we find two verses that anchor us with a simple definition of church:

Speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Perhaps the best definition of the church is simply this: the church is the human community which is connected to Christ. Paul uses a body metaphor here, just like he uses in 1 Corinthians. Christ is the head, and we are the various parts of the body, all of which are connected to and controlled by the head. So when we say that the church is the community which is connected to Jesus, we don’t just mean that Jesus is the focus of our attention, or that his teachings are the ones we choose to read. Those things are true – we do want to focus on him and we do want to study his teachings – but the connection is a little more real than that.

When Paul says that Jesus is our head, he’s saying that Jesus is actually our living ruler. Remember that Jesus has been raised from the dead. That means that he is alive and active. And one way that Jesus is alive and active is that he is actively ruling his Church, this church, even as we speak. Jesus is not just someone we admire, Jesus is someone who is present and ruling his Church. Now this has massive implications for the way we do church. Whenever we lead in church, whether it be on a committee or in a bible study or by organising a roster, then we only ever lead as deputies to the true leader, Jesus. He is the chief shepherd, we are only ever the assistant shepherds (1 Peter 5).

I remember hearing a story about a young couple who were leaving their church here in Sydney to go interstate, and before they left they said to their minister “What are we going to do? You won’t be there to tell us what to do anymore.” And the minister said “Well there’s always the telephone”! I think he failed to realise that he was only an assistant shepherd. Their true leader was, is and always will be Jesus. And I think the young couple failed to realise this too! They didn’t need to be constantly linked to the one church even after they’d moved interstate, because wherever they found themselves to be, Jesus would still be their true shepherd.

So back to our immigrant looking for a church…what should they look for? A church which is lead by Christ. What church should Emmanuel Church Glenhaven be? A church ruled by Christ. If you are a leader, are you constantly deferring your leadership to Jesus? Do you recognise him as the one truly running the ship? If you see yourself as a follower, are you looking to Christ for leadership? or have you replaced him with the leadership of others?

A true church is one led by Jesus.

Well that’s all well and good, but how does Christ rule his Church? How is he active in the Church today? How do we defer leadership to him? How do we seek his leadership?

Church and Spirit #1

2007-07-13T17:57:00.000+10:00

A sermon preached at Emmanuel Church Glenhaven, 1st July 2007

Imagine for a moment that you’re a member of the first fleet, newly arrived on the shores of Sydney cove. You can pick whichever character you like for this exercise: maybe you’re Mary who was transported for seven years for stealing a handkerchief and a raisin bun; or perhaps you’re George, an officer in the royal army, hoping that your time in New South Wales might mean promotion to a more comfortable role back home. Imagine life in your new quarters. After many months on an uncomfortable ship, you move into your luxurious wooden hut, with dirt floor and holes in the walls which let the wind whistle in during the winter months. And then on Sundays you go to church. There is only one choice of church in the early colony; Richard Johnson is the chaplain, and he’s an Anglican. But he’s an Anglican without a building. Gov Phillip is a little slow in providing for the physical needs of a congregation so you meet under a tree until the first church building is built some months after landing.

Now jump forward 219 years to 2007. You’re a newly arrived immigrant to the city of Sydney, a bustling and growing metropolis of over 4 million people. You’re fortunate enough to find accommodation quickly, and then look to start the job of finding a new church. The choice is dazzling. Anglican, Catholic, Uniting Church, Baptist, Presbyterian, Free Presbyterian, Evangelical Free, Churches of Christ, Assemblies of God, Russian, Geek and Coptic orthodox, Hillsong, Gospel Halls, the Chinese Christian Churches, Potter’s House ministries, Grace community churches … and so the list goes on. I heard a statistic earlier this year which said that in the Blacktown City Council area there are well over 200 independent churches. This is not including churches aligned with the main denominations, so you could probably add another 30-50 to that number. That’s up to 250 individual churches to choose from in the one council area.

If you were a new immigrant living in Blacktown (or any other part of Sydney for that matter), how would you even begin to tell the difference? How would you go about choosing a church from all those different options? This is an important question to ask because there might come a point when its time to leave Emmanuel Church Glenhaven. What kind of church will you go to? Denominational loyalty is going the same way as brand loyalty - we’re becoming less inclined to stick with the same 'Anglican' badge - so what will go into your decision? Alternatively you might have friends who are looking to get involved with a church somewhere. What kind of advice would you give them? Or maybe you’re not about to go anywhere, maybe you’re not even thinking about what it means to find a church or to change churches. Even if this is the case then it's still an important question to ask because it’s really a question about the nature of church. What is it that makes this type of human gathering unique among all the others? How are we meant to be different to the Lions club which meets in the Community Hall, or the book club which meets in your best friend’s lounge room? What label should we aspire to?

The answer to this question is that we’re a Spiritual gathering…

1o points for the location of this convict-built building. Another 10 for the name of the umbrella carrying convict.

Back to basics with Schleiermacher

2007-06-26T16:55:00.000+10:00

Earlier today we had our Shapers of Contemporary Theology exam. This was the course where we were able to read ample sections from Germans like Barth and Rahner, Pannenberg and Moltmann. We started the course by looking at Schleiermacher, the guy known as either "the Father of modern theology" or the "Father of Protestant Liberalism", depending on whether you think he's a goody or baddy (and, I guess, whether you think Protestant Liberalism is a good or bad thing). My own tradition has set him up as a baddy, so what a surprise to read him saying things like:

Christ is distinguished from all others as Redeemer alone.

Sounds fairly evangelical to me.

Of course, his view of the nature of Christ's redemption may be deficient:

Jesus is the Founder of a religious communion simply in the sense that its members become conscious of redemption through him (Consciousness? Surely this is not the sum total of what it's all about).

But he does maintain the centrality and necessity of Jesus.

So this got me thinking...Is Schleiermacher a Christian? Often we think "No way, he's a liberal", but as I read him I see a guy who responded to Jesus and only Jesus, which is the response called for in the Gospels. Now we might argue that he is responding to a different Jesus than the one he ought to respond to and the one we ought to preach, but I think his heart was in the right place, and if God judges the heart...

So a question: How much do you need to get right to be a Christian? To put it another way, I heard one MTC lecturer say that "Theologian X is wrong. He'll be in heaven, but he's not an evangelical" So if he'll get there in the end why are we bringing him down? And is "being in heaven/the age to come" the right way to think about this in any case?

Love to hear your thoughts.

Was SJ Kirkby Sydney's Barth?

2007-06-14T10:51:00.001+10:00

You be the judge as he answers the question: “Which Christ do we lead people to?”

Not to any pale, merely theological Christ, a lay-figure, product of the schools (though to Dogmatics we owe a tremendous debt); not to any vague, impalpable, though beautiful Christ, the creation of a wistful imagination; but to Christ of the New Testament, the Christ of the Incarnation and of Bethlehem, the Christ of the Atonement on Calvary’s Cross, the Christ of the Resurrection and Ascension, and of the Blessed Appearing, the ever-present Christ Who is “warm, sweet, tender,” and Who confirms Himself unto us in all joys and stresses, and to set Him forth should be the burden of our ministry.

A Gospel that is not Christo-centric is no Gospel at all. We may gather people unto ourselves with a smart eloquence, or with snappy criticisms of public affairs, or with spectacular and popular services; we may think that we hold them to ourselves by providing well-organised rounds of social functions, pleasing and amusing, for all sorts and conditions of men and women; we may, by such means, secure the good-natured help and interest of a wide circle of supporters; but we shall never save their souls alive if that be all which we have to give them. Without this Christo-centric Gospel we have no authority enabling us to stand as did the prophets of old who faced kings and men with the words, “Thus saith the Lord”; we have no message calculated to bring home to people that sense of sin and of God’s forgiveness of it, we have no assurance of peace and harmony for the whole wide world. Woe be unto us if we fail to preach it.

Presidential address to ordinary session of Synod, 1933. Year Book of the Diocese of Sydney 1934, 306-07.

Granted, a line like “we shall never save their souls alive” might be a little too eager to find a place in the Dogmatics, but note the flow of the language: short, sharp clauses that colour and build up the one idea. Very Barthian. And also the obvious Christo-centricity.

I was commenting to a friend of mine (Ed Loane) how I thought Kirkby must have been a Barth reader, and he commented that when his great-grandfather (D.J. Knox, father of D. Broughton Knox) first read Barth’s Commentary on Romans, it was as if he was connecting with a “kindred spirit”. Ed also told me that Knox was close friends with Kirkby, so it’s possible that Barth was being passed around the senior Sydney clergy at this point. That would go some way in explaining Kirkby’s prose in the above speech.

Sydney's theology of hope #2

2007-06-11T11:46:00.000+10:00

When researching my church history essay I came across SJ Kirkby, Bishop Coadjutor of Diocese of Sydney in the 1930s. Check this bit out from his Presidential address to the Synod of 1933:

For what are the motivating impulses to war? Are they not desire for world rule and possession, arrogant pride in merely national culture, the temptation open always to the strong to exploit the week, fierce racial jealousies too often the outcome of pure misunderstanding? We not only deny the morality of all these motives, but we would supplant them with something finer and greater. We present unto mankind that divine ideal which swallows up all world ideals, an ideal which is able to capture the imagination and thrill the hearts of man, an ideal which challenges and calls forth all that splendid sacrifice too often wasted in war, the ideal of tremendous freedom giving, peace-ensuing truth of St. Paul: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Note when this was delivered. In 1933 Hitler was stirring in Germany, and there was a growing fascist movement here in Australia. And here is one of Sydney's senior clergy taking these issues on and providing a clear call to a theological alternative. Not only would this have challenged society's policy makers, but also all those in the pews who were playing with the idea of falling in with either the communists or fascists as a way of dealing with the hopelessness of the Depression. As an alternative Kirkby posits the hope of a humanity reconstituted in Christ. Nice!

