bec walker's blog

Works of social justice are signs of the Kingdom.

2009-03-24T19:07:00.000+11:00

I have recently read N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope. This is a greatly needed corrective to the dualistic view of the afterlife that much of the church holds.

To summarise this view, heaven is seen as being a purely spiritual place, that is diametrically opposed to the material world, which is seen as evil. This dualism comes from Greek philosophical thought, which elevated the spiritual and despised the material.

Biblical views however do not make these distinctions. Spiritual does not necessarily = good, and material does not necessarily = evil. For that matter, heaven does not necessarily = spiritual, and earth does not necessarily = material.

From these Greek categories, we have fallen into believing that the afterlife will be an entirely spiritual reality, where our bodies will be discarded, and we will float on clouds, playing harps.

In brief, as N. T. Wright highlights, the bible teaches that after a time all the dead in Christ will rise in bodies, as Christ did. Our bodies will be physical (Christ ate after His resurrection) and glorified (Christ appeared/disappeared at will). The new heavens and new earth, as described in Rev 20-21, will be the fusing of heaven and earth together. God will make His home amongst man. The presence of God will no longer be in the temple, or just in believers through the indwelling of the Spirit, but will light up the city of God. He will wipe every tear from our eyes, and revelation also speaks of “the healing of the nations”.

This is an altogether PHYSICAL understanding of the new creation. For this reason we cannot see salvation as a purely spiritual matter. We are not just trying to save souls. We are trying to save WHOLE PEOPLE.

When Christ was on earth, he did miracles and proclaimed that “the Kingdom of God is near”. His signs and miracles pointed forward to the consummation of the kingdom where there will be health, freedom and people will be fed. Thus His miracles consisted of healing people, setting them free from oppression and feeding them.

When we challenge unjust social structures that hold people in bondage – that is a sign of the Kingdom. When we feed the hungry – that is a sign of the Kingdom. When we liberate the oppressed – that is a sign of the Kingdom. When we work for the conservation and sustainable stewardship of the earth – that is a sign of the Kingdom.

Christ did not just preach the word; He accompanied the word with the signs that would confirm the coming of His Kingdom. When we do works of social justice, we continue Christ’s work, we point forward to the Kingdom.

God bless,
Bec

Attractional model of church growth

2009-03-22T19:05:00.001+11:00

I do not believe that the attractional model of church growth is biblical. The foundation of Christian evangelism and mission, is the Great Commission where we are told “to go out”…

Often the disciples inviting people to “come and see” Jesus is cited as a biblical basis for the attractional model. I would point out the following, those who did the inviting had already seen Jesus, and gone out from Jesus to their friends in order to invite them back to meet Jesus. So this is an example of going out, not attracting people in. Secondly, inviting people to meet Jesus is not the same as inviting them to church. Sometimes people who are invited to church MIGHT meet Jesus there. But people might meet Jesus just as easily walking past the station, or crying on the lounge room floor. Sometimes coming to church is an impediment to people meeting Jesus.

I think this really comes out of two things. Firstly, people are scared to be evangelists in their everyday lives. It’s uncomfortable, if you would really prefer Christianity to be a Sunday thing that we compartmentalise away from the Monday to Saturday “real life”. Secondly, we don’t feel that we’re as “holy” as our Pastors and leaders, so even if someone does come to Christ, how can we be sure that they said the right version of the sinner’s prayer?

So the question really is, how do we empower Christians to see themselves as being on the frontline in God’s mission? That they are where people will meet Jesus. In the workplace, in the home, in the supermarket?

Pastors need to be freed up from DOING the “saving” via means of the attractional / altar-call methodology to do what they are supposed to be doing, equipping the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph 4).

God bless,
Bec

Church Structure & Institutionalisation is a Stronghold

2009-03-20T19:02:00.001+11:00

I’m coming to think that church structure and institutionalisation is a stronghold that as a Christian community we need to overcome if we are going to be effective in spreading the gospel in our increasingly secular society.

Many of the problems we face as a church come out of making a lot of assumptions about what church should be. If we challenge those assumptions, solutions to the problems we are facing start appearing.

For example, many churches spend a lot of time, money and effort on building projects. During these periods effort and resources are diverted from mission and evangelism into getting buildings built. The argument goes, we can’t support more growth if we don’t have room for people.

However, there are a number of assumptions underlying this problem. Firstly, there is the assumption that the church needs to stay together. Why do we assume this? Why do we assume that it is only the “church planters” and “missionaries” that should be going out into the world? It seems to me that the assumption that we have to stay together drives the decision to buy property. I think a kingdom focus would see these times as an opportunity. An opportunity to plant a new church, ensuring the ongoing flexibility and mobility of the church for mission & evangelism. We need to remember how in Acts the Holy Spirit used the persecution of the church in Jerusalem to break up their cosy little community, and drive them out into the world to fulfil the Great Commission.

The second assumption is that physical space equals social space. Many churches have empty pews. There is physical space for many more people. However, that does not necessarily mean that there is social space for people. Churches tend to be very clique-y, and the use of religious jargon is an impediment for many. Most importantly though, we fail abysmally in showing people (inside or outside the church) the kind of radical, self-sacrifical love and grace that Christ showed us. Having someone meet you in the carpark is not the same as being loved unconditionally and extravagantly by your enemy.

And there are so many more examples… My point is we have to stop assuming that things have to look the way they always have. We need to challenge our assumptions. If we keep doing what we are doing, and expect different results… well we all know the saying… that’s the definition of insanity. Just as the structures of the world institutionalise injustice and need to be challenged, so do church structures that get in the way of the people of God living out the gospel in a secular society.

God bless,
Bec

The Victorian Bush Fires

2009-02-10T11:16:00.005+11:00

As I wake up this morning the death toll stands at 173. I feel numb. There have been fires in Diamond Creek which is about 20 minutes away. It all feels so close, and yet still so far away. On Saturday we stayed in, closeted from the heat by our airconditioning units. For us it was a very pleasant sort of day, spent reading and sleeping. But then we hear that there are friends of friends who have died. Children have died. It is so horrific. 24 fires are still burning. It's not over.

Yesterday we saw the Slumdog Millionaire movie. Probably not the best timing. I hated it. I spent the whole time wanting to scream and/or throw up. I was extremely angry that a life so painful could be put on the movie screen for our western entertainment, or even just education. It seemed disrespectful.

I think what has made me most angry in the past few days is the sensationalism of some of the reporting. Describing the fires as hell on earth. The response of the Western world has also made me very angry. What Victoria is suffering is tragic, and the offers of help from the US and the UK are very heart warming, but what about the millions that die everyday in the third world? What about the people that die everyday in numbers far greater than 173, that we ignore while we live in cushy-western-lives. But somehow suffering is worse when it's Western suffering.

It seems to me we have a real opportunity here. Instead of glorifying Western suffering as worse tragedy than all of the unspeakable evils that go on every day, we have an opportunity to learn from this that we are no different from the millions that suffer everyday. We are just extraordinarily, beyond-all-measure BLESSED that we don't suffer day-by-day. We do not deserve suffering less than the third world, in our substance we are no different from them. Let's take what experience we have of suffering and use it to stand alongside those who suffer everyday. Let's be present with them. Let's stop ignoring the millions that die of hunger, AIDS, or under oppression.

If it's tragic that 173 Victorians have lost their lives, how much more tragic is it that in Africa a child dies every three seconds... that means it only takes 8.65 minutes for 173 children die. Let's mourn what's happening in Victoria, but let's also open our eyes to all the other suffering in the world. It's isn't just tragic if the victims are white and live in the west. Let's remember all those that die of starvation, the women and children who are sold into sexual slavery, the child soldiers, those that die of AIDS, the children who are abandoned on piles of rubbish.

God bless,
Bec

Why I think 'The Shack' is ok

2009-01-01T12:18:00.003+11:00

'The Shack' seems to be one of those books that you either love or hate. There are some obvious issues with it, such as the simplistic way that it addresses suffering. The resolution to Mack's problems are too neat, life is rarely that tidy!

However, I would add that God deals with us each as individuals and there are times when He does resolve things neatly. He is a God of restoration and resurrection. Our ultimate hope for resolution is in the resurrection. But there are glimmers of that today. When something dies in our life, there are opportunities for something new. I firmly believe that God does take that which has died in our lives and makes something new and good. Sometimes it isn't instant, some of these good things will not be understood until the resurrection, but He has promised that He will work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Ro 8:28). In my experience I think I find it a much greater shock when He does work things out for good in the present, but as difficult as life is "I am still confident of this: I will see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living" (Ps 27:13).

What I liked about 'The Shack' however, was that there are many useful ideas in the book that many people would not encounter unless they undertook theological training. The material, by being included in a narrative, is much more approachable than a book like Alistair McGrath's Christian Theology. It also addresses some common issues in pop theology. Some of the useful things are:

The difficulty with apophatic language for understanding God
The equality of each of the members of the Trinity
That Jesus is still human, that humanity has forever been taken up into the Godhead
That God desires relationship with us
That God loves all of his children equally
That God cares when we are suffering
That love is possible because of the love within the Trinity

I really hope that some of the negative press that the book has got because of the way it inadequately deals with suffering, will not mean that people don't read it, and don't get out of it what is helpful. It like eating fish, eat the meat, spit out the bones...

God bless,
Bec

Something light hearted...

2008-11-29T17:54:00.000+11:00

I was told recently that I never write anything light hearted on my blog... This post seeks to rectify that ;-)

For a long time I have thought that "Grace" was the perfect name for a girl. Its pretty, and its theologically splendiferous. So its been the the mental list for when I (at some point in the not too close future) have kids.

Apparently friends of mine also think Grace is a great name, as they named their new little miracle Grace a few weeks ago.

The other night when I was knee-deep in exegeting Romans 5 for my final assignment for my Exegesis 1 subject I came across the following words in greek:

Eirene - "peace"
Zoe - "life"

So I now think the most perfect name for a little girl would be:
Grace Irene Zoe Walker (my soon to be surname, after wedding next Saturday).

Because that means:
Grace Peace Life Walker

And who would sneeze at GIZW as initials???

My other thought that maybe if you had two daughters calling one "Grace" and the other "Irene" would be like the way Paul signs off many of his epistles:

"Grace & Peace [go to your room] in the name of the Father, and of the Lord Jesus"

Now if that doesn't float your boat, how about:

Xara

It sounds like Sara(h) which is Hebrew for princess...
But also since X in greek is pronounced "Ch" is also the greek word "Chara" which means "Joy".
Princess Joy... what girl doesn't need to hear that? And in two of the three biblical languages!

God bless,
Bec

Joy Recovered

2008-10-21T12:24:00.000+11:00

Jim Schembri writes in today's Age about the loss of joy as we grow up. His descriptions of a child's joy are compelling:

TO SEE a child laugh is to witness joy unalloyed... And they don't need much. The simplest things can set them off. A corny hand puppet. A goofy face. A soap bubble. The way a ball bounces. The popping of a toaster. The noise a handful of crushed banana makes when they slap it into your nose while you are trying to feed them. They love it.

He further charts our attempts to reclaim that joy in hyperrealities (ala Mark Sayers):

...what would we give to recapture even a small measure of that joy? The answer is anything and everything. We devote a great part of our lives and a good portion of our money to reach that state of bliss we hear in a child's laugh. We indulge in those things that promise pleasure. Cars, carnality, big houses, pools, trophy wives, exotic foods, chemicals, herbs. We ingest them through every available sense and membrane, often to excess, all in pursuit of that elusive, exquisite feeling that will finally tell us: "This is what it is to be happy." ... Yet with each artificially induced high comes the inevitable flare-out. We realise in the hollow afterglow that something essential is missing. We don't know what, but we know it must be out there, somewhere.

He ends nowhere really, advising that we should just enjoy children being joyful. But I think there is more that can be done...

It occurs to me that there maybe a reason why as Christians we are told to be like Children (Mt 18:3-4) and also that there is such a heavy emphasis on joy in both the OT & NT.

I think that when we come into the kingdom as children, and lay down all our 'adult importance' and all our heavy burdens of life and just ACCEPT grace and love from the hand of God, the simplicity of that, the gratitude that we feel results in a childlike joy. Once again there is no complications, no chasing acceptance, nothing but finding pure joy and rest in the stopping of striving, stopping of stressing, stopping believing that we carry the world on our shoulders.

Hoping that you are experiencing the joy of your salvation today :-)

God bless,
Bec

URGENT - Please email your MLCs

2008-10-06T19:46:00.000+11:00

As you may be aware the upper house of the Victorian Parliament is debating/voting this week on the decriminalisation of abortion. This bill will mean that a woman can have an abortion for no reason up until 24 weeks, and up to 40 weeks with 2 doctors support. This bill will also mean that doctors that have a moral objection to performing abortions MUST refer women onto doctors who they know will perform the abortion. This means that the doctor is forced by law to act against their conscience. Even if one does not object to abortion, forcing people to act against their conscience is a serious erosion of democratic freedom.

If you haven't already, could you please email the Members of the Legislative Council for your region ASAP asking them to vote against the bill. The bill will probably be voted on on WEDNESDAY, so we need to email before then. From what we heard at the rally on Sunday there are still members who are undecided. This bill is subject to a conscience vote, so each member will be voting as they desire, not necessarily along party lines. So even if they are in the liberal party which normally takes a conservative view on morality issues, they MAY NOT vote against the bill.

Please be praying that the Holy Spirit will convict the consciences of those who are unsure about whether to vote for/against this bill, that He will convict them that what this bill is doing is legalising the murder of the most vulnerable members of our society, those who do not have a voice. Please pray that those who have decided to vote against the bill will hold onto their convictions and not be swayed by the pro-choice lobby.

God bless,
Bec

Sex is NOT a toy!

2008-09-13T21:14:00.000+10:00

The following report from the Age details some of the effects of not allowing children to have their innocence, by bringing them up in a society with views on sexualisation that are based on the perverted desires of adults rather than the good of children:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/children-involved-in-sex-club-20080913-4ft4.html

If children are not allowed time to grow up and mature before they are confronted with (a) information about sex (b) images of a sexualised/pornographied nature then it is no surprise that they become sexually aggressive and/or promiscuous. After all they are children, and if they try to force other children to give them toys by force, then why on earth wouldn't they use the same methods to procure sexual favours?????

We need to protect children from being prematurely exposed to both information about sex, and more particularly images that will form their views on what the sex act should look like. If their primary views on sex are formed by sexualised/porn images then they will likely not see sex as a loving thing (between a husband and wife-God forbid), since the images so often portray one party (usually the woman) in servitude to the other, and that's when there's only two people involved. They will also not be able to distinguish lust from love, and that lays a foundation for devastation and destruction in their lives. If we do not do something about this now, the next generation will likely never experience true intimacy which can only be experienced in the context of marriage, and many many more will fall victim to relationship breakdown and the devastation that accompanies that.