RIP Red Rocket, 2000-07

2007-06-09T17:42:00.001+10:00

After 7 years and 115,000+ km its all over. This morning, just before noon, the Red Rocket was smashed into by a white falcon which lost control when turning into Carillon from City Rd. I was completely oblivious to the RR's fate, having left it parked in Carillon at about 11pm last night. The first I knew about its unexpected demise was when John Woodhouse came knocking on my door asking "Do you own SSB 219? I have bad news for you mate..." Proceeding downstairs this was the sad sight which greeted me:

The tow-truck guy said "yeah, NRMA will write that off". So that's it. I will cherish the memories, such as the late night tours of Sydney with various friends from different circles, and that time a youth group kid knocked me over with my own car.
Vale my friend, you served your master well.

way way cool

2007-06-08T17:31:00.000+10:00

Last night Craig Tubman, Rowan Patterson, Pete Boyd and I went on a late late night sojourn to Dean's cafe in Kings Cross where we sat under a peacock tapestry drinking coffee and red wine. Very cool. The Red tones, late hour and stimulating conversation made us all feel very bohemian. Like, totally intellectually hip, baby.

Sydney's theology of hope #1

2007-06-06T19:28:00.001+10:00

John Charles Wright was Archbishop of Sydney from 1909-1933. During that time a world war and the Great Depression put his leadership under the spotlight, and, according to some, he was found wanting:

He excelled as a patient and conciliatory chairman. Yet Wright's temperate influence upon the Diocese was resented by conservative Evangelicals who believed that he over-emphasised his administrative role and failed to give sufficient leadership to his flock. They were wanting a father-in-God, not a moderator.

Judd and Cable, Sydney Anglicans, 225-26.

But his 1931 address to Synod during the worst months of the Depression shows that he was far from being a soft pen-pusher:

The fact is that two years ago we had abundant money. There was money everywhere. But we were living in a fool's paradise. We forgot that it was borrowed money, borrowed lightly and spent gaily in the State and Church and by private individuals ... Then came what no one had deemed possible - all over the world a sudden collapse of the world's purchasing power ... It is not easy to cure the borrowing habit. We all alike had become extravagant. The luxuries of yesterday had become the necessities of today. But at last the unwholesomeness of the position was sternly brought home to us...this was, itself, a call from God to live a simpler life.

We have to confess that the days of prosperity with which we have been blessed in the past have involved the temptation to forget God as the author of our success.

Cop that Synod.
But the really impressive bit of what is really a remarkable piece of oratory is his call for the church to place their hope in the Father's eternal benevolence:

We are all suffering from a pressure of financial anxiety such as we have never known in this generation and never dreamt that we could know. Things were threatening with dark clouds at the beginning of the year, but since then, month by month, the clouds have banked up in darker masses in the heavens ... Yet no one who believes in God and His fatherly care ought to despair of the future. As we enter the unknown we should recall the command of God to his people of old as the approached the land of promise, 'Be strong and of a good courage'.

What I like about this address is Wright's willingness to not pull punches (note his call for the church to repent), while sharing the blame (note his use of the 1st person plural in the first quote). And then he speaks of the sure hope we have which is guaranteed by the Father's love. A nice theological response to a tough time. Of course, detractors of Wright will say that this was precisely the problem; he provided a theological response when what was needed was practical relief. While Wright firmly believed that the Church's primary role was to provide spiritual direction, it remained the case that on an organizational/institutional level the Church was unable to do much due to a lack of funding and resources. AND part of the problem seems to have been that the hardline evangelicals had pulled their funding from the Diocese because they didn't respect the Archbishop. This is why it was left to people like RBS Hammond of St Barnabas Broadway to do what they could in the parishes (and in RB's case, that was quite a lot).

Still, Wright's address is a definite "Father-in-God" moment, no matter what his reputation might be.

Pic is of John Charles Wright with his wife Dorothy.

Luther on Friendship

2007-06-03T22:59:00.000+10:00

To love a brother who is kind and pleasant in return—this is a trivial matter. This is the way the world also loves. “The crowd judges friendships by their usefulness” (Cicero, De finibus). Accordingly, John does not say: “Let us love those who are saintly, agreeable, and rich.” No, he says: “Let us love the brethren,” in such a way that then nothing but the brotherhood is loved and regarded; for a brother is loved out of a sense of duty, not because of usefulness and not because of praise. All the gifts we have should serve those who do not have them. For example, he who is learned should serve him who is not learned; he who is rich should serve him who is poor; he who is sensible should serve him who is foolish, etc. it is easy to love Paul and other apostles. They serve you even after their death. But to love those who are weak, troublesome, and unlearned—this indeed is to love truly. Otherwise there is no brotherhood, but there is carnality. In short, it is the duty of Christians to serve, not for their own advantage but for the advantage of the brethren.

Lectures on 1 John (LW 30), comment on 3.18.

Luther paints an all too familiar picture of how twisted our friendships can get. Instead of being opportunities to serve, our relationships can so quickly become mere opportunities to get ahead. "Friends with benefits" one might say. But while genuine friendship can turn this way, even more abhorrent is the picking of friends for reasons of advantage straight from the outset. I have seen this, and it ain't pretty.

Here's to friendship instead of carnality.

The Boroughs of Sydney...

2007-05-26T00:50:00.000+10:00

Every great city has its own divisions. Take New York with its five boroughs. They each have their own flavour and together make the city what it is. But what about Sydney? If you were to divide Sydney up into smaller segments how would you do it?

Here is my attempt, you might need to click on it and zoom in to make out the detail...sorry. Special apologies to Berowra people, I meant to include you in the Northern Suburbs bit.

Its an interesting exercise, and while attempting it I made the following observations:

1. Which criteria do you use? Economic? physical? or just "the vibe"? I kinda went for the third, which in reality is a mix of lots of other factors. But some areas do carry a widely recognised identity, eg "the Shire" and "the Upper North Shore". What makes for such identities?

2. Following on I noticed that other areas really didn't lend themselves to a more obvious label. What about that bit just south of the CBD which isn't really Inner West but isn't quite St George either? Inner South?

3. What about those bits which seems to get lots of negative press? The strip of land stretching between Bankstown and Auburn for example. This is often labeled as Muslim territory, but are Muslims really the dominant group? The vast multiculturalism of this area is perhaps the biggest identifying factor.

4. Notice how the more west you get the bigger the boroughs? This could be for a number of reasons: People in the more established areas are more concerned to identify themselves more narrowly therefore they have established their identity accordingly; The newer areas are yet to develop identities that have Sydney-wide currency; My scheme reveals my own ignorance and biases.

5. I wonder whether you could draw up a typical character profile of people living in these areas. As one (female) friend said, "You can tell a woman from XXX because of the massive amounts of gold jewelry and the massive massive hair."

6. It would be interesting to compare the comparable regions. Eg, Upper North Shore vs Hills. Both are affluent, but is it a different kind of affluence? Old Money vs New Money? What about Lower North Shore and the Eastern Suburbs?

What do people think? Is my attempt on the money?

A good book to read...

2007-05-24T15:40:00.000+10:00

Real Sex is book which came highly recommended to our class last year by Andrew Cameron, ethics lecturer here at MTC. Lauren F. Winner was a non-pious Jew who converted to Christianity in her 20s and had to learn the art of chastity as an adult. Not that you can expect any devious detail about her pre-conversion life (nor that you would want to), but you can read an honest account of someone who has lived on both sides of the conservative line which we evangelicals draw in the sexual ethics sand. While not a lot of time is spent in Scripture, her Biblical work is solid with a mature Biblical Theology (not that she would label her use of the Bible as such), and her thoughts are well grounded in a useful Christian anthropology and is not short on advice which is both sensible and workable. Winner also offers some stinging critiques of how conservative pastors tend to speak and think about this issue. Grown up without being patronising, savvy without being flippant, this is a really useful and enjoyable book.

Postcards from Karl #5

2007-05-23T12:53:00.000+10:00

Often we focus on what our salvation means for us. But what does it mean for God?

What is quite certain is that for God it means severe self-commitment. God does not merely give Himself up to the risk and menace, but He exposes Himself to the actual onslaught and grasp of evil. For if God Himself became man, this man, what else can this mean but:

That He declared Himself guilty of the contradiction against Himself in which man was involved;

That He submitted Himself to the law of creation by which such a contradiction could be accompanied only by loss and destruction;

That He made Himself the object of the wrath and judgment to which man had brought himself;

That He took upon himself the rejection which man had deserved;

That He tasted Himself the damnation, death and hell which ought to have been the portion of fallen man?

...

If we would know what it was that God elected for Himself when He elected fellowship with man, then we can answer only that He elected our rejection.

He made it His own.

He bore it and suffered it with all its most bitter consequences.

For the sake of this choice and for the sake of man He hazarded Himself wholly and utterly.

He elected our suffering (what we as sinners must suffer towards Him and before Him and from Him).

He elected it as His own suffering.

This is the extent to which His election is

an election of grace,

an election of love,

an election to give Himself,

an election to empty and abase Himself for the sake of the elect.

Church Dogmatics II/2, 164

That's a lot of love, and it's a lot of suffering by God on our behalf. Note also Barth's unflinching acceptance of penal substitutionary atonement and his wonderfully poetic way of describing its beauty. I read recently some opinions that PSA is perhaps the dumbest theological invention of the Christian Church.

Not so from Barth's point of view.

10 points for the location and official name of the above monument (hint: it's not in Athens). Another 10 points for its nickname.

Pannenberg on the ascension

2007-05-18T00:20:00.000+10:00

Why is it important to affirm that Jesus "ascended into heaven" and that "he is seated at the right hand of the Father"? Pannenberg gives us an important implication of the ascension:

A Gentile mission seems to have arisen for the first time as a result of the conviction that the resurrected Jesus has now already been exalted to Lordship in heaven and consequently the news of his Lordship is to be carried to all nations.

Jesus - God and Man (London: SCM, 1968), 71.

That Jesus has been raised and is now the ascended, ruling Lord over all means that he is not only the God of Jewish expectation but also the God of the whole world. It's the ascension (among other things) which drives the gospel to all nations.

Nice one Wolfhart!

Postcards from Karl #4

2007-05-14T12:43:00.000+10:00

Which comes first: Grace or Sin?