Sex is NOT a toy, a truth that adults need to model for children, rather than pandering to their own childish desires, damn the consequences.

God bless,
Bec

Dancing with the Stars needs to "put its knickers BACK on"

2008-09-01T11:23:00.000+10:00

Last night's season opener of Dancing with the Stars was very disappointing. There was an overwhelming amount of sexualised content, and this is particularly inappropriate considering the 7:30 time slot when children may be watching.

By the end of the third dance we had:

Daniel McPherson touching Sonia's leg
Bruno saying he couldn't keep his eyes off Sonia
The female dancers wearing hardly anything
Mark arkwardly attempting to get in on the sexualisation by referring to the dancers as "sexy"
Todd McKenny telling a dancer to take her knickers off

And if that wasn't enough, to top it off there was that move where the Sunrise reporter ran his hand between his partner's breasts. The comments that followed about that 18 year old dancer and the sexual tension between her and her partner were unnecessary.

Dancing with the stars needs to "put its knickers back on". The objectification of women is not appropriate at 7:30 or indeed in any timeslot. The objectification of women is a form of slavery. We are not here simply for the sexual delight of men.

We may be "liberated" so that we can join the workforce but while we allow men to treat us as sexual objects that exist for the sole purpose of appeasing their sexual appetites we have gained nothing. We have simply exchanged one form of slavery (house slavery) for three others (wage slavery, debt slavery and sexual slavery). We need to be vigilant about the views on women that we allow to be part of our society. This is having, and will have an enormous effect on the next generation. Girls need freedom and space to grow up not measuring themselves by how sexually attractive men find them, but instead by discovering WHO they really are, and their value in who they are, not in their:

Dress size
Breast size
Blondeness
Use of brazillian waxing services
Skimpiness of clothing

Our western culture has become completely debauched. It is time that we started treating each other with respect and dignity, and the pornification of our society has robbed us of that. There is nothing glamorous about gadding about with nothing on and having men lust after you as an object. Being the trash-can for a man's excess bodily fluids is demeaning. There is no honour or respect in it. It is not a reflection of a woman's worth or place in the world. She is beautiful and she is loved, because she was MADE BY GOD to be an object of His love (with her CLOTHES ON).

You might of picked up that I am angry. Well I am. I am fed up with this sick and twisted culture where women are pushed into conforming to an image to please men (the porn image). Where we are told that being sexually loose is freedom although it is really slavery. We conform to this because we want to be loved. When we do conform to that porn image that feeds men's weakness and creates a culture that is just as toxic and crippling for them as it is for us. It's a cycle because as much as a women conforms to that image it doesn't make men love her, they despise her, so she continues to change herself more and more. She doesn't accept that she is made in the image of God, and that the purpose of her life is to be conformed into the image of Christ, not that of Aphrodite/Venus. And men are never happy either, as much as they pursue those women that conform to the image they desire they are never truly satisfied. If they were they wouldn't need to move on to the next girl and the next girl and the next girl.

It's time to tear down our idols. Only Christ can truly satisfy.

God bless,
Bec

I think I like Mike Guglielmucci's song Healer better now...

2008-08-25T11:41:00.000+10:00

Danny Guglielmucci has made a statement about what led to Mike's cancer story:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24233308-5006301,00.html

I think I like the song Healer better now that I know it came out of a Romans 7 type struggle with sin/addiction than when it was about cancer. Certainly speaks to my life a lot more than before :-) THIS I can COMPLETELY understand. I think this situation coming out into the open is God's first step in answering Mike's prayer for healing from his sexual addiction.

I think he will look back on this time and be grateful that this became public. I think he will never forget how much damage and pain he has caused and I think it will give him opportunity to understand a fresh the grace of God towards him. This is God discipling Mike as a son (Heb 12:5-8) which is grace in itself. This means that Mike is still God's son, which makes him our brother. As the people of God I think we should seek to be a community of healing rather than judgement in this situation.

For everyone else we need to learn/remember the following things:

Deal with sin, don't hide it, God won't let it stay hidden for ever, so have a zero-tolerance policy towards sin.
Our faith needs to be based in the character of God, not of our leaders because newsbreak they are all fallible and sin, only God is 100% trustworthy.
Take the log out of our own eyes before we try to take the speck out of our brothers. And remember that when we think are 'standing firm, be careful that [we] don't fall!' (1 Cor 10:12)
God is sovereign and He will work even things like this for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28)

I really feel that so much good is going to come out of this. I feel Joel 2:25-27 is a promise for those who have experienced devastation as a result of this situation. God is passionate about restoration. He is the God of resurrection, when things die/are put to death there is opportunity for God to do something unexpected and good. As a people we need to put our hope in God that He is good enough, and big enough to make something good out of this. And considering the size of the "sin impact zone", I think this could be the beginning of a big revival in the Australian church. I think this could be something that draws people away from their false idols (church leaders, prosperity doctrine, name-it-claim-it theology, prooftexting), and back into a deep and complex faith in Christ.

God bless,
Bec

Guglielmucci, Bentley & Success

2008-08-21T14:57:00.000+10:00

It's disappointing to hear that Mike G's cancer story is a hoax. It's hard when something that looks so strong in the church is shown to be weak and sin-tainted. Similar thing happened this week with the revelations about Todd Bentley (although I have to admit no surprise on that one at all). As Christians I think we really love it when things look successful. Healer is a great song that has touched many people. Bentley's ministry looked flashy and successful. But both are now questionable.

First thing to say would be that God is entirely capable (and there is biblical evidence) for God using the ungodly for his purposes. To varying extents we are all sinful and yet God still uses us. So just because these men have been shown to be in sin does not mean that God is not at work through their ministries. I think it is illustrative that while Saul was in sin, God's anointing still rested on him as king of Israel.

Secondly, I would say that there is a problem as Christians when we love things that "look good". I think we want God to break in and establish His kingdom (and vindicate our witness) through big, flashy, undeniable displays of His power and sovereignty. I think the reason we love songs like Healer is that they do provoke deep feeling, and we think that's a sign that God is at work in a big way, and that somehow vindicates our witness. It's like evidence that supports what we've been saying. Same thing with big flashy healings. It vindicates us, brings us a bit back off the ledge, removes some of the risk of faith and witness. But I don't think that big and flashy is the way God necessarily chooses to work all the time. I think Jesus is a great example of this. He "emptied Himself and took the form of a servant", he didn't arrive as the big flashy political messiah that Israel was expecting. Instead He came and He washed His disciple's feet.

I think we should be more pleased when we see Christian leaders and the church displaying the CHARACTER of God, rather than necessarily the power of God. The power of God should be exercised in ways that are consistent with His character. I think this links in with the problems with the Church growth movement. It measures church success through numbers and tends to use marketing techniques to get people to church. I have been reflecting recently that much of what the church says to bring people to Christ sounds a lot like secular advertising. Secular advertising sets up false models of salvation. This product is going to make your life better by xyz. You are going to be bigger, better, faster, more beautiful by using product abc. This is very similar to the gospel that we sometimes preach - come to Jesus, find the purpose for your life, be happier, more at peace, God will heal all of your health issues in this life etc etc. But I don't think this is the true gospel. The true gospel is about dying, dying to self, taking up our cross and following Jesus. This is completely counter cultural, and does not look at all like the messages that we get flooded with by the world. I think the church should be functioning in ways that show this dying to self and mortifying the flesh.

The thing is that I think this is goes entirely against our ideas of success. I think our flesh loves it when we can count up church attendance and let that be a measure of what we are doing. When there are lots of people there, or lots of people buying our CD / crying during our song we see that as success, and our flesh loves it. The central point of the bible is the death of Christ--this absolutely looks like failure. The church needs to concentrate more on knowing and following Christ in His death. In the end this is all about God's glory, not the glory (success) of humans. We need to remember that His strength is made perfect in our weakness not our strength (success).

God bless,
Bec

No spine whatsoever

2008-08-08T07:15:00.000+10:00

OK I take it back, the archbishop of Canterbury has no theological or moral spine whatsover:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece

The Anglican church is quite clearly on the death march to hell if it follows this mans leadership.

God bless,
Bec

Refinement through Busyness

2008-08-07T18:37:00.000+10:00

I usually feel that God doesn't really want us to be 'busy', productive yes, busy no. I would normally say that busyness consumes us until a point that we typically can't hear God and so are spiritually cut off from our source. But I've been reflecting recently that God can actually use our busyness sometimes as a way of refining us.

This year has/is jam packed full of change and stuff to do for me. So far this year I have changed churches, been temporarily unemployed (then reemployed by same employer!), become a life group leader and gotten engaged. The rest of this year looks like this; moving this Saturday, classes resumed this week, possibly will be looking for work again in Sept when my contract ends, preparing for our wedding in December, working, studying, leading a lifegroup, other church commitments. Additionally my fiance is looking for work as he was made redundant a few weeks back.

I had thought that I would only do one subject this semester, but I got into classes this week and realised that the majority of my spiritual food actually comes out of my study not church. There is just something about getting deeper into the things of God that really really gets me spiritually amped. For some people great worship music makes them want to jump up and down, for me it exegeting Leviticus ;-)

So while I was quite prepared to cut back a bit and try to resist the encroachment of busyness I'm feeling this week much more like there is a point to my busyness at the moment. The whole year has felt like a time of refinement, and I believe God is using this crazy-busy time in that process of refining me. I am, where possible, trying to learn to say no to things that aren't essential. But I'm also learning that where my energy runs out, His energy is available to me. I felt that particularly today as I was sitting in my Exegesis class. Most students seemed a bit freaked by the prospect of Leviticus, but I felt elated, I felt that God's empowering grace is there for me to do this.

And I think that's part of what He's trying to teach me in this period of refinement, to stop relying on my own energy, my own strength, my own intelligence and startling good looks, not to mention humility LOL, but rather to rely on Him and His empowerment to do what He's called me to. And I think He's deliberately set the bar so high that I can't do it on my own.

I'm just praying that 2009 will be a year of peace and rest. I'm calling in the Deut 24:5 principle:

If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

God bless,
Bec

So the Archbishop of Canterbury does have a spine

2008-08-05T12:57:00.000+10:00

It appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury does have a spine, and a moral compass!

http://www.theage.com.au/world/american-churches-blamed-for-anglican-rift-20080804-3px1.html?page=-1

It is a good thing that he has stopped pandering to the liberal faction of the Anglican church and has finally called a spade a spade; yes there are divisions in the Anglican church and those divisions were caused by the US & Canadian bishops who have gone against the word of God, and the beliefs and traditions of Anglicanism.

God bless,
Bec

Unborn Slaves

2008-08-05T12:52:00.000+10:00

This is a must read: http://www.theage.com.au/national/women-tricked-into-selling-unborn-into-slavery-20080804-3pyt.html?page=-1

God bless,
Bec

Pornography Addiction amongst Muslims

2008-08-03T18:47:00.000+10:00

It's odd the things one stumbles across on the internet, but this one is really fascinating: http://muslimmatters.org/2007/08/19/pornogrpahy-addiction-among-muslims-stories-tips/

It talks about muslims with porn addictions. It is interesting to read how they approach fighting the addiction, and how it is all in their own strength. So much of what they talk about in fighting the addiction is similar to what Christians would suggest in terms of praying more, doing more spiritual disciplines, drawing away from the world etc. But Jesus is missing, and the admission that they cannot change themselves is missing.

Really sadly there are many that talk about how they need to go and do extra good deeds to balance out their sins of lust. And they talk about fear of Allah being the major motivation for not continuing in this sin.

There's also testimony from a muslim wife about how she copes with her husband's problem, all without the agape of Christ in her to love her husband and support him in his struggle. She feels that fear is the only way that her husband will change and thinks that if she got in a car crash that would jolt him into changing.

I think this is very encouraging for Christians, to be reminded that we fight against sin for a God who loves us and who uses "kindness to lead us to repentence" not fear. And that it is Jesus' work in us that allows us to overcome sin, not our own striving and work. And that God does not expect or need us to balance up our sins, that it's all through His grace that we are accepted and will be rewarded in the end.

In reference to the muslim wife's comments, a Christian couple's love and support for each other in this area comes from Jesus and His strength. He empowers them. There is no way outside of Christ that a woman could deal with her husband's (or vice versa) betrayal like this, without the agape of Christ in her. It is impossible to show the required level of forgiveness and understanding towards someone who hurts you like that without understanding how great is your sin before God, and yet how gracious and forgiving He has been to you.

I think it's easy for Christians to fall into similar lines of thinking as these muslims. Reading that article for me was just a really good reminder of God's grace and that we need His grace more than oxygen, and how great and how good is Jesus Christ!!

I'd like to ask you to keep islamic sex addicts in your prayers. Perhaps in the desperation of finding themselves entirely powerless to this addiction, and completely unable to balance up their bad deeds with good deeds, they will hear Christ's call of love and forgiveness, and submit themselves to His grace.

God bless,
Bec

Missional Rap

2008-07-10T12:23:00.000+10:00

'Send Me' - Live at MHC Ballard from Mars Hill Church on Vimeo.

And there's more...

2008-06-29T20:39:00.000+10:00

I've been writing a lot about the sexual depravity of our society this week. I thought the series of three would be the end (although I never imagined there would be a "series"), but there is more in the paper today. I have been following with some interest over the last few days the results of the government's investigation of the sexualisation of children.

One would have hoped that the government investigation would come back with some constructive recommendations to ensure that the media and marketers targetting children would be held to some standards regarding sexual content. However instead the investigation has come back and said that the media's self regulation is working well, and that it is really just the parents responsibility to monitor what their kids are watching.

That is insanely naive and selfish. No child is under their parents' 100% supervision and control 100% of the time. Bringing up kids is something that parents need to do in partnership with society. There are regulations around swimming pool fencing, because we already as a society recognise to a certain extent that parents can't watch their kids all of the time. And so we regulate to make the environment safe, so that together with parental supervision children are kept as safe as possible.

The impact of sexualised/pornographic images on young minds is as dangerous to young minds, as drowning is to young bodies. If children see these images before their parents have been able to explain sexuality to them in ways conducive to healthy development, then they have no frame of reference for filtering and making judgements on whether what they are seeing is appropriate.

The major argument behind not doing anything about removing sexualised/pornographic images from places where children might see them seems to be the "infringement" of adults so-called "right" to self expression. There seems to be a liberal contigent that just wants to do what they want to do, no matter who it hurts. There seems to have been a shift from the "I'm not hurting anybody" argument to the "who the hell cares who I am hurting, I'm having fun" as an attitude towards so-called "adult entertainment". This is the heights of selfishness.