That man is against God is important and must be taken seriously. But what is far more important and must be taken more seriously is that in Jesus Christ God is for man. And it is only in the light of the second fact that the importance and seriousness of the first can be seen.

Church Dogmatics II/2, 154.

Often we evangelicals are quick to say that you cannot understand the light of grace unless you first understand the darkness of sin, and often we also catch ourselves describing grace primarily as the solution to sin; grace is a reaction from God to our selfish ambition. But here Karl reverses this order. Sin is not understood unless grace is first grasped. If there is a priority within the economy of salvation then it falls on God's graciousness.

The importance of this was drilled home to me recently on college mission. When door-knocking in outer suburban Sydney I met one woman who wanted nothing to do with the church. Why? "All I was told as a youngster was how much of a sinner I was. I want nothing to do with the church now." Hmmmm ... while we do want to affirm human sinfulness, we must affirm it in a way which acknowledges the priority of grace. Grace has come first, and so that is the first part of our message. This is what Calvin meant when he described 'evangelical repentance'; we repent not in order to recieve God's grace, but in order to respond to it. God makes the first move, and it's a move of grace. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5.8).

10 points for the location of this statue

Life in a Northern Town

2007-05-07T19:05:00.000+10:00

Rhyl (on the northern Welsh coast), January 2007

Moore Mission Madness - Sunday #2

2007-05-06T23:37:00.000+10:00

Ummmm ... so the posting once a day thing didn't really work. There are a number of factors to blame for this: I ran out of camera batteries; I forgot my camera on a number of occasions; when doing scripture work in schools no cameras are allowed because of all the weirdos who want to take photos of little kids; mission was generally so busy that "capturing the moment" didn't always figure as a priority. But, it was a good time away, and lots of people were saved, YES!!!

I would post some general photos taken over the course of the week, but somehow they all disappeared from my memory card. That wouldn't have happened in the old 35mm days...

Moore Mission Madness - Sunday

2007-04-30T18:25:00.000+10:00

MTC mission is on again and this year we (ie my chaplaincy group) are serving with the good folk at Quaker's Hill Anglican ... Alright!

First stop was Enmore to pick up Chris Swann. Was a bit late. Sorry Chris! (he wasn't that upset...i don't think)

Then to Gladesville to Pick up Ben Bathgate. Hello Ben!

After all that hard work it was time for a coffee. Mission ROCKS!!!!

Meeting the rest of the team outside mission headquarters, Quakers Hill Anglican Church (QUAC). Gibbo (MTC NT lecturer, on the far left) is our leader.

Then off to Stanhope Anglican to hear Andrew Southerton give his testimony. The church meets in a leisure centre.

Then a team meeting after lunch where we folded lots of stuff to hand out at the train station the next morning. Go team!

Finally church at Quakers Hill where Russell Williams spoke with passion and clarity.

Big day! Already we have seen some people give their lives to Christ. Praise God!

I'll try and post each night. We'll see how we go.

Lost love

2007-04-28T01:06:00.000+10:00

Waverley Cemetery, July 2001

Luke 2.30-32

2007-04-26T21:47:00.000+10:00

Waverley Cemetery, July 2001

After Dresden

2007-04-25T21:32:00.000+10:00

Waverley Cemetery, July 2001

Saturday night, sometime during 2000

2007-04-24T19:54:00.000+10:00

Postcards from Karl #3

2007-04-16T17:47:00.000+10:00

What does it mean to "have faith"?

Faith...is faith in Jesus Christ. It is thus the recognition and confirmation that God's word was already in effect even before we believed and quite apart from our believing. Faith particularly...lives by the power which is power before faith and without faith. It lives by the power which gives faith itself its object.

Church Dogmatics I/1, 154.

Faith is all about the one you have faith IN, not about how much faith you yourself have or do not have. Faith relies on something external, not on something internally within us. So next time someone says "you don't have enough faith", give 'em the forks and tell them where to get off, 'cause they're sending you on an unfair guilt trip; the only way you can not have enough faith is to not trust in Jesus. If you go searching within your own soul for some deep well of faith which will rocket you into the spiritual stratosphere then think again...methinks you're searching for something which is quite aside from Christian spirituality, something possibly idolatrous. This is why you only need faith the size of a mustard seed (Luke 17.6), cause its the size of the one you have faith IN which matters.

15 Points for the location of this painted ceiling. Points still on offer for the first Postcard from Karl.

Procrastination #3

2007-04-16T17:32:00.000+10:00

Further to my last post, I found this site from a collage artist/cartoonist with a similar sense of humour. Here is a sample of his genius...

Procrastination #2

2007-04-10T09:25:00.000+10:00

When you take the second 'r' out of 'girlfriend' you get girlfiend

That's funny.

Moore Books goes Arminian...

2007-04-10T00:13:00.000+10:00

I know it's way theo-nerdy to post this ... but the irony made me laugh when I saw this in Moore Books the other day. You see Arminian theology is the opposite (in some ways) to Calvinism, and Moore College teaches a Calvinist theology, and here are Calvin's Institutes with a big pink "do not open" sticker on them. Anyway...

Right now I'm working on what has to be the most frustrating essay we've had at college yet (with the exception of Ethics 3 last year *shudder*). It's also due tomorrow (make that today...just noticed the time), so guess what I did on my long weekend???

College is so not hot right now.

Postcards from Karl #2

2007-04-02T23:22:00.000+10:00

Why do we exist? Karl explains...

The existence of the world and our own existence are in no sense vital to God, not even as the object of His love. The eternal generation of the Son by the Father tells us first and supremely that God is not all lonely even without the world and us. His love has its object in Himself ...

Only when we are clear about this

Can we estimate what it means

That God has actually,
though not necessarily,
created a world and us,

That His love actually,
though not necessarily,
applies to us,

That His Word has actually,
though not necessarily,
been spoken to us...

We evaluate this purposiveness correctly, only, if we understand it as the reality of the love of the God who does not need us but who does not will to be without us, who has directed His love specifically on us.

Church Dogmatics I/1, 139-40.

We exist not because God needs us or because he thinks we'll make good company, in fact we are totally unnecessary. We exist because God wants us to exist, to simply act as recipients of his freely given grace and love.

Wow.

Hat tip to my brother who first gave me the idea of reading and presenting trinitarian theology as poetry. It kinda works!
10 points for the city where you'll find this brick mural. Points still on offer from the previous post.

Postcards from Karl #1

2007-03-29T23:02:00.000+10:00

I have to read 100 pages of Karl Barth before next Wednesday for a theology class. I thought I'd share some highlights as I work my way through it.

God and the human element are not two co-existing and co-operating factors. The human element is what God created ... Between God and true service of God there can be no rivalry. Service of God does not have to be removed in order that God himself may be honoured in it. Where God is truly served, there - with no removal of the human element, with the full essential presence and operation of the human element in all its humanity - the willing and doing of God is not just present as a first or second co-operating factor; it is present as the first and decisive thing as befits God the Creator and Lord.

Church Dogmatics I/1, 94.

What a way to inspire us as we serve others! Our humanity - in all its weakness - does not get in the way of God's work. How can it, given that he created it and has redeemed it? Keep serving my friends, God is at work through you...

10 points for the name and location of this British natural monument.
10 more for the name of the landform from which the photo was taken.

Digital Humanity #4

2007-03-28T23:42:00.000+10:00

While the relational aspects of online life can be seen to reflect our humanity, we must also maintain that it’s not a full reflection of human existence; human life is created, physical life which is meant to be lived out in the flesh. Jesus did not take on and redeem the human body so that we might exist wholly within a digital Platonism. Humanity was created in, redeemed for and looks forward to a continued physical existence.

A couple of implications stem from this. First we can say that the ideal relationship is not just carried by verbal communication. The apostle John knew this, as evidenced by this personal touch in 2 John 12:

Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

There are times when verbal communication is the only means of maintaining a relationship, but it’s hardly the ideal situation to be in, nor is it how we were meant to pursue relationships. And it’s interesting that for John, the joy brought by such a relationship was seen as being incomplete.

Secondly we should also be wary of the temptation to let our online interactions take over from our physical lives. Sociologically speaking, we could view the phenomenon of online worlds like Second Life as a product of a growing dissatisfaction with life in the real world; a form of escapism where unfulfilled dreams are met and secret longings pursued. An understanding of the physical aspects of human existence means that we should chase after life within its full embodied form, not settling for the shadow which is life spent in front of a LCD screen. While the internet can be seen as a tool for living, it’s not a replacement for it.

Pastorally speaking there are some simple things we can do to help break a dependence upon online forms of interacting. One friend of mine has recognised that some of those she is mentoring in the faith are more likely to open up online than in person. While it’s good that they feel safe to open up after logging on, my friend recognises the need to help her friends move beyond the digital world and so she makes a point of asking them about their specific issues the next time she sees them in person. This act reminds all involved that life is a holistic affair, and it also means that the issue is not left behind in the ether (which is a further reason why anonymity is a problem when interacting online – see last post).

So while the increasing phenomena of digital interaction throws up some challenges, there are ways in which we can start to care for those we have pastoral responsibility for. I’ve come to realise that this discussion has really only been the tip of the iceberg, and that there are many other questions which are thrown up by the many and varied methods of online interaction:

What scope is there for evangelism within a program like Second Life?
Is an online church really viable?
What about the ethics of allowing a site like Second Life in the first instance?

This is a big deal, so I’d like to hear any thoughts that others might have…

10 points for the London park in which the above race was held.

Digital Humanity #3

2007-03-18T23:35:00.000+11:00

If human life is an existence of embodied relationships, then there are certain things we can say in light of our online interactions.

First of all, we can say that it matters who you are online.

We cannot say that our online relationships are of no consequence simply because they are not done in the flesh. Whenever we communicate we are engaging in a fundamental human activity, so the usual courtesies placed on face to face interaction should also apply to communication done digitally.

All communication involves an interaction between two beings at some level, be it through typed text or via the actions and words of a Second Life avatar. And as we are creatures who respond to and formed by all types of communication (a quick read through the Book of Proverbs bears testimony to this), it’s hard to see online relating as some kind of neutral zone where there are no consequences. Scripture exhorts us not to conform “to the pattern of this world” but “to be transformed by the renewing of [our] minds” (Rom 12.2). Developing the habit of conforming to the world while being online is hardly going to help us grow to the stage where we can “test and approve what God’s will is”.

We could also argue (although I feel a little tentative about it) that even though we might be relating through a fictitious avatar, we are still operating as the image of God. It seems to me that a digitally created human still carries some semblance of the divine relational image; it still represents the kind of relationships which constitute the image of God in the physical world. The animated avatar might be an image of an image, but it is still an image. This raises all sorts of questions about how humans are depicted within different art forms. Is a degrading photo of a human being a blasphemy against the image of God? Quite possibly. So can an avatar who acts in disrespectful ways also be seen to be a blasphemy against the divine image? I think it could be (I’d be interested to see what people think of this idea).

So what steps can we take to make sure our online personae are respecting the image of God and helping others to grow in godliness? The anonymity created by online communication can act as a cover under which we can be tempted to pursue unhelpful patterns of relating. In response to this a friend of mine has determined to never use an online pseudonym; he always identifies himself so that people always know exactly who he is. He finds this an easy way to keep himself accountable, and it nips any temptation to act unhelpfully in the bud. Simple and effective.

But as we have already said, human life is more than just relating to one another, it’s also an embodied life…

Hauerwas on singleness

2007-03-16T12:12:00.000+11:00

Singleness is the one practice of the Church that most profoundly shows that it has accepted and wishes to participate in the hope that God secured through Christ’s cross, resurrection, and ascension. Singleness embodies the Christian hope that God’s kingdom has come, is present, and is still to come … when the Church loses the significance of singleness, I suspect it does so because Christians no longer have the confidence that the gospel can be received by those who have not been, so to speak, “raised in it”.

Stanley Hauerwas, "The Radical Hope of the Annunciation: Why both Single and Married Christians Welcome Children", in The Hauerwas Reader, 512

An interesting notion: that singleness is a sign to the church of our hope being in Jesus and not in our ability to have kids, and that the gospel cuts through physical family lines and creates a new spiritual family founded in Christ.

A question: how far the does the concept and practice of “family” extend in your church?

Digital Humanity #2

2007-03-13T23:11:00.000+11:00

The first step in dealing with this issue is to land on a workable definition of what it means to live as a human. Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema provides a useful way of thinking about humanity when he observes that:

God placed man [and woman] into a threefold relationship: between man and God, between man and his fellowmen, and between man and nature.*

This understanding of humanity’s relational dimension is seen within the Bible’s opening chapters, with Adam subservient to God (Genesis 2.16-17), in partnership with Eve (Gen 2.21-14) and in dominion over nature (Gen 2.19-20). Of course these relationships are distorted through the fall (Gen 3), but in Jesus – the model human – we see one man who successfully lives out these relationships as they are intended to be lived. And if we abide in Jesus (John 15), then it’s possible for us to participate in and enjoy these renewed relationships; to start living as we were created to live.

But aside from being relational, human life has another characteristic in that it’s an embodied life. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul speaks of the hope of a renewed physical existence for us humans; our physical bodies will be perfected in the age to come. The relational ideal is an ideal which is pursued within a physical framework. This has always been God’s intention and is what we look forward to on the other side of death.

The perspective of human life being an existence of embodied relationships can act as our touchstone when speaking of how we are to approach life once we log in…

* Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1986, 75.

OK, 10 points if you can tell me what these people are doing, 10 more points if you can tell me the city, 20 points if you can tell me the street.

Calvin on John Chapman House

2007-03-12T23:13:00.000+11:00

It is clear ... that pious men customarily prepared themselves by monastic discipline to govern the church, that thus they might be fitter and better trained to undertake so great an office.
- Institutes 4.13.8

So is that what my life has been about for the last 3 years? There has to be a better way ...

Digital Humanity #1

2007-03-05T20:34:00.000+11:00

Being human is becoming increasingly complex. While the church still discusses the new expressions of human existence brought on by the sexual revolution a new field has opened up where the boundaries of human being are being challenged.

And I fear that this one has flown right in under our radar.

The other day I heard of Second Life for the first time; an online world where you can create a persona and interact with other personae, even to the extent where your character (or avatar as it's called) could open up a shop and sell digital clothes to other online characters (avatars) for them to wear as they walk around living their “second life.” Here’s the scary part: from what I understand you can buy and sell such items using real money transferred from one account to another. That’s real money exchanged for items which have no physical existence. According to the The Age, Second Life has already spawned its first real-money millionaire. That’s wacky.

Obviously such a digital application could present real pastoral issues, but when was the last time you heard a sermon which helped the congregation negotiate life online?
Time to think about it…

Leadership #5

2007-03-03T13:07:00.000+11:00

We can view the activity of preaching not so much as the essence of leadership but as a way in which Christ exercises his own headship. Within Paul’s letters we see the preachers of the early church fulfilling a Christ-like role in prophetic sense. In 2 Tim 2.2 Paul’s instruction to Timothy is to enlist faithful people “who will be able to teach others also.” The content of this teaching is that which Timothy heard from Paul (2 Tim 2.2), who in turn learnt it from Christ himself (Gal 1.12). This content is the “testimony about our Lord” (2 Tim 1.8); the “good deposit” which Timothy has been set apart to guard and preach (2 Tim 1.6,14). This teaching is to be done in the face of heresy and apostasy (1 Tim 1.3-4), and is the means by which the yet-to-be-perfected Church is kept faithful (1 Tim 4.16).

All this amounts to the act of preaching being understood as an outworking of Christ’s own care for the church; Jesus was a teacher and it is through his delegation of this role that he still cares for his Body. As George Herbert said in the early Seventeenth Century:

A pastor is the deputy of Christ for the reducing of man to the obedience of God.*

In particular it’s the word preached by the pastor which achieves this task. Christ still rules his church, but does so through the announcement of his Spirit empowered word.

So in the end leadership is a service we provide to help others find their place under the leadership of Christ. Planning, praying and preaching are tasks with a higher goal: the movement of people to a place under Christ’s wing. If you set your heart on being an overseer – and let’s remember what a noble task that is – then look to the Chief Overseer as the goal, model and content of your leadership. Happy leading!

* Quoted in Donald Robinson, Ordination for What? Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1992, 29.

10 points for the following:
Top photo: Name the leader commemorated by this arch.
Bottom Photo: Name this leader-making institution.

Leadership #4

2007-03-01T23:48:00.000+11:00

If we understand leadership (and I should be clear: I have been speaking of church leadership) to be the practice of helping others find their place under Christ’s headship, then the practical tools and methods employed while leading must have as their goal the growth of others towards and up into Christ. Out ultimate vision is to have those under our care all the more aware of their place under Christ. Any other aim must contribute to this primary goal. Similarly, if the leadership methods we utilize do not aid us in shepherding others to a place under Christ, then we ought to reconsider the tools we employ.

As far as the leader’s character is concerned, it’s of little wonder that Paul insists that leaders display Christlike attributes. The imitation of leaders is a regular theme in Paul’s letters (1 Cor 11.1, Phil 3.17, 1 Thess 1.6), and notice that in at least two of these passages (1 Cor and 1 Thess) the imitation of leaders is linked with the imitation of Christ. Christian leaders bring others under Christ’s leadership by means of example, so godly living is a non-negotiable!

Another outcome of Christ being the Chief Shepherd is that it leaves no place for egotism. We point others to another and we encourage them to draw close to him. We do not point to ourselves nor to any charisma which we might be endowed with. It’s so easy for leaders to abuse the adoration which can flow their way; to foster a dependence within the congregation on their own particular set of abilities. Because Christ is the Chief Shepherd we should take pains to lead in ways which minimise the potential for others to develop unhealthy dependencies. Positively this means encouraging wide ranging networks where individuals are encouraged and held accountable through a variety of people. This is not to denigrate the importance of individual leadership roles, but it does place such roles within a wider communal context.

When it comes to preaching and teaching, a Christ-oriented model of leadership informs the way we view that task too…

5 points to name the leader who wore this suit

Leadership #3

2007-02-23T14:44:00.001+11:00

1 Peter 5.2-4 contains a key thought for any discussion of Christian leadership:

2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as
overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

Note that there is a two-fold order of leadership here; there are shepherds and then there’s the Chief Shepherd. Peter alerts us to the fact that Christ is the true leader. Any leading which we do is done under the authority and leadership of another: the divine Son of God. Given this revelation, we can formulate a Christ-centred understanding of what we are doing when we lead:

Christian leadership is the act of helping others find their place under Christ’s leadership.

I take it that Paul had something similar in mind when he exhorted the Corinthians to follow his example, as he followed the example of Christ (1 Cor 11.1)

Of course, this view of leadership influences our understanding of those activities more commonly associated with leading, such as vision-casting and the provision of a Godly example…

10 points if you can tell me the name of the leader who wore this Harlequin cricket cap. 10 more points if you can tell me the reason why he wore it. Points are still on offer from the previous post.

Leadership #2

2007-02-22T00:24:00.000+11:00

Aside from the practical approach, it seems that others form their concepts of leadership with a particular emphasis on the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus). Echoing Paul’s emphasis on the Christian maturity expected from leaders, such discussion will have lots to say about the model of Christian maturity expected from leaders, but precious little about what leaders actually do (apart from providing a model of Christian holiness).

Those who dig a little deeper in the Pastorals will discern that Christian leadership finds an expression in the act of teaching the Word (2 Tim 2.2). This is a point well made within my own church culture (Sydney Anglicanism), so much so that from time to time you will hear the old phrase pop up that “leadership is preaching”. This is understandable given the focus we see in the Pastorals, but I have always been a little hesitant to reduce the act of leading to such a simple formula. Have we provided adequate leadership if we only ensure that a vibrant preaching programme has been put into place?

So while we don’t want to be purely pragmatic, a “purely preaching” model of leadership also seems to fall short of what is required. What we need is another approach which can unify and make sense of all these threads…

No points for picking Churchill pictured above. But 10 points are on offer if you can tell me which activity Churchill banned from his office during WWII.