I recently heard a speaker say that sexual abuse for children isn't just where they have been molested, but that exposure to sexualised/pornographic images has the same kind of impact on children. Yet of course, as a society we don't think it's as bad, especially if it was an "accidental" exposure, but the impact is as devastating. Before they have the capacity to understand what good God-given, marital sexuality looks like, their attitudes and understanding of sex is twisted into the warped mindset of the porn industry and its bedfellows. The thing about sexualised images that are targetted at children is that it's more insidious than direct abuse, a much larger number of children will have been impacted by that, than by direct abuse.

As our society continues to decline into all out sexual debauchery, the problem is only going to get worse. The devastation to the post-internet generations will be epidemic. This is why we have to fight every step of the way to make our society a safe place for children to grow up, letting them be kids, and not forcing them to deal with adult issues before they are pyschologically and spiritually ready. We also need to resource and train parents on how to talk to their children about sexuality, in a way that will lead to healthy marriages in their childrens' futures.

One of the difficulties in the Australian context is that we tend to be quite politically apathetic. As Christians I think we need to start getting really good at engaging with our political system to bring a prophetic voice to bear. If we do not proclaim God's will in this kind of situation then nobody else will. I'd urge you, find out who your local MP is both federally and state, and when issues like this come up, or the abortion and euthanasia ones in Victoria at the moment, write to your MP. Each letter/email they receive they view as representing the view of 100 people. We can make an impact by engaging in our political system.

God bless,
Bec

Slippery Slide

2008-06-25T15:35:00.000+10:00

This seems to be the week for everyone who doesn't like monogamous heterosexual sex within marriage to come out in arms proposing their particular brand of perversion. First it was the "bad boys are more successful in relationships" thing, then it was the robot love thing, recently it was the change of laws in Calfornia to allow gay marriages, and now??

Well in what could seem like a surprising step of logic from gay marriage (which presumably is abhorent to Muslims as well as Christians), muslims in America are arguing that because of the principle behind the Calfornia ruling that the same rights should be extended to muslims who wish to have polygamous marriages.

Well I hear you say, one could expect that in America. Not only in America, today's Age reports that muslims in Australia are also pushing for the recognition of polygamous marriage. Laughably, they are arguing it on behalf of the rights of women, I could go on endlessly about the complete lunacy of the position that says muslim polygamous marriages is for the protection of women. It is quite obviously NOT about the women, but entirely about the lust of men that they refuse to take responsibility for controlling. As I said I could go on and on, but Bill Muehlenberg has done that already admirably on his blog today.

The point I would really like to make is that the minute you start relaxing the definition of marriage for one group, then you have to start relaxing it for every group. Mark my words, within 50 years there will be a strong and outspoken lobby promoting paedophilia as a "valid lifestyle" and seeking to gain legal protection for adult-child "unions". And what those that engage in bestiality? Should not their animal "partners" be accorded the same legal rights as a human partner?? Especially if they are in a long-term committed relationship! And what about necrophiles?? What legal rights should their "relationships" be accorded??

To quote Star Trek First Contact, "We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"

And the line is this, sex was made, by God to be enjoyed by one man and one woman, once that man and that woman have made a lifelong covenant of unconditional love to one another, in the sight of God.

God bless,
Bec

Robot love???

2008-06-21T10:44:00.000+10:00

I just read an article that I wish wasn't serious - http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bscienceb-boffins-tip-robothuman-love-within-40-years/2008/06/20/1213770916042.html - a presumably very lonely scientist is predicting that there will be robots that humans can have relationships with within 40 years.

Given that our society already is fractured, and self-absorbed, such that real relationships are harder and harder to come by, I think this will cause many many many more problems than it will solve.

It's like the whole Wii Fit thing. In the olden days, kids used to play outside and so were healthy from getting exercise. Then we invented computer games and television, so that modern kids spend so much more time inside and thus are not getting exercise, and are getting fat. So the solution??? Let's invent an attachment for our computer game systems so that kids get exercise WHILE playing computer games. Is it just me or is the more obvious, healthy and affordable option TO SEND THEM OUTSIDE TO PLAY!!

This Robot love thing strikes me the same way. There used to be a higher rate of marriage, there used to be a higher rate of marriages THAT LASTED. Since the 60s with the so-called "free love" movement, marriage and long term relationships have suffered. We've created a world where sexual expression is about what feels good to me, regardless of the relational impact. Our desire for sexual gratification is promoted as being more important than bringing sexual fulfilment to our partners. Suddenly, sex has become all about ME. Therefore it is no wonder that it is getting harder and harder to form good lasting relationships, because we've built a view on sex and relationships that they are all about MY fulfilment. It is hard to love someone, and give yourself to someone else, when your primary objective is your own satisfaction.

An example from the article, the scientist believes that such robots could be used within human-human relationships, for instance when one partner is travelling. The other partner might say, "Take your robot, I don't want you visiting the red light district". Seriously, if the ONLY options when travelling are sex with a robot or sex with a prostitute, then there are bigger problems in that relationship than whether or not robot-sex is appropriate. There should only be one option when away from one's spouse--abstinence!

This human-robot-love solution that this scientist thinks will solve these problems is just a bandaid on the problem. An icky and disturbing bandaid, but a bandaid none the less. This idea is like that of the Wii Fit -- let's not deal with the real issue, let's let the existing problem fester under what might seem on the surface to be a solution.

God bless,
Bec

Treat 'em mean, what nonsense!!

2008-06-20T12:12:00.000+10:00

There's an article in today's Age about a correlation between men having traits of "impulsiveness, narcissism, thrill-seeking and deceitfulness" and them having a "prolific amount of sex". It further reasons that this makes "bad boys" more "successful" in relationships, indeed the article is entitled, "Treat 'em mean: it works".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/relationships/treat-em-mean-it-works/2008/06/18/1213468480771.html

The article then goes on to define this so-called success, as being more "active in short-term mating" than nice guys.

There are a number of issues with this article, the first obviously being the underlying assumption that "short-term mating" is the goal of all men, therefore the definition of success in relationships. It is not accounting at all for a group of men (let's call them "nice guys") who actually want a long-term monogamous (god-forbid MARITAL) relationship with a woman. For that kind of man, the "nice guy", casual sex would NOT be the definition of relationship success, finding someone to settle down with WOULD. If a "nice guy" is not seeking casual sex, that would also be a contributing factor to them not having as many casual encounters. It stands to reason that if a guy isn't seeking casual sex, he won't have casual sex. It further stands to reason, that the "bad boy" who is defined as "impulsive, narcissistic, thrill-seeking and deceitful" and who IS seeking casual sex, would therefore have more casual sex. The big issue here is that they are comparing apples with oranges, both in terms of type of guy, and also in terms of each type's goal with regards to women.

The second issue with this article I think, is that it does not make any social commentary on WHY women might be attracted to bad guys. The following I think are a number of reasons a woman would find such men attractive:

They seem confident
They are the kind of guys fathers hate
The insistence with which they pursue women gives the impression that the woman is highly desired, which leads to woman thinking "they really love me", which is a woman's deepest emotional desire, to be loved and cherished.
Alternately, the woman believes she isn't worth loving, and so this is as good as it gets
She thinks they "need her" because they are obviously broken people (and since no one will ever "want her" she has to settle for someone who needs her if she's going to be with anyone at all)
She thinks she can "fix them" and they will become a nice guy

So basically, it comes out of a bunch of a woman's own issues; rebelliousness and low self-esteem being the two key ones. My point is this - the kind of women who go for this kind of man are not emotionally stable themselves.

Once you start to deal with issues of rebelliousness and self-esteem and find that you don't need to rebel against anyone to be independent/your own self, and accept yourself for who you are, those bad guys cease to be attractive.

Knowing Jesus really helps with this :-) He has a way of wooing a woman to a place where she realises she must have great value for the Son of God to die for her! Suddenly instead, it's the guy who knows his bible, who is prolific in prayer, who will make a great father, and who is gentle and considerate that is unbelievably attractive. It's the man that takes time to be friends with you and to build the basis of the relationship on a foundation of mutual respect and friendship that is the kind of guy that gets the girl.

God bless,
Bec

What should we do with Christ's descent & preaching to the dead?

2008-06-11T22:57:00.000+10:00

The following is my Christology essay for this semester on the idea of Christ's descent and preaching to the dead:

Introduction
In 1 Peter 3:19-20, 4:6 Peter makes a statement, that is pretty amazing, that Christ went to the dead and preached to the imprisoned spirits. These statements have formed the basis of much speculation in the absence of more exhaustive scriptural evidence. Over the centuries since Peter wrote these words, many theories have developed to account for these verses. The image of the dead Christ descending to hell and leading forth a triumphal procession of saved souls formed the basis of much non-canonical Christian writings and art over the centuries.

This essay will investigate how this tradition developed; with reference to the theological questions that are raised and/or answered by the descensus theory (being the idea that Christ literally descended to hell, and preached the gospel to the spirits of the dead, giving them a post-mortem opportunity for salvation). Further discussion will be had around some of the current theories. The paper will conclude by discussing the Christological and soteriological implications of the descent.

Development of the Descensus View
The story of Christ’s descent to the dead was very common in the early Church. The early church fathers preached the idea continuously from the writing of First Peter for the first few centuries (Connell, 2001:264). Although the only explicit statement of the descent was to be found in 1 Peter, the tradition came to find allusions in many passages in the bible, (Connell, 2001:263).
Oakes cites other scripture in support of the descent; Ps 68:16 “he led captives in his train”; Eph 4:7-9 “in order to fill the whole universe”; Phil 2:9-11 “every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth”; Rom 14:8-9 “that he might be the Lord both of the dead and of the living” (2007:188-9). However, the key scriptural support for the descensus view comes from 1 Pet 3:19 “…he went and preached to the spirits in prison” and 1 Pet 4:6 “…the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead…”

In the first three centuries the term used to describe Christ’s descent was “descensus ad inferos”, which meant "descent to lower places" (Connell, 2001:264). A change in terminology arose out of Rufinus’ work, he adopted the term “descensus ad inferna” which meant “descent to hell”. This lead to a shift both in terminology, but also more importantly in theology[1]. The earlier use of the word inferos showed the extent of God’s grace, that it went beyond human limitations, even the limit of death. “...Rufinus's word inferna, ‘hell,’ would start to change the result of the descent from one of God's presence with the dead to a belief in Christ's reconciliation of sinners” (Connell, 2001:266-7).

Augustine found this view problematic. If God’s grace extends that far, then who would not be saved? Writing to Evodius he sought to dispel the idea that it would open up the possibility of an “empty hell”. He could not conceive that “…the grace of God could be so… prorsus indebitum, ‘completely undeserved’ and universal.” (Connell, 2001:270-1).

In seeking to understand how people before Christ could be saved (Jobes, 2005:241), Origen saw this doctrine as showing that Christ’s victory over death was so powerful and embracing that “nothing was excluded, that Hades itself was transformed into a paradise and that even the demons were saved” (Ryan, 1997:18). Due to the soteriological issues that the idea of God’s grace being so expansive brought up, and how happily universalists took up the descensus, the view began to decline in the Western church in the fourth century (Connell, 2001:270-1).
After this time theologians were careful in their discussion of the descent, but at the same time a number of apocryphal sources latched onto the idea and spoke of it without restraint (McNamara, 1994:n.p.). The Gospel of Nicodemus (also known as the Acts of Pilate) contains a long and involved section describing the experiences of two of the souls that Christ purportedly delivered from Hell. Of particular interest is Acts of Pilate V(XXI):3:

…And as David spake thus unto Hell, the Lord of majesty appeared in the form of a man and lightened the eternal darkness and brake the bonds that could not be loosed: and the succour of his everlasting might visited us that sat in the deep darkness of our transgressions and in the shadow of death of our sins. (James, 1924:17)

The apocryphal accounts were engaging and stimulating. It is not hard to see how people became enamoured of the literal interpretation of the descent, as the imagery alone is extremely powerful in elaborating the immensity of what Christ has done for humanity. The story of the descent until the fourth century was “…simply part of the narrative of Christ's saving work for humanity and of God's generosity in rescuing the lost” (Connell, 2001:264).

The view began to decline, and whilst it still remained a part of the catechesis, it was no longer unanimously supported. Eventually it virtually disappeared from the Western tradition (Connell, 2001:265). Within the Eastern church however, the idea kept currency. As late as 787 at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, a statement was made that Christ “‘spoiled Hell and delivered the captives who were kept there from all ages’” (Cross, Arendarcikas, Cooke & Leach, 2006:n.p.)

In the writings of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, there is somewhat of a return to the descensus view. He wrote that as the sacraments mediate God’s grace to the living, so the descent mediated God’s grace to the dead. He saw that “Both sacraments and the descent are expressions of God's generosity and love in the present aspects and conditions of human life in community.” (Connell, 2001:273)

Real difficulty for the descensus view arose out of the Reformation. The Reformers challenged theologians to base their theology on the canonical scriptures. Out of this change in emphasis from the authority of tradition to the authority of scripture, the descensus view largely died, for its paucity of scriptural support (Connell, 2001:274). So while the return to Scripture strengthened many other parts of the Christian tradition, the descent was largely lost since there is no evidence for it in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Contemporary Views
The Descensus View in the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Church is the primary part of the church that still embraces the descent of Christ. It forms a central part of their Easter liturgy. Chrysostom’s Paschal Homily from the fourth century is still used for Easter services, “He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into hades and took hades captive!” (Chrysostom, n.d., n.p.) Much orthodox artwork and iconography also reflects on the descent to Hades as its theme.

The Orthodox Church sees the descent played out not only in history but in our lives today. Their emphasis on the descent is a theological one, about what it means for our lives (Ryan, 1997:18). For the Orthodox Church the descent to hell “…is the image of our present age. The Resurrection of Christ is the sign and guarantee of the final victory” (Ryan, 1997:18).

Exegetical Issues in 1 Peter 3:19-20, 4:6
The early church interpreted 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6 as teaching a doctrine of Christ’s literal descent to the dead. In contemporary theology these verses are more commonly understood to be symbolic, communicating the extent of the redemption. This however, “involves a more spiritualised hermeneutic that usually practiced by evangelicals” (Erickson, 2000:74).

Putting aside the issue of a spiritualised hermeneutic, there are valid exegetical issues in the text that need resolution if this text is to form the basis of a theology that is nowhere else explicitly stated in scripture!

In Koine Greek there are two verbs that are translated as ‘preach’. In 1 Pet 3:19 the verb used is kēryssō which can also be translated as ‘proclaim’. The term that is more broadly used to speak of preaching the good news is euangelizomai (Jobes, 2005:250). So this means that the preaching/proclamation may not have been for the purpose of bringing the spirits in 1 Pet 3:19 to repentance. Some see the verb here to be a proclamation of victory, where Jesus went and just told the spirits what he had accomplished on the cross, thus pronouncing their condemnation. However, there are instances of kēryssō being used in the context of gospel proclamation, so this is not entirely conclusive.

Another view that is taken on the preaching, is that the spirit of Christ preached to the unrepentant people of Noah’s generation through Noah’s lips (Grudem, 1988:158-9). This view is somewhat problematic, because it does not account for the ‘prison’ reference, and as we will also shortly see, is problematic due to the understanding of the word ‘spirit’.

Just as there are issues with the verb, ‘preach’ there are similar difficulties with those to whom Jesus preached, the ‘spirits’ (1 Pet 3:19). In the Greek, the term used in this verse is pneuma. Usually this word is not used in an unqualified way to refer to the spirits of people, psyche is the usual word for speaking of the spirits of the dead (Jobes, 2005:250-1). It is also worth noting that no where in scripture is the place of the dead (Sheol, Hades, Tartarus) described as ‘prison’ (Jobes, 2005:243).

Another interpretation that has been offered are that these pneumata are fallen angels, or the offspring of the angels who slept with human women before the flood (Jobes, 2005:251). In this context, ‘prison’ is understood to represent “in spatial terms God’s restraining power over [the spirits]” (Jobes, 2005:244).

A further problem exists; many people who support the descensus view connect 1 Pet 3:19 with 1 Pet 4:6. In the English translation the verb “preach” appears, and in both there is a reference to “spirits” or to “the dead” which to English speaking ears sounds connected. As discussed earlier, there are two verbs in Greek for preach, kēryssō and euangelizomai. In 1 Pet 3:19, the verb kēryssō is used, and in 4:6 euangelizomai is used. Thus the link is not as strong as it appears in the English (Jobes, 2005:271-2). To compound this, the words “spirits” (pneumata) 3:19 and “the dead” (nekrois) are not synonymous in Greek (Jobes, 2005:272).

The 1 Enoch Parallel
This leaves us with the question of what to do with these verses! Jobes suggests that a more appropriate interpretation can be made by referring to the tradition of Enoch preaching to the imprisoned spirits from the time of Noah (2005:244). The book of 1 Enoch describes a scenario where after Enoch went to be with God, he was talking to the fallen angels who requested that he intercede with God for them, and the children they had had with human women. Enoch does this, and descends to them again with a response from God, “You will have no peace”.
Jobes argues that Peter uses this story, which is well known amongst his readers from Asia Minor[2], to encourage them of

…the sweeping scope of the efficacy of Christ’s victory in his resurrection and ascension, …that Christ’s resurrection and ascension have dealt with even the primordial evil of fallen angels in uncountable prior centuries of human history, then Christ is victorious over all evil-even the most depraved-for all time (Jobes, 2005:258).

Despite all of this, the major themes of 1 Pet 3:19 and 4:6 remain that of the efficacy of Jesus’ victory. In 1 Pet 3:19 this is over the fallen angels, in 4:6 this is over death itself. It should be understood as “the expression of the universal significance of Jesus’ vicarious death under the curse” (Pannenberg, 2002:306).

Christological Implications
Christological Heresy
Leaving aside the exegetical problems with the 1 Peter passages in sustaining this view of the descensus view, there are some Christological issues that come out. As was identified in the fourth century, it presents an interesting question on the separation of the divine/human in the process of the descent. The question arises, where was Jesus’ soul/spirit during this period? If his body was dead in the tomb, where was “the rest” of him? Added to this the difficulty of “God dying”, it contributed to the view that Jesus’ soul/spirit was divine, and so that it was just his body (the “human part”) that died (Connell, 2001:268).

As Aquinas points out though, “although when Christ died, his soul was separated from his body, neither soul nor body was separated from the person of the Son of God” (quoted in Connell, 2001:273). So this does not present too much of a problem. Just as we maintain that in life Jesus was at once human and divine, so in his death he would remain both human and divine, and the “parts” of his nature would be as any other human’s would in death. “Christ had to remain, with his soul, in Hades for as long as his body lay in the tomb” (von Balthasar, 1990:164).

Soteriological Implications
One of the most captivating implications of the descensus view is the picture it paints of the expansiveness of Christ’s saving work. From our human perspective it can be hard to understand what God does with people who lived before Christ, or have not heard the gospel before they died. After all God says that it is his will that none should perish (2 Pet 3:9). But he also says that if people do not hear the gospel, they cannot believe, and cannot be saved (Rom 10:14). If we take the descensus as giving people a post-mortem opportunity to hear the gospel, it tells us that people can be saved even if they did not live after Christ, and have an opportunity to hear the gospel.

The scripture is clear that no one was declared righteous before God by obeying the Law (Rom 3:20), and that salvation comes through the gospel (Rom 1:16). Yet there were people who lived before Christ that we see in Revelation are with God. The historical problem answered by the descensus was while the Law and the prophets testify to Jesus, did they provide enough of the gospel for salvation? The descensus tells us that yes, Christ did all that was necessary for everyone, in all times and places to be saved.

While we may dismiss the descensus interpretation of 1 Pet 3:19; 4:6 as mythological, as with all myths it teaches us something important. That Christ’s death and resurrection affects “…the whole created world and our stewardship for the earth. …the Easter transformation includes the whole world.” (O’Collins, 2004:12) The Eastern Orthodox icons that depict Adam and Eve being delivered from the dead by Christ shows vividly “…that the resurrection is not only an individual victory for Christ but also the saving event for all the world.” (O’Collins, 2004:12)

Von Balthasar puts it eloquently, “Whereas the Western images of Easter always show the risen Christ alone, the East makes us see the soteriological and social aspect of the redemptive work.” (1990:180) Christ’s descent to the dead places an emphasis on the effects of Easter, it is not limited by time or space, “For through Jesus, life enters into the kingdom of death and overcomes its terrible darkness” (Ryan, 1997: 18).

Incarnational Implications
We speak of the importance of Christ’s incarnation, of the Son of God coming to be one of us. To live as we live, and to redeem us almost by having solidarity with us. It seems though that in a spiritualised understanding of the descent, we lose something of Christ’s solidarity with us, that his shared experience with us, was not only in life but also in death.

It is a scary thing for us to contemplate death. Even in Christian circles, we do not seem to know quite what to do with death. Death is closed to us, and we do not know what awaits us. It is comforting to know that we will go to be with the Lord, but still that leaves the actual process of dying.

However, we need not fear, as in Christ’s descent to the dead he “fill[ed] that realm too with the light of his resurrection into eternal life. With that, the night of death becomes the stillness heralding the dawn of the resurrection” (Moltmann, 2005:154). God is present with the dead in Christ, God is present with us through death. This is the ultimate reassurance. Without the descent, we know that He awaits us “on the other side”, but that leaves us with the journey in between (Connell, 2001:262-3). The descent gives voice to the love of God for the dead, in an expressive metaphor (Connell, 2001:267).

Community Implications
One perhaps odd implication is that the dead are no longer “dead” in the way they were before. If they have been led forth from death in the way described in the descent narrative, then we have community with them as much as with our living Christian brothers and sisters. “In effect, the distance separating the two realms is being shortened and a powerful bond being solidified between the living and the dead” (Stotnicki, 2006:94).

Perhaps this is what the writer of Hebrews was referring to when he spoke of the “cloud of witnesses” (12:1) after speaking at length of the Old Testament saints in Hebrews 11. It might also make some preliminary sense of Paul’s comments in 1 Cor. 15:29-30 about being “baptised for the dead”. Although it is an exceedingly uncomfortable idea for many Protestants, maybe this gives some credence to the Catholic practise of asking Saints to pray for us.

Perhaps this is what von Balthasar is getting at when he says, “…that a heavenly shimmer of light, of faith, love, hope, has ever illuminated the ‘abyss’- …[Christ] took, by substitution, that whole experience upon himself” (von Balthasar, 1990:168). If that is so, life and indeed death will never be the same again.

Conclusion
It is difficult to divorce from the descensus view its beautiful theological implications. Due to this, despite the scarcity of direct scriptural support, it is desperately difficult, heartbreaking even, to tear oneself away from its stunning imagery of the “universal offer and scope of salvation” (Jobes, 2005:250). Even if it is a myth, behind it is a truth of breathtaking beauty, that of all the powers of evil being vanquished and yielding to Christ (von Balthasar, 1990:151). Yet these are themes that also come out in the Enoch parallel interpretation. What the descent teaches us, without perhaps giving us a purely historical account, is the truth of the magnitude of Christ’s victory.

Bibliography
Barth, K. (1936). Credo. Aberdeen: Hodder & Stoughton.

Chrysostom, J. (n.d.). ‘Paschal Homily’ in The Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia. Available Internet: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschal_Homily) (8th May 2008)

Connell, M. F. (2001). Descensus Christi ad Inferos: Christ's descent to the dead. Theological Studies 62:262-282

Cross, L., Arendarcikas, B., Cooke, B. and Leach, J. (2006). 'Anastasis' icon, text, and Theological vision. In Australian EJournal of Theology 7. (http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_7/cross.htm) (8th May 2008)

Erickson, M. J. (2000). Did Jesus Really Descend to Hell? Christianity Today 74

Grudem, W. (1988). 1 Peter: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

James, M.R. (Trans). (1924). The Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate. Available Internet: (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelnicodemus.html) (8th May 2008)

McNamara, R. F. (1994). Hell is harrowed, alleluia! America 170(16):16-17

Moltmann, J. (2005). The blessing of hope: The theology of hope and the full gospel of life. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 13(2):147-161.

Oakes, E. T. (2007). The Internal Logic of Holy Saturday in the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. International Journal of Systematic Theology 9(2):184-199.

O’Collins, G. (2004). The Second Adam: The new Adam brings the blessings of grace and eternal life. America 10-12.

Pannenberg, W. (2002). Jesus – God and Man. London: SCM Press.

Ryan, J. (1997). The Descent into Hell: Abandonment or a victory over death? Commonweal 124(7):17-18.

Stotnicki, A. (2006). God’s prisoners: Penal confinement and the creation of purgatory. Modern Theology 22(1):85-110.

Von Balthasar, H. U. (1990). Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter. Worchester, UK: T&T Clark Ltd.

FOOT NOTES:
[1] It should be noted that there is a distinct difference between the Hebraic view of “Sheol” which is where everyone went after death. There was no understanding of a separate destiny after death for the righteous as opposed to the wicked. This view of Sheol was altered in Christian thinking by later Persian and Hellenistic views on the afterlife (von Balthasar, 1990:161). However it is important to understand that Hebrew thinking on Sheol was more concerned with the condition of the dead rather than their location (von Balthasar, 1990:162-3). This is important as many theologians see Hell as the state of being ‘forsaken by God’ or ‘separated from God’ (Barth, 1936:93-4).
[2] There is archaeological evidence from the Asia Minor area that shows that Peter’s readers would have been aware of the content of the stories about Noah and Enoch. There are coins showing the flood, and there are four extant versions of the flood story indigenous to the Asia Minor area (Jobes, 2005:251).

Interesting article from Tim Costello

2008-06-05T12:13:00.000+10:00

This is worth a read: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/energy-habits-are-fuelling-food-crisis-20080604-2lu4.html

God bless,
Bec

Patience and Boredom

2008-05-23T18:50:00.000+10:00

I think my biggest problem with patience is boredom. If there is something that I am looking forward to and am emotionally engaged with, or I see that life could be better once something happens, then the biggest sense of boredom with where I am now sets in.

Someone I love often says, "It's something to look forward to". Which would have to be the complete antithesis of how I view life. I don't know, to say "it's something to look forward to" seems to suggest that there won't be anything after that to look forward to... But apart from Jesus returning, and Him wiping every tear from our eyes, there will ALWAYS be something else to look forward to.

Which leads me to my eschatological point. I think all of life is lived in this patience/boredom tension. What theologians call the "here but not yet" of the Kingdom. I think the Christian life is bound up in the "Jesus is coming back yay! BUT WHY NOT NOW???" tension.

See now impatience sounds kinda holy! I'm not impatient, I just want Jesus to come back soon!! ;-)

God bless,
Bec

God of the Second-hand

2008-05-15T22:01:00.000+10:00

I have recently been looking into how to sell some stuff of mine that I don't need anymore. This isn't really something I've done before, as I think I've really absorbed the 'throw it away, buy a new one' ethic of our society, which is just materialism gone nuts, and is most certainly a product of the advertising industry. After all, it is more profitable for the various companies if you buy things new, than if you buy second hand.

I've decided this is really rather sad, because the items that I am wanting to sell are not without value. There is an iMate which has hardly been used, and some jewellery, which to replace would cost $1800. However, when I got a quote from a jeweller they advised me that they only pay 10% of market value.

Anyways, this has all lead me to think about how God is really the God of the second-hand. As Christians we come to Him second-hand. The world's owned us for a while, banged us up good and proper, we're worse for wear, and in severe need of a clean up. And yet God looks at us, and instead of saying, "meh, I think I'll just toss it and buy a new one" He has paid the ultimate price for us, through Christ. Not only has He made that investment in us, He is not content to just own us in the state that we come to Him, but He fixes us up and makes us all pretty (by which of course I mean He conforms us to Christ's image).

Another example of getting outside this throw away culture in my life, was that I recently had some repairs done on a blue topaz ring I own. I bought it after reading Liza Bevere's book "Fight Like a Girl". In there she uses blue topaz as an illustration for the refining process that we go through in adversity. Apparently when topaz is dug up out of the ground it is a murky brown colour, its only when it is thrown in the fire that it turns blue and pretty. When I read that it was about a month before my divorce went through and I really really needed to know that God was using that situation in my life to bring about something good. I think I would have died of the pain otherwise. I've worn it ever since as a reminder and a testimony of God's faithfulness.

About six weeks ago one of the claws on it broke off. Now in the past that probably would have been the end of it. It would have gone in the drawer, never to be seen again. But this time, because someone I knew had previously recommended a jeweller who was good at repairs and alterations I thought why not have a crack at this restoration bizo.

I got the ring back yesterday. The repair was about $12. And as well as fixing the broken claw, the jeweller had polished the ring up so much that it looks better than when I first bought it. Life has been / is quite tough at the moment. Lots of good things happening, but unemployment is causing a certain level of stress. Given that historically this ring has symbolised for me God refining me, having it broken and then fixed, and coming out looking better than it started, I found a reassuring reminder of God's faithfulness.

This has been a bit rambling. I guess I really have two points. We have a throw away culture, we even throw away people. God isn't like that. He buys second-hand, and then He is in the continual business of restoration. Not just once, but He maintains His investment and continues to restore us as we get a little bit broken again.

God bless,

Bec

Why is practicality optional for women's clothing???

2008-05-10T09:00:00.000+10:00

<RANT>

I study in Ringwood, where it is jolly freezing. It's like Ringwood has its own weather system, at least 10 degrees colder than the rest of Melbourne. The heating at college is inadequate (and I'm being nice by not picking a stronger adjective there), so much so I end up wearing my winter coat and scarf inside the classroom to keep warm. The place is so cold that we are gaining our own penguin colony. Well, maybe not quite, but you get the idea.