The answer...

2007-02-21T23:16:00.000+11:00

Watching a big ship (well done Ants and Jodi):

Who would have thought that a boat would make such a splash!

Russ and Al and I caught the Bus to see the big boat...

Al had his photo taken with the stern of the QE2...

Then we went off to find the QM2 (hard to miss really)...

And waited with everyone else to see the fireworks...

The whole thing was kinda surreal. My friend Seumas suggests that it's all about how we Aussies love a spectacle, just like the ancient Romans loved their gladiator games. The harbour is our Colosseum, and the pyrotechnician is our gladiatorial warrior. Give him the thumbs up and let him live Morris, he put on a good show!!!

A question...

2007-02-20T23:50:00.000+11:00

What are these people doing?

Leadership # 1

2007-02-19T23:59:00.000+11:00

Everybody wants to be a leader. Well, sometimes it certainly seems that way. Part of the problem is that once you work out that you want to be a leader (or more appropriately, when you discern the need for leadership around you … or when you’re thrust into an office) you’re then faced with the question of how to go about the business.

One thing I’ve noticed is that we Christians speak about leadership in different ways. Some understand it in a practical sense; the moving of people from one position to another. Methods such as “vision-casting” and “360-degree peer appraisal” are adopted from the corporate world and employed to further the Church’s goals which, of course, have been formulated to give shape to an appropriate vision statement which is just small enough to fit on professionally designed t-shirt. These goals are often about improvement and growth, and the Church’s leaders are the ones who are charged with the responsibility to achieve these goals, thereby helping the Church to execute her “ministry”.

Despite what might sound like a sarcastic tone, I actually agree with such activities. When Paul speaks of “gifts of administration” (1 Cor 12.28) he uses a word which was used in the ancient world to describe the activity of steering a boat; giving direction to a vessel and moving it from one place to another. This suggests that there is a place for developing those skills which “lead” God’s people from one place (physical or spiritual) to the next. However, others will be quick to point out that there is more to Biblical leadership than the practical ability to create change and facilitate growth…

5 points for the famous leader in the above photo.

Hp Hp Hooray

2007-02-15T17:29:00.000+11:00

Last Sunday night I was listening to John Safran and Father Bob on Triple J when they mentioned that the words "hip hip hooray" are a modern form of the medieval war-cry "HEP HEP hooray", where HEP is a Latin acronym for Hierosolyma est perdita, meaning "Jerusalem is lost". As such its actually an anti-Jewish rallying cry which, according to this site, was used during Jewish persecution in the early Nineteenth Century. Is this true? Maybe we'll all have to think twice after we next sing Happy Birthday...

In other news I went to this shop in Broadway today and tried on a shirt. Next thing I know the shop assistant is asking whether its OK and I'm turning around to say "yeah" only to find she's stuck her head over my change room door while I'm half naked. How very rude. That's got to be illegal or something. Afterwards she very helpfully informs me that my "colours" are chocolate, lilac and green, and that I'm to stay away from light shades of pink because there are too many pink pigments in my skin. Thanks.

Old dart #6 - Home again

2007-02-12T10:16:00.000+11:00

5-0:
After the joys of the North I returned back to London Town for a last weekend before the flight home. The Lord's tour was fun, and also gave me a chance to gloat a little. Generally my policy in the UK was to "not mention the war", but it was a little hard not to when touring through the Lord's Museum and seeing the urn recently returned from its Australian tour. Given last night's result in the 2nd one-day final I'm now regretting my restraint; I should have made more of the opportunity.

This prayer is carved into the wall outside Westminster Abbey. I guess there are worse prayers which could be said. I especially like the last line. Inside the building is chock-a-block full of memorials, a vast contrast to the ornate but uncluttered interior of St Paul's. I also noticed that there's all this graffiti carved into the back of the royal coronation chair which is housed in the Abbey. A very human aspect to highly symbolic artefact.

Flight home:
The worst part of the whole thing. Two overnight flights in a row with five hours wandering about Tokyo airport in the middle. I was awake for almost 40 hours straight. The jet-lag took a week to get over (with the worst migraine ever) but all is better now!

Thanks for sharing in my holiday everyone (especially those who let me stay/eat in their digs: Erin, Emma and Christian in London, the Jensens in Oxford, the Waldocks in Cambridge, The Reeses in Sheffield, Izzy in Sheffield, Terry and Ruth in Edinburgh and Doug and Hannah in Dundee), Look forward to seeing you all soon.

Old Dart #5 - More Caledonia

2007-01-27T10:21:00.000+11:00

Dundee/St Andrews:
Sydney Uni EU people will remember Doug Forbes, the very popular Scot who came over to Sydney on exchange back in 2001/2. Since then Doug has married Hannah, and has settled in Dundee where he is doing a PhD while Hannah works as a physio. It's been good to see them, especially to finally meet the woman (Hannah) who was causing Doug so much heartbreak while he was in Oz. Full marks for persistence Dougie, she's an absolute gem!!!

St Andrews is a lovely town, one of the highlights being the ruins of St Andrew's Cathedral:

Embarrassingly, over-zealous reformers turned this magnificent and massive structure into the ruin we see today. Very sad. Points for the name of the very famous sporting club seen in the photo below, and points for the famous movie scene which was shot on this St Andrews beach.

Old dart #4 - moving north

2007-01-25T11:34:00.000+11:00

Sheffield:
Sheffield is crazy about cutlery. It's a town famous for it's steel, and part of that industry is devoted to the manufacturing of knives and forks and the like. I even went to a cutlery museum. Anyhow, it was great to hang out with old friends such as the Reeses:

Andrew has just started as associate vicar at Christ Church Fulwood and I had the privilege of seeing him get licenced at the evening service. He even had to swear allegiance to the Queen. HAHAHA!!!
It was also great to spend time catching up with Izzy Brook, pictured here (on the right) with her flatmate Carol. After spending 6 months in Oz back in 2005/06 Izzy went to Lebanon where she was duly caught up in a war zone as Israeli forces bombed the daylights out of the country. Her escape back to the UK makes for a hair-raising story!

Wales:
This was an attempt to trace what little UK heritage I have. My Mum's ancestors came from the North Wales coast, so I hired a car and set out to see what I could find.

Rest in Peace Thomas Thomas (1816-1875):
First stop was Rhyl, where my Great Great Grandfather (Thomas Thomas) fell off a bridge to his death while returning home from a drinking binge. I tried to find the bridge. Here it is:

According to the newspaper reports of his death he hit his head on the concrete slab seen here just above the slope before being found on the waters edge:

A sad way to go for a lonely widower.

I also drove around the Isle of Anglesea in an attempt to find the graves of further relatives, but found no tombstones that I could positively identify. Although I did find this neolithic tomb in the middle of a turnip field:

My base for the Welsh leg of my trip was a B&B in Bangor (a town known as 'Banga' to the locals), the owner of which is a lovely 73 year old Welsh lady. She was most hospitable, even to the point where she invited herself into my room to have a chat while I was wearing a towel. She then she asked to borrow £5 to pay some workmen who were doing some repairs. She paid it back. Welsh hospitality at its best.

Edinburgh:
Love it. I reckon this trip has taught me that I'm a big city kind of guy. Edinburgh has just the right amount of charm and pace. Not so big that it's pretentious, but not so small that its totally predictable. Had a fun day with MTC buddy Lynne Wilson as we checked out the vista from Calton Hill:

Terry and Ruth Johnston have warmly welcomed me into their home, which is nice given that I'm almost a stranger to them (I met Terry once in Sydney five years ago).

Tomorrow I'm heading to Dundee to see Doug and Hannah Forbes. Less than a week to go before I'm back. Getting very tired now.

Old dart #3 - Britian's other side

2007-01-19T08:11:00.000+11:00

Earlier this week, before leaving Oxford, I was stopped in the street by a beggar. It was the usual request which you get in Sydney; "Can you spare a couple of coins..." Out of habit I said the usual "sorry", but then the woman said "Can you buy me some groceries?" Now it's a common thing for us Christians to have the policy of saying "No money, but food is ok" so I said "ok". The woman called her sister who was standing over the other side of the street and the five of us (me, two women, their two kids) went to the supermarket. Then they filled up their trolley with the absolute necessities (milk, cereal, bread) and I thought "gosh...they really are in need". I asked what the story was. Bridget said that she and her sister (Margaret) had just left their abusive Father, and were living in a one room bed-sit; seven of them in all. I looked at one of the kids and saw that he had a bath towel for a blanket. I asked what they were doing for rent, Bridget said "I don't know". So I gave them some cash to get them by until the end of the week.

Now this whole thing got me thinking about how screwed up people's lives can get, and how we can so easily walk by a beggar and think "they're a professional beggar, they don't really need this" when in fact they might actually be really desperate. As I was buying the groceries I was shocked to feel myself constantly thinking "They're ripping you off", when a sober judgment of the situation lead me to conclude that they were genuine. Now it might be possible that it was just an elaborate con to get me to buy groceries and then to get some cash at the end...but I really don't think this was the case. So what about all those other beggars who we brush so easily? Maybe it's better to risk getting conned for the sake of grace. Is this a way we can live out the Biblical concept of grace triumphing over evil? I think it might be.

Please pray for Bridget and Margaret, that they will somehow get things back on track.

Old dart #2 - I know the weather is usually bad, but...

2007-01-19T07:59:00.000+11:00

Today 8 people died in Britain because of massive winds. I drove from Sheffield to Bangor (NW Wales), right through the worst of it. Outside Manchester this semi-trailer had been blown off its wheels and crushed a hatchback. I drove right past it; it looked really nasty. I also visited the town my ancestors came from (Rhyl on the Northern Welsh coast). It was literally too windy to get out of the car for fear of being blown into something or of having something blown into you. On the news they said that Rhyl had winds of up to 82 mph. I don't know what that is in kmh, but I know its a lot. Tomorrow should be better. And I thought Oz was meant to be a harsh environment...