I have made suggestions to the SRC that this should now be top of the priority list since they have sorted out the abysmal coffee situation in the last few weeks by installing a Lavazza coffee machine (Mmmm!). But I'm resigned to the fact that this will probably only happen when I graduate in 2012.

But bearing in mind how chilly it's going to get, and is already getting, I set off yesterday to buy some warm clothing so that I do not come down with hypothermia mid-Christology lecture. Now my wonderful boyfriend has these really warm Bonds hoodies, and knowing that Bonds makes hoodies for chicks as well, I thought awesome, that'll do the trick.

So I set off to Kmart to check 'em out, only to discover that the men's ones have nice polar fleece lining (thus their warmth) but the ladies ones DON'T!!

This to me is beyond illogical. Firstly, blokes have a larger muscle mass than women which means that doing absolutely NOTHING they burn more calories, thus producing more body heat. So they start out with a biological advantage. Secondly, then you add the Bonds polar fleeced hoodie and they are all set. Compared to us ladies who start out with the disadvantage of producing less body heat and THEN add a thin and flimsy Bonds ladies' hoodie that does NOTHING to keep us warm.

Oh, but that's alright, because they had a women's "Vintage Style" hoodie which was a bit longer. Vintage style my left foot!!

What I want to know is this, why is practicality optional in women's clothing??????

Ah yes, because of fashion, because we want to look "good". Personally, I don't think I look particularly "good" rolling on the floor in the foetal position trying to warm up my torso so that blood returns to my extremities so that I regain feeling in my hands and feet, even if I am wearing the latest must-have.

I think it's all a ploy. The reason we are taught that we would want to look "good" is so that men will be attracted to us. But then when they get their hands on us, they just want the clothes off anyway. So here's my conspiracy theory, it's all part of a ploy to get us to the point that we think, "hey these clothes are so impractical, we may as well forget wearing them all together, afterall we'll be just as warm in the nude." Grrrrr... It's all an attempt to get to a place where practicality isn't optional for women's clothing, but that women's clothing IS optional!!!!

Which is all cos of the fashion industry being in bed with the porn industry that has turned women into sexual objects. Men be warned, this whole "metro-sexual" thingy that seems to be happening will result in the same thing for you. Say goodbye to clothes that are practical, that actually cover the things that should be covered, and keep warm/cool the bits that need it. You'll be wearing lace knickers before you know it!

Ah for the days when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri!

God bless,
Bec

</RANT>

The Glory of God

2008-05-09T11:37:00.000+10:00

Next week I have to present a five minute topical sermon in my Public Communications class at college. So I thought I’d practise my content on you first! I will be speaking about “The Glory of God”, and yes I know what you are thinking, that’s a big topic to chew off in five minutes. But ya know, never let it be said that I’m shy of a challenge!!

We use the term “glory of God” a lot in Christian circles. It’s a bit of a holy catch-all that we throw around when we need to feel spiritual. We talk about doing things “for the Glory of God” and if we are of the Pentecostal persuasion then we may talk about “the gllllorrry in the saaanncctuaaary”! Even in the bible the term sometimes seems to be used a bit lightly. For example when Jude is signing off his letter, he includes the following comment, “…to the only God our Saviour be GLORY, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord… Amen” (1:25) which in context just seems to be a holy way of saying “Bye, catch ya later”.

So yes, it’s a bit of an abstract and esoteric term. And we do tend to use it quite lightly. Interestingly, however, in Hebrew the word for glory (kabowd) actually means “HEAVINESS of honour, splendour, dignity” so this is perhaps something we should not take lightly!! I want to take a quick Trinitarian look at the glory of God and then look at how it is relevant to the way we live our lives.

#1 – The Glory of the Father
One of the first revelations of God’s glory recorded in the bible was to Moses in Exodus 33:18-20; 34:5-7:

Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.” And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
…
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

It is interesting that when Moses requests that God would show him His glory, that what Moses gets in response is primarily a revelation of God’s character. God reveals Himself as merciful, kind, slow to anger, loving, faithful, forgiving and just.

This pattern of a display of God's glory being coupled with a revelation of His character is repeated throughout the bible. For example, in 2 Chron 7 at the dedication of the Temple, the glory manifested, and there was a statement of God's character in the praises of the people, that He is "good and his love endures forever". Similarly, when Isaiah sees the Lord in Isaiah 6, the statement of God's character is in the praises of the angels, who sang, "Holy, holy, holy".

So I think we can say that, the Glory of God is the Revelation of His character.

#2 - Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God's glory
Jesus is of course the ultimate revelation of God's glory. In Jn 1:14 it says, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” And in this verse we see again the coupling of the glory of God with His character -- in this case being full of grace and truth.

Hebrews 1:3 further expands this idea when it says that Christ is, “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being”. In this we see that Christ is the pinnacle of God's glory, and that that is by exactly representing God's being, His person, His character. And so in Jesus we see a life that is truly glorifying to God, through being a REVELATION OF GOD'S BEING (CHARACTER).

#3 – Our partnership with the Spirit for God’s Glory
As I promised, this is a bit of a trinitarian look at God's glory, and so having discussed the glory of God in light of the Father and the Son, let's look at the Holy Spirit. In 2 Cor 3 there is an extended section on the glory of the ministry of the Spirit, over that of the Law (verses 7-9; 18):

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
...
And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

And so we see that the ministry of the Spirit is glorious because He is transforming us into His image, that is so that God's character (in this case His righteousness) is REVEALED IN US. So that is to say that we are a revelation of God's glory to the degree that we reveal God's character -- and this is done in partnership with and dependence on the Spirit.

So the question is how are we transformed so that we reveal God's character, and bring Him glory? This is picked up in 2 Cor 3:18, it is by contemplating (or in some translations beholding) the glory of the Lord -- through this we are transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory.

So that's pretty cool huh? So now when we talk about doing things "for the Glory of God" we have a firm frame of reference for what we are talking about. What we mean is that we are doing that thing in a way that reveals God's character. I personally think that's pretty exciting. First of all because it's so simple! But also because it seems so worthwhile, what could be more meaningful than glorifying God by being a means by which He reveals His character? How much more pleasant a way to be transformed so that we can do this, than by beholding His glory, His character? And then how gracious is He that He not only calls us to glorify Him, but through His Spirit actually enables us to do it??

So I want to leave you with a few questions:

What have you learnt about God's character by beholding His glory?
How can you bring God glory by reflecting those characteristics of His?
What are some situations where you specifically want to bring glory to God?
Who are some people to whom you want to show the glory of God?
What are some areas in your life that do not display the glory of God?
How can you, by working with the Holy Spirit, display God's character in these situations, to those people, in those areas of your life?

God bless,
Bec

Purity, Celibacy, Chastity

2008-05-07T12:52:00.000+10:00

Interestingly, I've noticed that the times I get the most hits on my blog is when I discuss adultery. I mentioned this to my Dad the other day, and he was like, "You are probably getting the porno traffic"... Hmmm... Somehow I think this discussion of purity, celibacy and chastity isn't going to register so high on the types of words people search for on google... ;-)

I read this earlier today and have been thinking about David's question about what purity is... I think in Christian circles the word 'purity' has become a synonym for 'celibacy'. The majority of its usage seems to be in discussing with particularly teenagers why they should save themselves for marriage. And in all honesty this discussion is probably surrounded with a fair amount of panic for those on the receiving end, it's the "ahh, man... that's like so harsh! what if I never marry, will I like die a VIRGIN". And that's even if it's not said.

However, I think maybe 'chastity' (monogamous sexual expression with our spouse (i.e. person of the opposite gender to whom we are married)) is a better synonym for purity. I think it's a lot more useful as a definition because it applies to unmarried and married people.

For unmarried people doesn't have the total "you can NEVER have sex, you will most probably die a virgin" connotations that celibacy has. It has lovely promise of future godly possibilities ala Song of Songs (why does nobody preach on SoS??? It'd kill the theology of anyone who reckons God made sex just for procreation or that God thinks sex is dirty etc).

For married people it's a reminder that marriage isn't a get-out-of-jail-free-card for lust. On the Stuff Christians Like blog I remember Jon mentioning with disgust the idea in the book "Every man's battle" that men should use their wives like methadone. His comment being, "if we're supposed to love our wives like Christ loved the church, did Christ ever get a 'fix' off the church?"

In defining chasity earlier, I used the term 'sexual expression' for want of a better phrase, to cover a multitude of thoughts/behaviours. (Much as the NT uses the greek 'porneia' to cover a multitude of sexual sins!) According to the sermon on the mount, the kind of faithfulness in regard to our sexuality that God calls us to in marriage, is that we do not even have lustful thoughts about people to whom we aren't married. So purity--chastity therefore, is total sexual faithfulness to our spouse; thought, word & deed.

WIthin the confines of marriage, have fun with each other, read Song of Songs in The Message if you need some hints... Yup it really does say that IN THE BIBLE...

God bless,
Bec

Child Sacrifice

2008-05-03T17:53:00.000+10:00

I was reading Psalm 106 this morning. It's a record of God's faithfulness to Israel inspite of their unfaithfulness to Him. There are a couple of verses (37-38) that caught my attention in the middle:

They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.

Child sacrifice is really a low-light of the Old Testament. The nations surrounding Israel and Judah practised it (see for example 2 Kings 3:27 where the King of Moab sacrificed his son), and many of the corrupt Kings of Israel and Judah also practised child sacrifice to various idols (see for example Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 and Manasseh in 2 Kings 21).

I think it is really easy for us to shake our heads and wonder how could they do this to their own children. I think it is really easy for us to think that we are better than they were, that we are a more civilised people and that we would never ever do anything like this.

But I think we have to stop and look at some of our modern practises and look at whether we too practise child sacrifice. The gods we sacrifice to may not have interesting Canaanite names like Baal or Asherah, but I think we do still have gods that we sacrifice our children to. They are called "convenience" or "a woman's right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" etc etc.

Abortion is the most obvious modern day example of child sacrifice within particularly the western world. We have made up excuses for why it's ok, but an unborn child is still just that-- an unborn child. In the first 10-12 weeks after conception, while they still weigh between 4 and 14 grams:

The child's eyes have developed their colour
Nearly all their organs have formed and are functioning
Their fingers and toes have developed
Their hair and nails have started to grow
Their genitals are distinctively male/female
The muscles in their intestinal walls have started to practise the contractions that will allow them to digest food
Their vocal chords have begun to form
Their liver starts to function
The pancreas starts to produce insulin

There is some non-disturbing photos here and some rather disturbing ones here of murdered (aborted) children. Both show how early you can see that they really are human, they are not just "fetuses" or "lumps of tissue".

Abortion is modern day western child sacrifice. But I don't think it stops there. Forms of contraception that are potentially abortive also amount to child sacrifice. Barrier methods that prevent conception are ok, but those that act also in the event of conception to stop the child from implanting in the uterine wall amount to the same as abortion. This means the pill. The normal everyday pill as well as the so-called morning after pill. The normal pill works in two stages, it firstly tries to prevent conception by preventing ovulation. If this fails it uses a secondary method to prevent pregnancy -- and this is where the issue is. The secondary method is to thicken the mucus of the uterine wall so that the child cannot implant. This means that if a child is conceived they die. The morning after pill uses only the second method to prevent pregnancy.

In all of this, I do not mean to point fingers. I have in the past used the pill not knowing, or perhaps not wanting to know, the truth about it. My purpose in discussing this is just to draw attention to behaviours where we might hold one view when it's someone else doing it (i.e. condemning those in the bible who practised child sacrifice) and yet permit the same behaviour under another name, with some more modern reasons (excuses) behind it. I also want to draw attention to the fact that there are also parallels in the motivation. Whenever we do something outside of the will of God, that we think will make our lives better in some way, we are committing idolatry. We are saying that whatever it is that we are doing, will better serve our needs than God. We are placing (in this case) convenience, so-called women's "right to choose", "no consequence casual sex" in the place of Jesus, and sacrificing our children to those gods. When the Israelites practised child sacrifice it was to placate Baal or Asherah, we still sacrifice our children to idols-- the idols just have different names.

Let's return to Psalm 106. In all of this, despite our rebellion and sinfulness, God is still faithful. God still loves us, and there is forgiveness for those who repent. Jesus' death on the cross even deals with this sin of child sacrifice. There is real and total forgiveness, the bible says in Psalm 103:12, "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." This is not about condemnation, this is about renewing our minds, and seeing this from God's perspective. It's only when we do that that we have a chance to change our behaviour and our choices. Truth can be hard, and frankly I had a bit of an argument with God about writing this post because it is heavy and rather uncomfortable. But in Jesus truth comes hand-in-hand with GRACE.

God bless,
Bec

What gives us stability in unstable times?

2008-04-22T19:05:00.000+10:00

I'm being prompted at the moment to think about the source of stability in my life. I'm looking down the barrel of unemployment as of Monday, and well it's giving me the willies. Not that I haven't been unemployed before. I have been through the redundancy mill twice. But there is something about the not knowing whether I will be unemployed for a week or for months that is very difficult to get my head around. There are so many implications if I don't find work quickly. And part of the difficulty is that I am only looking for part-time contract work in IT, which isn't common. I have been very blessed to have had that kind of role for the last two years, which has enabled me to study part-time at Bible College.

But in amongst my angst I've been thinking about what can be relied on when life is uncertain. I read a verse the other day that has stuck in my head since. "...we know and rely on the love God has for us..." 1 Jn 4:16. The context of the verse is in dealing with our eternal salvation and that our salvation is reliant on the love God has for us, but it is giving me some peace in amongst my angst. Whatever happens I know and can rely on the love God has for me. Not to mention Romans 8:28 :-).

God bless,
Bec

If this is art, then call me uncultured

2008-04-18T22:58:00.000+10:00

I read today about a college student in the US who has been artificially inseminating herself, and then taking abortifacients in order to suffer miscarriage. She has been using video footage of herself having the miscarriages and the bloody remains of her murdered children, as ART.

If you think I am joking you can read all about it at http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513

This behaviour is entirely evil and abhorent. My response? Disbelief and heartbreak...

Come Lord Jesus. We so desperately need you. Our world is a mess. We are such depraved sinners. Lord, we need you. Please come and bring justice, peace and love. Please bring an end to all the suffering and the evil. Please come soon! Lord please have mercy on this girl. Please save her, and bring her into your Kingdom. I don't ask this because she deserves your love and grace, but because like the rest of us, she is a sinner deeply and profoundly in need of a Saviour. Only you can save us, Lord Jesus, please work in her what is pleasing to you.

In Jesus' name. Amen.

Facing suffering and grief during divorce

2008-04-17T13:16:00.000+10:00

There's an interesting post on the Stuff Christian's Like blog today about "Painfully named divorce ministries". I was going to post a comment there, but I got too long-winded so here tis:

I think calling divorce ministries something honest about where people are actually at is providing a service. Our society is so blaise about divorce and so ignorant about how to deal with suffering. We are taught to run from it, ignore it, put on a happy face and repeatedly say "I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine" until we believe it. So sugarcoating divorce recovery with a nice title isn't really going to heal/help anyone if they are in the denial/avoidance mindset. I would argue naming ministries something like "Divorce Sucks" or "ARRGGGHH! Jesus please rapture me now!!" would be most appropriate.

My experience is you need to embrace the grief to move through it. It can seem like an endless ocean and you feel that there cannot possibly ever be an end to it. You feel that if you step into those deep waters of grief that you will be dragged along in a current forever, and that's if you don't drown. You can't see how you will ever be 'ok' ever again. Your heart feels like an onion, where the layers have been peeled away betrayal by betrayal. And you can't be sure what hurts the most, the other person betraying you, or your own failure and complicity in the failure of the marriage, or the complete sense of hopelessness you have because you don't have complete control over the circumstances and so cannot "fix it", and you don't understand why God isn't doing "more" when He so clearly states in Malachi 2:16 that "I hate divorce".

The only way to deal with it, so that you don't keep carrying it for the rest of your life, is to honestly face it. To dive right into the grief, to embrace it and face it honesty. You let Christ be the lifesaver that dives in with you and pulls you across to the other shore, remembering that "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering..." (Is. 53:3) and so He deeply, deeply identifies with our pain. More than that, He "...carried our sorrows... he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (Is. 53:4-5) So we can leave all of it beneath the cross. All of our sense of failure. All of our anger and hurt towards our former spouse. ALL OF IT. This healing doesn't come if you aren't honest about it all, because if you aren't honest about it all then you cannot leave it all under the cross.

Some of the comments on the the Stuff Christian's Like post belittled people expressing their pain during divorce. This seems to me to indicate an underlying fear that the people don't really know what to do when others are really suffering in this way, they don't know how to respond, and they really really do not want to have to deal with it. They do not want their nice little world invaded by genuine hurt and suffering. This is in stark contrast to Jesus' attitude as portrayed in Luke 4 where He quotes Isaiah 61:1-2, declaring His "mission statement". This mission statement included two key phrases, "to bind up the brokenhearted" and "to comfort all who mourn". This was part of Jesus' mission, it should also be part of each Christian's mission. Divorcees are brokenhearted and mourning, and they need the love of Christ, and they need the support of the Church.

God bless,
Bec

Stuff Bec Likes...

2008-04-16T19:07:00.000+10:00

It's pretty rare that I find something on the internet that is worth going back to again and again, that consistently produces edifying, amusing and/or engaging material.

I thought I was onto a winner with the podcast from Mars Hill, such rich teaching. (Although they need to rethink their stance on women in ministry, and their understanding of the subordination of women -- they really fail to understand the scriptures in historical context on this issue. Otherwise I really love their teaching as it is so Christocentric and also deals with the real issues that people face.)

Another goodie is the "I appreciate Christian pickup lines" group on Facebook. If you haven't joined it, it is quite simply THE BEST group on Facebook. Some highlights...

"If you were a leper I'd still hold your hand, even if it wasn't attached"
"You are a Galatians 5 fruit salad"
"How many times do I have to walk around you to make you fall for me?"
"I have familiarised myself with all 5 love languages, in fact, I invented 4 of them."
"Hi, I'm Calvin. You were meant to choose me."

But in the past few weeks the top spot has been taken out by the "Stuff Christians Like" blog. It is priceless, a real gift to the body of Christ. It's a bit prophetic in nature I think, in that it draws attention to some things that we do/think that are a bit silly. Helps us to take ourselves a bit less seriously. At the end of a hard day, it really puts a smile on my face.

God bless,
Bec

Giving God the credit for small things

2008-04-15T00:23:00.000+10:00

I read a quote from somebody a while ago who's name I don't remember that went something along the lines of 'Sainthood consists in ascribing to God even the smallest of things'.

Well I've had one of those weird 'smallest of things' things this week.

About nine months ago at last year's Hillsong conference in Sydney I lost my mobile phone. It was only about three months old at this point and not only was it quite new it was a iMate JASJAM. Not cheap. Not only not cheap but it was very firmly installed in my pantheon of household gods. :-( I really loved it. Partly because I'm a geek and love gadgets, but also because I had eSword installed on it and could look stuff up in the Greek on a whim. It was nerdy-geek-biblical-scholar heaven.

Quite apart from the fact that I really loved that phone much much more than I should have it was incredibly frustrating to lose it on the second day of the five day conference amongst 30000 other Christians, and try to be able to find various people in amongst that crowd without a phone was, well, difficult and annoying.

Needless to say I haunted the lost and found stand. But to no avail. It was not handed in. So after returning to Melbourne on the Saturday, I went down my local Tel$tra store and forked out for a new (cheap) phone.

On Tuesday night this week my lovely boyfriend received a call while we were out for Mexican from a lady in Sydney who had found my phone. NINE months later!! She mailed it out to me and it arrived today with a note explaining what had happened.

A month after Hillsong a Jehovah's Witness conference was held at the Acer arena and it was found and handed in. So this is 4 weeks after it was lost! And by a JEHOVAH'S WITNESS. I tell you what, next time they come to the door I think I will be a bit nicer rather than just whacking them with the bible! ;-)

Acer Arena's policy is to hold onto things for a period of time before throwing them out. So a lady there went to all the trouble of finding someone else with the same phone so she could borrow their charger to charge it up to find out who it belonged to. She found James' number and called.

I'm blown away. First of all, that God would return to me what was previously an idol in my life. Secondly, that He would move the heart of a JW to hand it in. Thirdly, that the lovely Maria went to all that trouble to find a charger so it wouldn't get thrown out, so she could return it to me.

In and of itself, it's a bit of a small thing. But I'm just amazed that God and the JW and Maria would go to all that trouble for me. And it's come at a time that it's really encouraging, and a reminder that God does love me, and isn't ignoring my struggles and difficulties at the moment. Its a little thing, but it makes me feel loved that He'd care about a little thing like that.

God bless,
Bec

Oedipal Athiests

2008-04-11T14:09:00.000+10:00

There is a fascinating post on the Age's Religious Write blog today:
http://blogs.theage.com.au/thereligiouswrite/archives/2008/04/oedipal_atheist.html

Well worth a read.

God bless,
Bec

Sin cost-benefit analysis

2008-04-07T14:35:00.000+10:00

In business whenever a new project is conceived it goes through cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it will produce benefits that are suitable for the cost involved. If there is not going to be more benefit gained than cost outlaid it typically doesn't go ahead.

I was thinking today about sin in the light of cost-benefit analysis. I think one of the things we do when we decide to sin is we ignore the 'cost' side of the situation. We only tend to see the 'benefit' that it will bring us in the immediate, and ignore the costs associated. We particularly tend to ignore the costs to other people for our sin. Costs we later have to deal with ourselves are FAR more motivating towards good behaviour.

One example would be the twerp who stole the badge off the back of my car yesterday in the church car-park. It's a hunk of plastic with some silver paint on it. Albeit it's a french hunk of plastic with silver paint, but nonetheless, still it's not a particularly practical item. So I would really question the value of having stolen it. I mean WHAT are they going to do with it?? (I can tell you what I'd like to do with it... fasten the thing to their foreheads with superglue given that they love it so much... grr mumble mumble) So benefit = negligible. However the cost to me is (a) a whole bucket load of annoyance, (b) $50 to replace it from my local friendly (read extortionate) Citroen dealer, (c) potentially have the car off the road for a few hours while it's fitted as the half broken bits and old glue will need to be cleaned up before the new one can be fitted. So cost to me is greater than the amount of benefit they could hope to get out of it. Stealing the whole car would have made MUCH MORE SENSE.

So maybe when we are tempted, we should do a bit of a cost-benefit analysis. And not just the cost to us, but the cost to others too. Is it really worth satisfying our desires when the costs are so high???

God bless,
Bec

Thoughts from Bloesch - Hope

2008-04-02T12:48:00.000+11:00

“A truly just society is dependent not on experiments in social engineering, not on the cultivation of a global consciousness, not on an amalgamation of the world religions, but on a universal acknowledgement of the reality of the holy and living God of the Scriptures and acceptance of the message that he has acted decisively and irrevocably for the salvation of the human race through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The hope of humanity rests on the kingdom of God, which is now at work in our midst, and on its consummation through the coming of Jesus Christ in power and glory when his universal lordship will be revealed for all to see and the fruits of his redemption will be assured to all who repent and believe.”
Bloesch, p249.

Thoughts from Bloesch - New Age

2008-04-02T12:47:00.000+11:00

“The motto of the New Age is struggle, growth and freedom as opposed to the biblical motto: faith, repentance and service.” Bloesch p244.

Thoughts from Bloesch - Church & Kingdom

2008-04-02T12:46:00.000+11:00

“The task of the church is a modest one: to wait and pray and hope for the coming of the kingdom, to witness to and acclaim God’s redeeming and sanctifying work; but the church must never confuse its work with God’s work or its righteousness with divine righteousness. The church can create parables and signs of the kingdom, but it cannot extend or fortify the kingdom through its own power and strategy. Biblical Christians could never say with the philosopher Hegel: ‘The Kingdom of God is coming, and our hands are busy at its delivery.’ God builds his kingdom through his own power and initiative, but he enlists us as coworkers in making the promise of the kingdom known to the world.” p243

Thoughts from Bloesch - Hearing Not Seeing

2008-04-02T12:42:00.000+11:00

I've found a number of interesting thoughts in my reading for Christology (from Bloesch's Jesus Christ: Saviour & Lord) this week. So I'm going to post a few quotes.

“Evangelical Christianity is focused on hearing, not seeing. The kingdom of God is not a visible reality but an invisible one that makes its way in the world through the proclamation of the gospel (cf. Lk 17:20-21). The new theologies speak of imaging God in order to make him real for human experience. Evangelical theology reaffirms the commandment against graven images (Ex 20:4; Deut 5:8) and extends this to a prohibition against mental images of God as well. Because the true God is incomprehensible and invisible, because he infinitely transcends all sight and understanding, he cannot be made known until he makes himself known. And God has made himself known fully and decisively in this one person, Jesus Christ. All other revelations and illuminations are simply clarifications and reaffirmations of this one incomparable revelation in human history. We make contact with Christ only through hearing the gospel about Christ, which we encounter in the Bible and also in the proclamation and ministrations of the church (cf. Rom 10:14-17; 1 Cor 1:21). Luther observed, ‘In order to see God we must learn to put our eyes into our ears.’ This indeed is the biblical way, and all other ways lead to obfuscation and deception.” p237-8

On praying outloud

2008-04-01T17:55:00.000+11:00

I found an interesting post on another blog about praying outloud and about prayer being a verbal thingy. It is a good read!

I've been trying out contemplative prayer a bit recently, and frankly it feels weird, so this post was really interesting. I've also been reflecting recently on my Christology. I've realised that I find it easier to "connect with God" (by which I mean have some nice spiritual feelings whilst praying / singing etc) when I have my eyes closed, because I have a sense of concentrating on Jesus more when I do that. But in considering the truly man, truly God nature of Christ recently I think I have been concentrating on Him in His divine, "spirit" form, and forgetting that Jesus is still a man, albeit a resurrected man.

I've been feeling challenged in worship particularly to keep my eyes open and to recognise that God is as much present when I have my eyes open as when they are closed. That might sound weird, but I think I've been seperating the spiritual and the material a bit much, because closing my eyes to block out sensory material information whilst worshipping is to say that the material world is not spiritual! Dang that Greek/gnostic philosophy/heresy creeping into my thinking!! It's almost by closing my eyes I'm creating a 'more spiritual world' under my eyelids where I can retreat from the 'real world' to.

This idea of praying outloud that is suggested in the other post I'm finding interesting as another layer on my spiritual/material question. If I pray silently, it seems more 'spiritual' whereas to pray outloud perhaps more material. But what I'm thinking is if I pray outloud it is acknowledging that the material is spiritual, and it is also a recognition of Christ's humanity. If He was ONLY human I would talk to Him outloud, so why because He is also divine do I retreat into silent prayer unless I'm in a public setting?

God bless,
Bec

Staying Together after Adultery

2008-03-28T12:46:00.000+11:00

There's a good article on staying together after adultery in The Age today:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/relationships/infidelity-forgive-and-forget/2008/03/26/1206207199531.html

It's great to see this in a secular forum! So often the secular response is something along the lines of "kick 'em to the curb".

Biblically the following is relevant:

Jesus said divorce in the case of adultery is acceptable, but does not say it is mandatory (Mt 5:31-32, 19:8-9; Mk 10:5-9).
Jesus said divorce was instituted because of the "hardness of people's hearts" (Mk 10:5) but this was never God's intention.
God hates divorce (Mal 2:16)
We have all sinned. As Christians God has forgiven us our unpayable debt, we should not be "unmerciful servants" who after being forgiven our unpayable debt, do not forgive others their smaller debt to us (Mt 18:21-35)
We should forgive as the Lord forgave us (Col 3:13)
If a non-believer wants to divorce a believer, the believer is not under any obligation (1 Cor 7:12-16)

I think a good rule of thumb is this, a marriage isn't over until God says so. There are clear scriptural guide lines that should cover the majority of cases (1 Cor 7 is good on this topic). Beyond that I think a good application of "...what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Mk 10:9) is to say that UNTIL God says to let go, hang on. If God joins together, only He has the right and the ability to seperate.

My understanding is that there may come a time when God says to let go. Only He knows the full outcome before it happens. Only He knows whether your spouse will repent or not. Only He knows the good that you may do in the meantime by hanging on and fighting (e.g. 1 Cor 7:16). But until such a time as He says to let go (and says so a few times, and this sits comfortably with a few wise counsellors) we should proceed from the conviction that God's ideal is the restoration of the marriage and we should work towards that end.

We do not lose anything by "putting all your eggs in God's basket" and trusting Him for marital reconciliation in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, even when it is excruiatingly painful. He is faithful and works "all things together for good for those who love Him" (Rm 8:28), whether that means persevering in loving and honouring our spouse in a broken marriage or whether it means being divorced. God is more than capable of healing whatever pain is sustained under either circumstance. We can absolutely trust Him to care for us and carry us through such times of trial when we are being obedient to His will.

God bless,
Bec

And can it be...

2008-03-26T17:08:00.000+11:00

I love Charles Wesley's hymn "And can it be" from 1825, something that as a mid-20s chick I may be fairly alone in, but nevertheless it moves me!

What follows is my attempt to restate the lyrics in a way that young people might more readily identify with. Musically I don't think they'd work though!!!

Is it really true that I should be richer
Because of the blood of Jesus?
He died FOR ME, even though I've caused Him so much pain
FOR ME, even though all my sins dragged Him to the grave
Whoa! Such AMAZING love! How can it be true??
That you, the one and only God, died for me????