Old dart

2007-01-17T08:29:00.001+11:00

Since late Dec I've been in the UK. Here's the low down on the past couple of weeks, along with a couple of photos (and with a tip of the hat to all the fun and games which happen over at Byron's blog, I've decided to award points - see text for details):

The flight:
Flew to Tokyo then over Siberia into the arctic circle then down again into the UK. Amazing scenery. I had a stop over in Japan, and on the morning of my connecting flight I was having breakfast in the hotel (wearing my free RICE t-shirt ... thanks Steve!) when an Australian woman and her husband started looking at the logo and asked "What's that about...is it Christian?" I said "Yeah I'm studying theology etc", then she said "my son went to Moore...you might know him...Justin Moffatt!!!" Crazy small world we live in. The Moffatt's were coming back after visiting Justin in NY. So it was nice having breakfast with them. Jet lag was minimal. But I did crash at 10pm on NYE. Bummer. First points will be difficult...Appoximately where on the north Russian coast was this photo taken? Hint: it's near a coloured sea.

London:
What a town. I could definately live in London. The buildings are big, the pulse is ... pulsating (?!), the pace is frantic. It was cool to see some of the stuff that I've studied at uni and at college; codex siniaticus, various paintings from the old masters etc. People really know how to dress here...everything is very stylish. People also seem taller. Is that beause all the short convicts were sent to Australia? Saw Henry VIII's suit of armor. He was a fat dude. Only disapointment was the Wimbledon tour. No access to centre court (they are rebuilding) and limited behind-the-scenes moments. I was also soaked.

Old friends in London:
Had a fun afternoon and evening with Erin King And Fiona Macfarlane (Evan's sister for all you MTC people), two old friends from Sydney Uni BA days. Erin (she's the one on the left) is in publishing and Fiona is a Cambridge PhD grad in English currently working on her first novel while living in a writing commune in the US . We had really bad chinese food, but lots of laughs.

Church:
I have been to church 6 times since arriving (Gosh...that's a lot!). Maybe its because I have deliberately sought out some different experiences while over here but the English church seems to be a much more complex beast than I originally thought. An extra element which we don't seem to have a lot of back home are the charismatic evangelical Anglicans. They seem to be really moving and doing impressive things. When they find out that I'm from Sydney they all ask about Hillsong. Some even think it's an Anglican church...HAHAHAHAHA!!! Hillsong...a Sydney Anglican church...oh stop it!!! Notes on my church visits are as follows:

All Soul's Langham Place (2 visits): Rico Tice spoke both times, he's really good. Music was very professional with strings and brass sections. Perhaps a little too reserved? But I liked it nonetheless.

St Nicholas' Tooting: Smaller evangelical church in the south west of London (Erin King's church). Incredibly warm welcome. Nice mix of nationalities and ages.

Holy Trinity Brompton: The famous HTB. High energy with a real buzz around the place. I was impressed with the amount of different ministries that they carry out and the high level of lay participation throughout the church in all their activities. They also produced a very slick information brochure.

St Paul's Cathedral: Attended evensong on NYE. An unusual experience to say the least. The worshippers were at the front, while at the back many many tourists would wander in and out as the service progressed. The sermon was on the incarnation, and had a discernable evangelistic tone ("This Jesus has come into our existence to lift us out of darkness") So that was refreshing. Unfortunately the moments of clarity were accompanied by more unhelpful comments: "As Jesus came into the world in weakness, we search for him in the weak things of this world." Hmmmm...not sure those two dots are connected. Aside from the service, the building is absolutely breathtaking. This left me in two minds. Sure God is worth our architectual best, but is such building a distraction???

Oxford:
At first Oxford seems a little disapointing. Sure there are lots of old buildings but if you walk around the main streets no great vistas jump ot at you. To see the charm of Oxford you have to go searching a bit and hear some of the stories. To this end my old friend Tom Hanna wasa great help (see next section). Oxford is also a little creepy. The church were Cranmer was tried was a little sobering. It's quite dark and cold looking, and when you know that evil things transpired there it kinda gives you the creeps. The colleges look really old and in disrepair. One thing I have noticed is that in Australia we are quicker to restore our physical heritage. Perhaps we take it less for granted? More points...and I'll make you work for 'em. Which two Oxford collages can be seen in this photo? Hint: the photo was taken from Christ Church meadow.

Old friends in Oxford:
Tom Hanna (pictured with his girlfriend Sophie) gave me an entertaining and and informative night-time tour of the centre of town. It was good to see him and experience his humour again. We also had some Chinese that was much better than the stuff I had in London. Mike and Catherine Jensen have also been very hospitible. On one occasion I went shopping for long sleave shirts with Mike. HAHAHAHAHA, that's so metrosexual of us (those who know MPJ will know how funny that is, he is a well dressed man).

Cambridge:
Cambridge is much prettier on the eye than Oxford, and smaller too. The evangelical heritage in Cambridge is much more prominent than in Oxford; the Round Church have a display which focuses on the reformers and later evangelicals and they also run religious history tours around the city. The people also seem to be more relaxed. It was fun to ride a bike around the city, but my bum got really sore. Points for this famous Cambridge landmark

That's it for the first half of my trip. The second will see me move further north into Yorkshire, Wales and Scotland.

As a postscript here are two signs which I found on St Edward's church in Cambridge, a building which served as the cradle of the English Reformation. The first one shows how far we've come. Also I would have loved to have attended the 'Goth Eucharist'...how very emergent!

On reading and interpreting scripture

2006-12-05T02:06:00.000+11:00

A well known preacher here in Sydney has often been heard to say that evangelicals are not in the business of “interpreting” scripture. I’ve always thought this was an odd thing to say. Surely this is exactly what we are doing when we come to a passage which is hard to understand and which doesn’t present itself with immediate clarity. Surely we are “interpreting” the text when we translate from Greek and Hebrew into English. What is this preacher talking about? Is he advocating an approach where we just respond to an unaided reading of the text, with no recourse to commentaries or other aids when trying to unlock the difficult bits?

It’s helpful to realise that we can mean different things when we talk about “interpretation”. For example, “interpretation” can mean:

1. translation;
2. uncovering the meaning of a particular text when the text is from another culture;
3. attaching meaning to a text from our own context and experience, hence providing an “interpretation”.

I think it’s this last one which the preacher in question is arguing against. It’s worth considering the difference between the last two options given above.

Often those who might oppose our reading of a text will say “That’s just your interpretation!” But as an evangelical, I don’t see myself as providing an “interpretation”. Rather I’m seeking to “read” rather than “interpret”, and this “reading” uses the tools of exegesis and history to uncover the text’s original meaning from its cultural and grammatical context. This assumes that the text has an original purpose and meaning, and that this original purpose and meaning is still worth our attention. I guess in doing this we are seeking an interpretation according to definition 2 above, but I would call this “reading” rather than “interpreting.”

On the other hand, there are some approaches which seek to remove the text from its context, leaving it as an entity in itself. This text then has meaning attached to it from modern contexts. While it’s an appealing idea to see texts “released” so that they can do many weird and wonderful things, I think that too much is lost with this approach. My fear is that we end up ‘bastardising’ the text; we leave it without an origin. And by removing the text from its origin we only enslave it to our own context; we use it to tell our own story. We may as well not play games and just say what we think, avoiding the temptation to marry our opinions to a text which we have “neutralized.” This is especially important if the original context still has very real implications which are imposed upon us. Because the NT texts were born from the context of a resurrected Lord who is still ruling and claiming his rights over us today, then they are texts which cannot be “interpreted” in separation from the ongoing rule of the risen Lord Jesus, and are also texts which still have a claim on us who live under his Lordship.

So what can we say about “interpretation”? It’s true that we must “read” the text and not “interpret” it, if interpretation means reading our own stories and experiences into a passage which has been divorced from its context. But “reading” does not simply mean “reading” like we would read a novel. It means reading with an eye to the ground out of which the text was born, a ground which saw Jesus rise from the dead and establish his ongoing rule, a rule which carries the original meaning of the NT through to our current context.

I hope all that makes some sense. It is 1.59AM after all. I guess I’m trying to tie the ongoing relevance of scripture to the ongoing Lordship of Christ. Perhaps I’ll write some more on this issue one of these days, at a more thought friendly hour.

Exam report card

2006-12-02T17:13:00.000+11:00

The MTC third year exams which finished last week were really hard work. I thought that nothing could be harder than second year, but I was wrong. One week later and only now am I feeling like I haven’t been hit by a truck. Here’s my take on each of the exams…

Old Testament 3 (theology)
This was our opening exam and the one which took the most preparation. The paper consisted of three compulsory questions drawn from a pool of 16 which were known to all candidates, plus one unseen question which we could pick from a number of options. Sound complicated? Yeah, not the most straightforward affair. Even though we knew the questions they were really hard and took a bit of research. This meant that while we actually learnt a lot of OT Theology, our preparation for the rest of the exams suffered. The lecturer who set the paper’s format but was on sabbatical during second semester so we couldn’t go and exact our revenge. I’m not sure how we would have done this, but some disciplinary action was necessary.

This paper receives a C.

Old Testament 3 (exegesis)
No real surprises here, but the texts which were set were only parts of larger compositional units. This made it hard to talk about structure…“This text forms ¾ of a chiasm.” Awkward.

I give this paper a B+

New Testament 3 (theology)
Again no real surprises. The questions followed the syllabus fairly closely, to the point where some questions allowed for exact regurgitations of particular set readings. The paper could have been improved by adding another question to the Pauline theology section (only three options to choose from), but the questions here were interesting enough, although predictable:

How useful is it to search for a ‘centre’ in Paul’s theology?

and

Asses the view that Paul was ‘called’ and not ‘converted’ on the Damascus road.

The New Perspective question felt a little impossible:

What is the essence of the ‘New Perspective’ understanding of Pauline theology?

This is like asking “what is the essence of being Australian” or “what is the essence of being male”. You know it when you see it (although in Newtown…), but it’s many things nonetheless.

This paper receives a B+

New Testament 3 (exegesis)
This year’s NT3 exams were both two hours in length, which I felt made the whole experience a little easier. The one common complaint was that the texts in this year’s exegetical paper were a little long, so after translation there wasn’t enough time to make adequate comments. But, the new format included a new section where no translation was required but where theological comment was asked for on a pair of related verses. Interesting.