Whoa! Such AMAZING love! How can it be true??
That you, the one and only God, died for me????
Whoa! Such AMAZING love! How can it be true??
That you, the one and only God, died for me????
He left His throne in heaven
He left freely because His grace is so huge!
He let go of everything except love,
And poured out His blood for our helpless race
It's all out of mercy, so gigantic, so free
And that mercy, that AMAZING, AMAZING mercy found me!

I lived a long time with my spirit in chains
Bound up in sin and darkness
Light from your eyes brought me back to life
I woke up, my prison cell was flooded with light
My chains fell off, my heart was free
So I left my prison and I followed you

I don't fear condemnation anymore
Jesus and all His followers are my family
I live a new life in Jesus, He's my head
I'm clothed in His divine righteousness
I approach God's throne with boldness
And claim the victor's crown because of Christ

I really love this hymn, it's so pertinent too, at this time of Easter.

God bless,
Bec

My big question this Easter

2008-03-22T14:05:00.000+11:00

I only have a short post for this Easter period. This year I'm a bit disappointed I guess about Easter... and that flows out of the question, what is the most glorifying way to remember what Christ did for us?

It's a question I don't have an answer for. Yesterday I went to both a protestant and a catholic Good Friday service. There were elements in both that I found good and that I felt glorified Christ, but still there was something lacking.

I think we take Good Friday for granted because we know what happened three days later. Maybe His death doesn't seem so awful, so evil and so reprehensible because we know He was raised from the dead on the Sunday.

But for that three days, no one knew He would rise. His body lay rotting in a tomb for three days. For three days He was "with the dead". His disciples and His family would have experienced this as a very real, very normal (although traumatic) death.

If you are anything like me, because we can't see Him in flesh and blood today, it is easy to romanticise Jesus and focus more on His divinity, failing to see how human He was too. And so how heinous His murder was.

I'm really praying this Easter that I can come to learn more of the significance of what He did on the cross. That I might learn how I can best glorify Him and bring Him honour at this time. Quite frankly, I rather wonder whether there is anything that we can do that would bring sufficient glory to His name for what He did at Calvary.

Maybe all we can do is, with Paul say, 'I resolve to know nothing ... except Jesus Christ and him crucified' (1 Cor 2:2)

God bless,
Bec

Worth a read...

2008-03-16T15:07:00.000+11:00

Just a quick post - I really appreciated the following piece in today's Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-flipside-of-fantasy-a-male-perspective/2008/03/15/1205472160379.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

It is SO refreshing to hear a man's perspective on the sexualisation of our culture and the tension between the fact that it is at once arousing but also annoying for men to be bombarded by these images.

I think I especially liked the piece as it was in a secular forum, I often hear this from Christian sources, but within the secular world I've found it rare!

God bless,
Bec

In the world but not of the world...

2008-03-14T13:31:00.000+11:00

As Christians we are called to live out our lives in the midst of a culture that is predominantly antagonistic towards our beliefs. Often this antagonism is hidden and implicit rather than in your face, but however it manifests itself, the worldly culture is not the culture of the Kingdom of God. The most difficult part of this is that although we know that we are not supposed to live as the world lives, there is so much in the worldly culture that appeals to our sinful nature. So we are at war, not only against the outward influence of the world, but our own flesh's desire to be part of that world and partake of a myriad of sinful behaviours.

There is good sense in restricting ourselves from partaking in those external things that most appeal to our sinful nature to lead us into sin. For instance, if we have an abusive relationship with alcohol, then it is wise to not go to bars and lovingly hold glasses of scotch in our hands. Proverbs 5 talks about this in the context of adultery, "Keep to a path far from [the adulteress], do not go near the door of her house" (v8). Verses 3-4 are also instructive, "For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword." The things that are most dangerous to us are those that have the appearance of being good. Within this context it would further be an appropriate application to say that Christian people should avoid getting too close to non-Christian members of the opposite sex EVEN IF (and perhaps especially if) they think it is an opportunity to share the gospel. So many people's lives are shipwrecked on that doozy of a lie. They draw close to someone, emotionally invest, thinking they are just "loving as a brother/sister for Jesus' sake", and then end up in sin and walking away from God.

But we can take seperation from the world too far... There is a fascinating story in today's Age about a reclusive Jewish community in Melbourne, they go far far beyond the requirements of the Torah. In their zeal to maintain holiness they go so far as to segregate boys and girls from the age of 8. They do not use their wife's first name in public, only around their own children. They do not use the first name of other women to whom they are not married, to do so they see as the beginning of an illicit relationship. When the children are 16 they are sent overseas to seminary until they marry, at which point they are informed about sex and are then allowed to pursue secular university education and work. Men look at the ground as they walk, for fear of looking at a woman. Women dress conservatively, cover their hair (or shave it off once they are married, and wear wigs/scarves). They believe that, "if we want our children to uphold our religion the way we believe it, to the dot of the law, dress code etc, the only way is to isolate children from all outside influences".

This is so sadly mistaken, because the other side of this story is that the reason this group made the paper today, is that one of the female teachers in their segregated school has been accused of sexually abusing some of the girls. Now I know the atheist jihadists will see this as a vindication of their view that "fundamentalist" religion is the cause of all suffering. However, the truth is simply this, unfortunately, when we try to remove ourselves from influences that we think will corrupt us, we forget that sin comes with us into our segregated communities, because we have sinful natures! In the world or out of it, as long as people are there, before Christ returns, there will ALWAYS be sin issues.

OK, so having said that I still think there is a good argument for Christian schools, and other methods of living "not of the world". Particularly with children, it is scary how impressionable they are, and I think it doesn't matter which school you send them to all children will be indoctrinated. Every school will have a prevailing philosophy and agenda which it is trying to push. Recent comments from the federal Education Minister's advisor suggested that they saw Christian schools as subversive to the cohesion of society because Christian schools would not promote the secular "doctrines" of abortion, free sex and evolution that were necessary for the smooth operation of society. I think if I have the choice between my children being indoctrinated with the doctrines of abortion, free sex and evolution compared to grace, love, forgiveness, service, love, love, (did I mention love?) I'd choose the later everytime. I do not want my children growing up believing that sexual immorality is normal and appropriate. It isn't. It's enslaving (and I say that out of painful experience not just 'high ideals') and sinful, whether or not our society realises it.

For this same reason I am careful about what television I watch, because I am conscious of how much of an impact secular media has made on the way I think. Many of the strongholds and deceptive philosophies that I have fought against, and still fight against were formed in me through watching popular media. Based on the Romans 12:1-2 principle, "You are what you eat" (The Bec Paraphrase), I choose to abstain from junk food (worldly media) and eat healthy (bible, christian books/blogs, bible, bible, bible etc). I particularly don't watch things that promote/depict violence or sexual immorality. (For this reason, I am in NO hurry to watch Underbelly! ;-)) I also don't listen to secular music if I can avoid it, since so much of the content falls into the following categories, (a) idolatry of love; (b) idolatry of sex; (c) disrespect of women, authority etc. I am quite capable of coming up with enough sinful and rebellious thoughts on my own, I don't need any help with that!

In all honesty, I can see a point where this might make evangelism difficult. In not engaging the culture I live in, perhaps this makes relating to non-Christians more difficult. However, this hasn't been my experience to date. The times I clash most with non-Christians ideologically is over issues of trusting God versus doing things in my human strength, my relationship with money particularly has come up a number of times in this context. After all why does one need to worry and grasp after riches when we have a Father who graciously provides all that we need? I can't remember the last time I lost a conversation over whether or not I had seen such and such on telly, or whether or not I liked a certain song. In all honesty I've probably always been a bit different from "everyone else" anyway, I guess being different and seperate because of my Christianity mightn't feel that weird because I've always been an outsider. So if I'm going to be a weirdo, why not be a weirdo for Christ?

God bless,
Bec

The truth about abortion

2008-03-10T12:41:00.000+11:00

If you have any doubts about abortion the following link speaks for itself:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

Don't view while eating. Kids shouldn't see it either.

God bless,
Bec

Christ preached to the dead

2008-03-07T19:30:00.000+11:00

This semester I'm doing two subjects - Christology and Public Communications. Happily most of the assessment is presentations and reading summaries, I only have to write one essay and that's not due for another forteen weeks! SOOOO I have decided to take full advantage of the opportunity by picking the trickiest essay topic off the list, something that I'll actually have to think about, something I can get my teeth into!!

Consequently, I've picked the topic about Christ's descent to the dead. I've started reading and MAN is a literal interpretation of this AWESOME. There's this odd bit in 1 Peter 3, verses 18-21:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Preaching to the dead??? Weird! So far what I have read suggests the following:

That Christ's descent to the dead is comforting, because this is part of the human experience, and so there is nothing and no where where Christ hasn't been "one of us" - so upholds incarnational theology as He did the whole lot, conception, birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and death; so He shared in the common experience of life. Of course after all this came the resurrection, which we will all share in when His kingdom comes.

That Christ's entering into death is life entering into death. Death is utterly conquerered because the Lifegiver has entered into it.

That God's grace is bigger than we can imagine. We think that He can't save those who were dead, but even death cannot stop God's grace.

It upholds Christ as the ONLY way to salvation, by giving those born before Christ the same opportunity to believe/not believe, rather than allowing that some could be saved by following the law. Eschatologically I don't think this presents many problems, presumably as long as the souls in question made their response to Christ before being resurrected and judged at the end then it would "still count"? I also do not think that this means that all the souls preached to WERE saved. If you like Arminian thinking then not all of them would necessarily have believed what they heard, why would deception necessarily end at death? It says these souls were "in prison" not that they were in the presence of God. If you like Calvinist thinking then there is no guarantee that God had predestined all of them. Further if you are a Calvinist then it shouldn't bother you so much that they were dead when they were saved -- how and when God saves is up to Him.

I got really really excited when I was reading about this the other day. It is so disappointing that this idea of Christ's descent and preaching to the dead has not been understood literally. Generally I really believe that there is NO way that we can add anything to the idea of God's grace (other than by going universalist - but then universalism isn't grace it's unjust permissiveness) the human inclination would always be to try and limit grace or make it dependent on works to make it fit the way we see life. So although I haven't finished reading or forming my thoughts on this, I would say that it probably be better to err on the side of believing that God is a loving and compassionate God who loves everyone! Those who have died as much as those who are living (and given His position sitting outside of time in eternity, wouldn't we all appear to be alive at the same time, and dead at the same time?) and wants just as much to save them as He does us?

I am also wondering whether there is a relationship between the above passage from 1 Pt 3 and the following from Mt 27:51-53:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Another weird passage. Although the timing implied in the verse is a bit weird... Did those who were raised, raise when the curtain in the temple was torn in two? And then hang around at the cemetery (or first century equivalent) until the Sunday morning, when they then went into Jerusalem? Or did they raise when Jesus rose? If so were they the souls of the dead that Jesus preached to when he descended to the dead?

This is a bit of a mess, clearly I have lots left to investigate!! But already I'm loving this new angle I'm seeing on God's grace. I find it SO easy to underestimate His grace - it's just seems too amazingly good to be true! The more I come to know Him, the MORE gracious, MORE loving I see that He is.

Jesus is amazing! :-)

God bless,
Bec

What is beauty for you?

2008-03-06T20:40:00.000+11:00

Nivea is doing a thing on their website where they ask people to upload photos and make a comment about what they think beauty is.

This seemed like a good opportunity to talk about Jesus in a secular forum. Frankly I'm not overly optimistic that they'll actually use it, but this is what I submitted (with the pic to the right):

Beauty is a signpost
Beauty is a homing beacon that calls us home to where all the beauty came from -- the person of Jesus Christ. We are each made in the image of God, as such the beauty of each person reflects the beauty of God.

LATE BREAKING UPDATE (10 Mar): They did use it -> http://www.nivea.com.au/beauty_is/show/14599

God bless,
Bec

Reading the Bible in Context

2008-03-04T11:23:00.000+11:00

This is very amusing, and makes its point very well! It's a wonder to me that he could keep a straight face! :-)

God bless,
Bec

Wooohooo!

2008-03-02T20:56:00.000+11:00

This is just a quick post, I had an amazing day today, saw the "above and beyond all that we can ask or imagine", and am just amazed at how God is moving.

My boyfriend and I have just got involved with a church that works on the multisite model, and they had their first service today at the new site in our area. We have been feeling called over the last few months to become involved and so it was awesome to finally be there today and see the vision come to be.

The expected numbers were 200 committed to the new site, however the turnout this morning was 750! And they had to turn away 50 cars, because there wasn't room to park! And it turns out that 500 of those who made it into the building are committed to the new site. As the venue only seats about 350 (there were people hanging off the balcony and standing room only!) they've decided that from next week (i.e. the second week that the site will be operating) that we'll have to go to 2 services!!

I am just so excited to see what God will do in the area through this church, and to be one of those "unworthy servants" that He will use to do it. I have a great sense of expectation, not in the church itself so much, but in Christ who "is building His church". It will be exciting and challenging to be involved in the work that God is doing in the area of Melbourne. Also feel very much at peace that this is our home, and where He has called us to be.

So yes, it's an unrestrained "Wooooohoooooo!" on my part! Our God is an AWESOME God :-)

God bless,
Bec

Dethroning VISA

2008-02-29T15:48:00.000+11:00

Have you seen Fight Club? If not, I'm sorry, I'm about to ruin the ending for you!

The movie centres around one man's existential angst. He is seeking salvation from the doldrums of working for an insurance company so he can service his credit card debt, which has been racked up by having to have everything in his apartment "Ikea perfect". He meets an enigmatic stranger and finds salvation in this "Fight Club" scenario, which basically is about a bunch of blokes getting together and rediscovering what "makes them men" (aka beating the living daylights out of each other). The fight club concept grows and groups form all over the US. At the end of the movie, the fight clubs have formed a quasi-urban-guerilla-terrorist movement, and they seek to bring salvation to the US, by unseating the culprit behind the humdrum of life - slavery to the Credit Card companies. The final scene of the movie is where you see all the credit card companies simultaneously blowing up across the skyline.

This is a rather graphic illustration of what happened in my life when Jesus saved me. Up until that point I was in the grip of 'Visa' with an unsustainable debt. I placed a lot of faith in Visa, and regularly gave offerings (interest) of $150 a month to keep the religion going. I believed that "in case of emergency" Visa would bail me out, Visa would save me. But in the day-to-day Visa was just a comfort, and a way to participate in worship of the other gods of the secular world, "at no cost".

The bible says that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). In the greek there are two words for temple, and the one used in this context more particularly means "Holy of Holies". The Holy of Holies was where in the OT, the ark of the covenant was housed. The ark represented God's presence amongst His people - now this function is taken over by the Holy Spirit's indwelling of His people. No one went inside the Holy of Holies, except the High Priest once a year. Now there is a story in 1 Samuel 5 about an encounter between the Philistine god "Dagon" and the Ark of the Covenant, verses 1-4 are awesome:

"After the Philistines had captured the ark of God, they took it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. Then they carried the ark into Dagon's temple and set it beside Dagon. When the people of Ashdod rose early the next day, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the LORD! They took Dagon and put him back in his place. But the following morning when they rose, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the LORD! His head and hands had been broken off and were lying on the threshold; only his body remained."