This paper deserves an A-.

Doctrine 3
This was the paper I was least prepared for. Thankfully it was devoid of Robert Doyle’s mega-long, quotation-based questions. They were shorter and to the point, which was nice. Most people found four questions which they felt comfortable answering, but it seems that they were the same four questions for everybody. I even answered two on eschatology, which was my least prepared area in my least prepared subject.

I give Doctrine 3 a B+

Ethics 3
I worked really hard for this one. Ethics was something I struggled with all year, but I was determined to get it. I reckon it finally came to me in the days before, which is a good thing. The paper was the best of the lot; questions were stretching but accurately reflected the content of the course and enabled us to apply the skills which the course attempted to teach us. Some of the wording was interesting and betrayed certain presuppositions:

Are Christian ethics relevant to people to people who are not Christians? Illustrate your answer with reference to Old Testament Israel.

Can we call OT Israel “Christian”? Hmmm…

“Unplanned motherhood represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as an equivalent to a ‘death of self’.” In a society where abortion is legal, what can Christians do to undermine its ‘attraction’?

That the Christian would want to undermine abortion assumes a certain stance, so this question can be seen to jump down the path of ethical logic a little too quickly. Nonetheless, the question of the application of a certain moral position is an interesting and important one, and it’s refreshing to break out of first order questions and to get to the pointy issue of acting upon moral theory.

Speaking of which, the last question was a real cracker and was compulsory for all taking the exam:

A cohabiting couple, who are not Christians, come to you in some distress. The woman is not yet pregnant yet yearns to have a child. The man professes to love the woman, but insists that he will leave her if she falls pregnant. They agree to several meetings with you.
What Christian moral arguments about this situation will you seek to outline and persuade the couple of, and what suggestions, advice and/or instructions about what to do will you offer?

Wow. That’s what the whole course is getting at; enabling us to actually be effective in that situation.
Well done Andrew Cameron. You get an A+.

Back again...again

2006-11-28T17:50:00.000+11:00

Ok, I think I can see how this is going to work. I'll post like mad for a couple of weeks and then go all quiet for a month and a half. That's been the pattern so far; I have the desire to blog, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not blog when I want to blog, but the non-blogging I do not want is what I keepon doing. What a wretched blogger am I! Who will deliver me from this body of Cyber-death? Thanks be to the summer holidays...

Seriously, the last 6 weeks or so has seen me in an examination frenzy here at MTC, so that's why things have been a little quiet. But posts to come include my report card on the MTC third year examination questions, more in the AIDS/HIV series, and some stuff on singleness and also some thoughts on hermeneutics. Fun fun fun!

Making room for women?

2006-10-13T19:51:00.000+10:00

At church we've just finished a sermon series on relationships and it's raised a few questions in my mind concerning our theologies of gender.

As men, is it patronising to speak of providing a "safe" emotional and relational place for women? The biological differences between the sexes means that physically the provision of a safe place is necessary, but how much of our help do women need in other areas? At uni I was stuck in the situation where one female friend told me "men need to make room", and another said "we don't want men to make room, we need to do it ourselves and it's patronising to suggest otherwise." During sunday's sermon I addressed the men saying:

When we use affirming language, we create a relationally secure environment. Our sisters will feel that they can contribute without fear of unfair rejection or dismissal. And if we create that environment, then that's an environment where our sisters will thrive and flourish. And we want our sisters to thrive and flourish don't we? That's good for everyone, and most of al it's good for our sisters.

Was this patronising? Why should a sister have to rely on me for them to contribute to the church? Sure there's a place for encouragement, but it's not primarily up to me to give a sister confidence, surely that confidence should come first from her identity in Jesus. To suggest that she needs me to make the first move does, I fear, leave us with a sense where the woman is still subjugated in a way.

What do people think??? Do men need to make room?

A Christian Response to HIV/AIDS #2

2006-10-10T20:23:00.000+10:00

I think a helpful first question we can ask concerns how we arrived at this point. What can we say about the beginning of the AIDS crisis? Perhaps if we look at the root cause we can start building a response.

A firm biological answer as to how we received this virus remains elusive. Most scientists agree that HIV is a mutated form of a similar virus found in African primates, but there is debate as to how the virus spread to humanity. Some researchers argue that African hunters who were killing and eating chimpanzees and other apes and monkeys were the first to be exposed to the virus, while others suggest that HIV was first spread by a contaminated polio vaccine which was issued to over a million people in central Africa during the late 1950s. The theory is that the vaccine was prepared using infected monkey livers in a laboratory.

However, the scriptures do give us a firm theological answer as to why we have diseases like AIDS:

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8.22-23)

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that there is something wrong with the world. AIDS isn’t the only symptom; earthquakes, tsunamis, cancer and human conflict all suggest that our world is not functioning as it should. In the above passage from Romans, Paul writes that the world is “groaning” under the strain of all the suffering and decay that’s going on, and we humans who are living as part of this world are groaning as well. The human race is a burdened race.

When we look back at Romans chapter 5, we see that there is one underlying cause behind all these burdens:

Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5.12)

Here we see the beginning of AIDS. When our first ancestors sinned in the Garden of Eden, it wasn’t just a case of a man and his wife eating an apple. This was the point when sin and death grabbed hold of the world, setting up shop in God’s creation. And once sin and death established themselves it’s as if they vomited all over God’s good and wonderful creation, spoiling it and leaving us with things like earthquakes, cancer, human selfishness, and HIV/AIDS.

Near the university where I used to study there was this one particular Victorian-era terrace. It was fairly run down and in need of renovation, but instead of being sold to a renovator it remained empty except for some squatters who had moved in. It wasn’t long before graffiti appeared on the walls and soon all the windows had been broken. When you looked through the windows there were mattresses on the floor which were all soiled with rubbish and syringes lying about the place. What was once a beautiful and desirable creation was now ruined. You could still see and work out how the building was meant to look like, but the present reality was far from glorious. I think this is a great metaphor for our world. Sin and evil and death have moved in and they’ve made our world far from perfect, leaving us with the rubbish and soil of disease. That’s the origin of the current HIV epidemic.

Why is it important to know this origin of HIV?

1. It puts AIDS into context.
As long as there is sin, there will always be disease – its part and parcel of living in a fallen world. We may not always have AIDS – we might find a cure one day – but we will always have epidemics of one sort or another. This doesn’t mean that we just shrug our shoulders and say “oh well, nothing we can do about it, we’ll always have this issue.” Scripture demands that we respond, and we’ll get to that response in future posts, but it does mean that we don’t have to loose our heads about this. AIDS doesn’t mean that God has lost control; rather it means that God in his wisdom has allowed sin and death to remain in his world for a time. So we live in a world where AIDS is a reality, because sin and death is a reality.

2. Knowing the origin of AIDS gives us a hint as to the nature of a possible solution. Get rid of sin and death, then you rid the world not only of AIDS but of all diseases.

Our next post will take up further the possibility of a final solution.

A Christian Response to HIV/AIDS #1

2006-10-04T00:41:00.000+10:00

In Australia, somewhere between 12-18,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS. Each year just under 100 people die from HIV/AIDS related illnesses, and each year sees 700-1000 new cases of HIV infection.

Once we move into the developing world though, things are very different.

The World Health Organisation estimates that 40 million people world-wide are currently infected with either strand of HIV, the worst effects being felt in Africa. In Sub-Saharan Africa, between 25-28 million people are infected with HIV. 2.3 million people die from AIDS related illnesses each year, and there are 3.4 million new cases every 12 months. Out of all the African nations, Botswana is the worst effected. Over 1/3 of all adults living in Botswana are infected with HIV. It’s estimated that because of AIDS the average life expectancy for adults in Botswana will plummet to 29 years by 2010. And of course, apart from those living with HIV, there are those family members who are affected. By 2010, it’s estimated that there will be at least 25 million African children who will have lost one or both parents to the disease.

In the face of such horrific statistics we can feel absolutely helpless; numbed by the shear enormity of the problem. Not doing anything can even seem like a viable option. Why waste time and effort on a battle you will only loose? However, as Christian people we have a hope which leads us to banish such defeatist logic:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Rev 21.3-4)

Because of the final victory of Jesus Christ we can afford to have confidence in the face of such tragedy. This post is the first in a series which will explore how we as Christians can respond to this sad epidemic which is unfolding across the globe. How can we think about this event and what can we do to help? As Christian people we are unique in the world. We follow a unique Lord and we have a unique message, so we will also have a unique response to this tragedy; we’ll have our own unique contribution to make.

I hope you find the series stimulating yet productively unsettling.

The stats in this post are from Weinreich and Benn, AIDS, Meeting the Challenge: Data, Facts, Background (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2004).

Al Gore preaches up a storm

2006-09-27T21:31:00.000+10:00

Last night Naomi and Alistair and I went to see the Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth (check out the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiP6dqPynE). It’s been billed as “the most terrifying film of the [northern] summer” and yeah, it’s a little concerning.

Aside from being shocked about how unhealthy we’ve made the planet it got me thinking about the issue of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Recently I’ve been praying for more rain, convinced in my Calvinism that ultimately it’s God’s sovereignty which will save us all from thirsty deaths, and it’s God’s sovereignty which led us to the position in the first instance. But Al Gore reminded me in no uncertain terms that the blame for our current situation can be placed quite squarely on human factors.

Now theologically I’m confident that I can reconcile this. For every action there is a divine and a non-divine agent, with the divine agent acting for holy and good reasons and the non-divine agent possibly acting with unholy motives (as hinted by Gen 50.20 and Acts 2.23). So our culpability in causing global warming is upheld, but God’s role in bringing it about can still be recognised without him being held guilty.

While I have applied this model to other natural phenomena, up until now I have not been particularly struck by the consequences of there being a human element in global warming. I knew that human activity was responsible for the situation, but my prayer in response to the crisis betrayed an overly theo-centric approach to the issue. The solution was to pray for God’s intervention, and to try and remember to start sorting my garbage every now and then. But the obvious human element involved in global warming has made me think that my prayers (and behaviour) should change. If I want the situation to improve, then shouldn’t repentance be a first step?

I know that by using the word ‘repentance’ it sounds as if contributing to global warming is a sin. Whether it is a sin is an interesting and important question, but this is not an avenue I wish to explore fully in this post. However, that global warming is our fault and that I want God to intervene suggests that some sort of repentance is called for, be it a moral repentance or merely a change from what is essentially a neutral behaviour. Either way, I do think that a recognition of our responsibility should be incorporated into our heavenly petitions. If God is not the only agent, then why have I prayed as if he is???

Does anyone have any clearer thoughts on this?
Is global warming a sin?
Is it possible to ‘repent’ from something which is not a sin? If so, how is this different to just ‘changing your mind’?

My Jesus my boyfriend...

2006-09-25T14:18:00.000+10:00

A common complaint among us evangelicals is that many of our contemporary church songs sound too much like love ballads. I remember seeing a South Park episode where Cartman starts a Christian Band. He decides that this would be an easy thing to do because all that's required is to take an already existing love song and change the word 'baby' to 'Jesus' in the lyrics. But is there really that much of a problem with songs addressed to God which are so heartfelt that they lean towards a romantic expression of faith?

The image of the church being the bride of Christ is one worth considering. What is this metaphor trying to communicate? Is it merely another way of expressing the first commandment; that we as God's people are to be loyal to our creator as a bride is to be loyal to her husband? Is it speaking about how we are under Christ's headship as a bride is under the headship of her husband? Certainly the answer to these questions must be a "yes", but can we see more in the metaphor? It seems that from God's perspective, that he is "married" to his people gives rise to an emotive element within the relationship (eg Ezekiel 16). So as far as the divine to human perspective is concerned, the marriage between God and his people not only describes the functions of the relationship but the emotive aspects as well. As one fellow student asked in a lecture on the process of salvation: "Might God woo us?" Indeed he might! So if strong emotion flows from the divine to us, why do we baulk at letting it flow the other way? Why not allow ourselves to be 'wooed' like a bride might allow herself to be 'wooed' by her husband? Granted, when we sing three "I love you Lord" songs in a row at church, I do start to wish for a little more thought to be put into arranging the song order. But perhaps there is a stronger warrant for 'romantic' songs in church than we might sometimes care to admit.

Back again

2006-09-25T14:08:00.000+10:00

Ah yes, back to the blog. I've been sidetracked by other things over the past month, and when starting this blog I promised myself that it wouldn't become an all devouring monster that sucked up all my time. So I guess its good to see that I've been able to be disciplined. However, last night at church Mark Stephens (who needs to start his own blog where he can write his thoughts and post his wonderful sermons) said "I checked out your blog last night, you haven't updated it in a while". Opps, yeah thats right...that blog thing... so my goal is a couple of posts a week. We'll see how we go.

Good Preaching #3

2006-08-16T15:13:00.000+10:00

Last weekend a friend of mine announced that he had started attending a Pentecostal church after years ministering in a 'typical' Sydney Anglican setting. His most startling comment was that for the first time since high school (he is now in his mid 20s) he is now reading his Bible in a devotional way. He says that the preaching he's now hearing is getting him excited about God and about what can be found in Scripture. What were we doing wrong to deprive this man of the affective wonder of God's word? Here's a thought:

Could our use of the Bible from the pulpit and in the small group Bible study be feeding an approach to Scripture which is about knowing things about God rather than knowing God himself? Such an approach could lead us along the path of Gnosticism; saved, kept and fed solely by information and not by an informed relationship. Yes knowledge is important, but in the sense that it feeds our relationship with the one we have knowledge about. To fail to draw out and make this connection in our preaching is a severe discrepancy. This is the problem with common statement that our goal in preaching is to 'help people be able to read the Bible'. Unless that help includes a renewed passion for being a child of the Almighty then I fear that we aren't teaching people to read the Bible at all. At best we are giving a lesson in hermeneutics; helpful to a point, but not adequate on its own.

Aside from this issue, there is a problem with our current obsession over ministry 'training'. I saw one document recently which suggested that the goal of ministry was to raise up other ministers and to train them to train and raise up more ministers who will then train others to train others to train others etc. So who actually does the ministry? Yeah, training is important, and we need to provide for subsequent generations, but the problem with this approach is exemplified in the attitude of my friend mentioned above. He never stopped to enjoy his status as a loved child of God. Why? Because his church and university Christian group taught him that being Christian was all about serving others and training others to serve others; about doing and not being. If we had more 'be' along side the 'do' then we would be in a better state of spiritual health.

Of course these issues aren't found everywhere in the Anglican Church in Sydney (of which I'm a proud member), but I fear that they are issues which we are particularly susceptible to. It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on our own particular temptations.

Good Preaching Part 2

2006-08-16T15:09:00.000+10:00

Preaching error #1: preach just in order to explain the content of scripture, thinking that by doing this you are “teaching people how to read the Bible”.
Preaching error #2: preach in a way which is overly anthropocentric, meeting the congregation’s needs as only the congregation sees them. This is nothing more than a baptized episode of Dr Phil.
A better approach: apply divine scripture to the hopes and aspirations of those who have gathered together, allowing God to form and mould those hopes and aspirations to be those which he wants them to have.

What makes for good preaching?

2006-08-10T00:27:00.000+10:00

Recently I've developed the habit of listening to a variety of preachers from around the globe. This started as a professional development thing, but it's also turned out (surprise surprise) to be an incredibly edifying hobby. One of the most enjoyable has been Greg Laurie from the west coast of the US. Exegetically he can miss the mark at times (who is going to cast the first stone?), but he is sure worth a listen...so darn clear in his presentation, and you end up thinking "Man, its good to be Christ-follower." Now there are two goals that I reckon we should be aiming for when firing from the pulpit. So now I'm interested, what do like hearing from the pulpit/lecturn/stage/podcast?

How might we be saved?

2006-08-09T14:35:00.000+10:00

Last night was the first of the 2006 Annual Moore Theological College Lectures, with Gerald Bray presenting his first paper in a series of five theological reflections on the Lord's Prayer. This, I think, is a very helpful undertaking; to dive into the theology of what GB has called the 'first systematic statement of theology that we have.' Within what was a pastorally helpful hour, GB did make a claim that because the Father is in Heaven, he is in a position to save us. It's his transcendence which enables him to come into our mire and lift us out of trouble.

This got me thinking. Didn't one of the Cappadocians (I forget which one) say that you cannot save that which is not assumed? This opens up the whole question of how our salvation works... a big, big issue (and perhaps very presumptuous to attempt to tackle it here). But I think at the very least we've got to hold to both the necessity of God's transcendence and his immanence for our salvation; his transcendence because we can't save ourselves, his immanence because our selves need saving. Another reason why the uniqueness of Christ as the God-man is a wonderful thing to hold on to. I'm sure GB would agree entirely. In fact, I'm sure that he was only reflecting on one aspect of the atonement (an aspect particularly relevant to the first clause of the Lord's Prayer), but the balance is something worth reflecting on.

Now on to more prep for Sunday's sermon: Mark 8.22-9.1

OK, here I am!!!

2006-08-09T14:31:00.000+10:00

OT essay is over, so now it’s down to blogging. There are numerous reasons why I've decided to join the ranks of the cyber-savvy. First of all, it seems to be a trend at the moment, and I'm a sucker for fashion, so here I am. Secondly I learn when I write so this provides the space to do some reflection. Third, I enjoy reading and posting on other peoples pages so I really should start my own. Fourth, its the way of the future baby, so I'm on board. Fifth, I can't let Byron or MPJ get away with all the stuff that they post (Ha ha!! Just kidding guys, I do appreciate your posts). So with that fist-full of reasons its off we go!

So what can you expect? I'll post some theo-reflective stuff, but will also throw in some personal things as well; we are people and not just thoughts after all. Some times some weird stuff happens in my life, so every now and again I'll put that in, and I might post some of my sermons or essays too.

Happy reading!

First post...

2006-07-31T01:00:00.000+10:00

...will perhaps happen after the OT essay is done.

You talkin' to me?

Miracles and Christian Ministry #1

Leadership lessons from the Kitchen

Hi Roger

The humility of Thomas

"No one is blind in heaven..."

On the couch with St Paul #1

Church and Spirit #5

Church and Spirit #4

Church and Spirit #3

Church and Spirit #2

Church and Spirit #1

Back to basics with Schleiermacher

Was SJ Kirkby Sydney's Barth?

Sydney's theology of hope #2

RIP Red Rocket, 2000-07

way way cool

Sydney's theology of hope #1

Luther on Friendship

The Boroughs of Sydney...

A good book to read...

Postcards from Karl #5

Pannenberg on the ascension

Postcards from Karl #4

Life in a Northern Town

Moore Mission Madness - Sunday #2

Moore Mission Madness - Sunday

Lost love

Luke 2.30-32

After Dresden

Saturday night, sometime during 2000

Postcards from Karl #3

Procrastination #3

Procrastination #2

Moore Books goes Arminian...

Postcards from Karl #2

Postcards from Karl #1

Digital Humanity #4

Digital Humanity #3

Hauerwas on singleness

Digital Humanity #2

Calvin on John Chapman House

Digital Humanity #1

Leadership #5

Leadership #4

Leadership #3

Leadership #2

The answer...

A question...

Leadership # 1

H*p H*p Hooray

Old dart #6 - Home again

Old Dart #5 - More Caledonia

Old dart #4 - moving north

Old dart #3 - Britian's other side

Old dart #2 - I know the weather is usually bad, but...

Old dart

On reading and interpreting scripture

Exam report card

Back again...again

Making room for women?

A Christian Response to HIV/AIDS #2

A Christian Response to HIV/AIDS #1

Al Gore preaches up a storm

My Jesus my boyfriend...

Back again

Good Preaching #3

Good Preaching Part 2

What makes for good preaching?

How might we be saved?

OK, here I am!!!

First post...

Hp Hp Hooray