This is what happened when God moved into my life, and the Holy Spirit took up residence in me. All the old idols started falling on their faces before Him! One particular idol that God took care of was 'Visa'. At this point it was going to take me about 3 years to pay off the debt that I had accumulated, because I was living beyond my means, and if I did manage to pay it off in 3 years that would be without saving ANYTHING, but living pay cheque to pay cheque.

God challenged me on where I was putting my faith and my trust. "'In case of emergency', who are you going to trust to look after you? Visa? Or me?"

The Lord showed Himself faithful and gracious. This was "an emergency" or at very least a very, very nasty spot to be in. I felt so imprisoned, knowing that for the next 3 years I would be a slave until I paid off my debt. However, the Lord delivered me of that debt, I was given a lump sum of the exact amount I was in debt. So I paid it off and cut up my credit card. Since then whenever there have been "emergencies" or tight spots, He has NEVER failed to provide. In addition to that first lump sum which paid off my credit card, He has miraculously produced lump sums of money when I needed them four or five times. Additionally, before starting at Bible College, He provided a part-time IT contract role that was only supposed to last 3 months, and I have now been here nearly 2 yrs! This job just doesn't exist, He put it here for me. He has also used my lovely boyfriend to prompt me and teach me how to better manage what I have. He has also taught me to be content with what I have, because I know He is good and provides for me, however much He provides - despite what I may think - is enough to meet my needs.

God has ALWAYS been faithful to provide for me, when I have been financially responsible and when I have been financially irresponsible. This is not to say that I have been able to afford to buy everything that I WANT, but I have NEVER gone hungry, I have NEVER lacked what I needed. And this has been such a beautiful and constant reminder of the goodness and faithfulness of God.

I can testify that Luke 12:22-24, 27-31 is true:

"Then Jesus said to his disciples: 'Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! ...Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."

We quite simply do not need to worry about these things, God will provide, because He is good, and He is our Father, and He has promised to look after us, and delights to give good gifts to His children. We just need to focus on seeking His kingdom & His righteousness.

So that is how 'Visa' was dethroned in my life. Christ set me free.

God bless,
Bec

The Christological Question

2008-02-28T17:00:00.000+11:00

This week marks my return to classes, and it has already prompted some thinking! Most particularly last night when I waded my way through a most difficult bit of reading by a guy called Ogden, who really really needs to learn how to write in a way that doesn't make his reader feel like their head is being encased in fast-drying concrete... Anyways! Concrete notwithstanding he made some interesting claims.

The Christological question is normally expressed as "Who is Jesus?". Ogden showed that because Jesus is the revelation of God that the primary question is really "Who is God?". But he went on to say that this is important because it answers the existential question, "Why am I here?" (etc). So the question of who Jesus/God is, is really one of "What does God mean for
me?"

In one section he claimed that the "I am" statements in John should actually be translated "it is I". And that as such those statements are answering a different question to "Who is Jesus?". Rather the question is "Who is the bread of life?", the answer being "It is Jesus". His argument was that "who/what is the bread of life?", "who/what is the light of the world?" etc are the existential questions of life, it is how we confront "the meaning of life". As such he argued that the Christological question is not only "Who is Jesus?" and "Who is God?", but also "Who am I?".

I think this presents some opportunities and some problems. Firstly, the opportunities... Non-christians typically aren't asking the question "Who is Jesus?" they are typically asking "Why is there so much suffering?", "what will make me happy?", "why am I never satisfied?" etc. So if you take the "I am / It is I" statements in John they could be very useful evangelistically. If we convert the "I ams" into questions of "Who is the bread of life?" answer being "Jesus", then it might provide a handy list of typical questions (although metaphorical) that people are asking, for which we will readily recognise the answer as JESUS!

Where this worries me is that it removes focus from Christ and puts it on us, and makes who He is only worthy of contemplation because of how it will work out in my life. Now realistically none of us are entirely altruistic, none of us are completely disinterested in our pursuit of God, honestly none of us can give Him anything that wasn't already His by rights anyway, however! However, this seems to me to have come out of a post-Descartes way of thinking. Prior to Descartes life was reasoned from the perspective of the unchanging and permanentness of God. Descartes shifted thinking so that his starting point was himself, he reasoned that he existed because he thought, his famous line, cogito ergo sum "I think, therefore I am".

He then went on to reason that because a finite mind could not conceive on its own of the infinite that the fact we have the idea of an infinite God means that such a being must exist and have planted the idea in our minds. However, in Exodus 3:14 when Moses asks who he should say sent him, God's answer is "I am who I am". Descartian thinking flies directly in the face of this statement, only God's existence can be extrapolated from for He is the only one who is completely sufficient, and self-existant, whereas we are here today, gone tomorrow.

The danger in extrapolating from us up to God is that we end up making God in our own image. We see this happen all the time. God is revealed as 'Father' but because some people's experience of their natural fathers is negative they have difficulty in relating to God as Father. We project onto God the limitations and hurts and disappointments of our life and let that form our view of Him. This leads us to believe lies about God as our view of Him is formed out of lies we believe about ourselves.

Whereas if we start with how God has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus, and through the scriptures, we can then more accurately extrapolate from who He is BACK to who we are. In which case, the Johannine "I am" statements are more useful in the "I am" form than the "It is I" form. Given that we were never meant to live without Christ, we should never have had to ask the existential question "What is the way, the truth, the life?". The "I am" statements are the truth that always was, we just did not see it as our minds were clouded, I think Jesus was just reminding us.

Another example of this is in the case of suffering. We are prone to ask, "Why is God letting me suffer? What have I done?" And we assume that He must be angry or not love us, and therefore feel less prone to draw close to Him. However, if we start from the revelation of who He is in scripture, and are secure in His love as revealed through the person of Christ, it casts a completely different shadow on the issue of suffering. Who He is, is more definitive than what we experience. Because we know He loves us with an everlasting love we can rest peacefully, amid the suffering, that He will "work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose" (Ro 8:28), even when we do not understand how.

I think who God is, is the primary question, because its answer will cause the rearrangement of all else. It is who God is that drives everything, not the existential questions. Focussing on the existential questions is getting the cart before the horse. You can't answer them without knowing the answer to the question, "Who is Jesus?". I think "Who is Jesus?" IS the existential question of life.

Maybe I'm saying the same thing as Ogden... I just think the emphasis needs to be on God and His revelation as the starting point, not our existential questions. I fear that if we start with the existential questions we end up with the answer "42". I think in finding out who Jesus is we inevitably find out who we truly are, but I think it is a happy consequence not the point, because He deserves to be known and glorified even if benefits us nothing :-)

God bless,
Bec

My Theological Worldview

2008-02-26T11:19:00.000+11:00

I love those quiz thingys you can take on the net... Such a wonderful diversion from productivity ;) Found this one mentioned on another blog, and the results are interesting!!

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

82%

Reformed Evangelical

75%

Neo orthodox

68%

Emergent/Postmodern

64%

Fundamentalist

57%

Classical Liberal

39%

Roman Catholic

32%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

32%

Modern Liberal

25%

God bless,
Bec

New Semester Resolutions

2008-02-25T12:46:00.000+11:00

Each Semester I make a resolution to be more organised and to consistently apply myself throughout the semester. This usually falls down around week 3 and by the time major essays are due it's a mad panic to read through the required amount of reference materials so that I can write something that answers the question. The stress is nasty, and leaves me exhausted. It is all exacerbated by the fact that I still get good marks, which I am never happy about because it encourages my leave-it-to-the-last-minute attitude.

So here are my 'New Semester Resolutions':

1. Do the assigned reading each week
2. Pick all essay topics in first week (getting started seems the hardest part)
3. Figure out what is due when, and what overlaps with other assignments
4. Minimise overlap between assignments by finishing some early if they clash so I can concentrate on one at a time
5. Start reading for major essays from beginning of semester
6. Get good regular sleep, keep late nights to a minimum
7. Observe Sundays as a Sabbath
8. Don't work overtime
9. Schedule regular quality time with important people in my life
10. Prioritise staying 'in community' at church, keep church commitments reasonable
11. Learn to say no to invitations, avoid overcommitting!!
12. Be sensible about amount of time to spend on things, prioritise and then do what I can in reasonable timeframes.
13. Study in College Library / with friends, studying at home alone it's too easy to get distracted and waste time
14. Set clear achievable goals for each study session
15. Keep resolutions beyond week 3!!!!!!!

God bless,
Bec

Holy Music

2008-02-25T12:38:00.000+11:00

A lot is said of different styles of music in church and a lot of judgements are made about what is more appropriate "worship" based on the style of music. In more contemporary churches "good worship" is defined as music that stirs us and where we had a jolly good bounce and felt good. In more traditional churches "good worship" is defined more in terms of the sung liturgy, or beautiful hymns that have been sung "by the saints" for hundreds of years.

I recently read How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt. He discussed at one point the impact Christianity had made on music, and applauded the Christian music that conformed to the classic forms, whilst making an argument that since Jazz and Rock and Roll there has been a decline in the "holiness" of music, due to its discordant and rebellious themes. (I don't have the book around anymore so if I'm doing an injustice to his point, my apologies).

I personally wonder how we can make an objective assessment of whether a certain piece of music is "holy" or not. This needs to go beyond our subjective experience of it, to what musically and lyrically is pleasing / unpleasing to God. Does God have a sense of aesthetics? Does He enjoy one form of music more than another based on its "beauty"? If you divorce the lyrics from music, are there styles of music that are more honouring to God than others?

I think this is all rather difficult to answer. God hasn't revealed through His word a preference for a certain style of music. I haven't found anywhere it says, "Thus saith the Lord, I hateth Rock n' Roll, giveth me only thy praise by way of the pipe organ", and neither has He said, "Thus saith the Lord, I am bored of choral music, please someone plays drums in mine sanctuary". And if we stuck to what is literally said in the bible then musicians would be "dressed in fine linen and play cymbals, harps and lyres" (2 Chron 5:12)

I would definitely say that God has a sense of aesthetics, or else where did we get a sense of aesthetics from?? Where does our appreciation of beauty come from otherwise? C. S. Lewis wrote "The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing...to find the place where all the beauty came from". There is something about beauty that inherently draws us towards God, as it reveals God.

There is amazing diversity in creation, and all of it He said was "good". That would include a stormy winters day as much as a beautiful spring afternoon. (And yet that winter's day is dark, broody and chaotic, as is a lot of modern music.) I think God would appreciate a peach as much as He does a pear, and likewise from a musical perspective I think there isn't that much difference in essence between madrigals and the latest hillsong jumpy song. Given that God is a creative God and that we are made in His image, isn't creating music, of any genre in some way honouring Him, particularly when the music is written or played for the glory of God? This goes to the "spirit and truth" question, what is the motivation for the music?

One difficulty in determining the "holiness" of a piece of music is really that without the lyrics, a piece of music does not communicate clearly its subject matter. It communicates and ellicts feelings, and in time you can come to associate certain strains in the music with certain subjects, but it isn't clear without lyrics who or what is being played about. This is of concern in the respect that a piece of music maybe joyful, but is it communicating and elliciting joy about God or about something else? Charles Spurgeon wrote, "When I have heard of large congregations gathered together by the music of a fine choir, I have remembered that the same thing is done at the opera house and the music-hall, and I have felt no joy. When we have heard of crowds enchanted by the sublime music of the pealing organ, I have seen in the fact rather a glorification of St. Cecilia than of Jesus Christ. Our Lord trusted in no measure or degree to the charms of music for the establishing his throne. He has not given to his disciples the slightest intimation that they are to employ the attractions of the concert room to promote the kingdom of heaven." So Spurgeon wouldn't be a big fan of Planetshakers. Are the people there worshipping God or are they simply enjoying the music? Or both?

I think a good line would be to try an ensure that any music is not distracting. I often find with the louder styles of music that my attention is distracted away from God, whereas the softer music (or silence!!) is less distracting. In which case this isn't just a question of aesthetics as such, one can enjoy many styles of music, and yet find one style more distracting than another, when the aim is not the enjoyment of music but glorification of God.

I think lyrics are the clearest way I think we can assess a piece of music as to whether it is glorifying to God. Obviously if the words are blasphemous, irreverent or promoting a non-biblical world view then there's a problem. I also think there is an issue when too much is made of "me" in the words, rather than focussing on Christ. And this is probably where a lot of modern Christian music is problematic, "I love you Lord", "I give my life", "I come to you", "I called, you answered". I, I, I, me, me, me. Rather, He first loved us, he gave His life for us, He came to us, He called us, etc. And how about, "You are everything to me". Well, is that before or after we swear at our neighbour for cutting us off in traffic? Before or after we prioritise sleep over spending time with Him in prayer? How honestly can any of us ever say that He is EVERYTHING to us? Our faithfulness to God is quite pitiful, rather it is His faithfulness to us that is worthy of song.

God bless,
Bec

Science has discovered forgiveness

2008-02-22T14:00:00.000+11:00

There is an interesting article today in the Sydney Morning Herald entitle More than divine: science discovers that there is power in forgiveness. It is interesting on a number of counts...

Let's start with the title "More than divine: science discovers..." This portrays the writer's conviction that somehow science is more real/reliable than theology. It is as if they were saying, "well you may have irrationally thought that forgiveness was a good thing, but now we KNOW rationally because science has proved it". Because apparently all theologically based ideas come from an irrational leap of faith, and so are spurious, whereas science is the only way to find truth in a world that doesn't believe in absolute truth. How many more theological ideas does science have to prove before the bright sparks figure out that theology is just as rational a way of understanding life, the universe and everything as science? (Francis Shaeffer's book Escape from Reason on this topic is a fantastic read btw).

OK, having said that, it is interesting that the study has shown that forgiveness is actually more beneficial for the 'victim' rather than the 'perpetrator'. I think the key section in this article is where it says, "Now, forgive the offender. Don't just shed the bitterness and drop the recrimination, but empathise with his plight, wish him well and move on - whether he is sorry or not." This directly mirrors the New Testament instructions that we should "pray for those who persecute you" (Mt 5:44), "love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back..." (Lk 6:35), "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." (Rm 12:14).

Now who would have guessed that if God asks us to do something that it would actually work out for OUR good?? LOL.

So there are two ways of dealing with hurt. The world's way (before science discovered forgiveness and saved us all from ourselves LOL) was to hold on to it, use it as an excuse to act out in anger towards others, and build a wall around the heart so "no one can ever hurt me like that again". The result is that we shrivel. We become less able to have meaningful relationships, because we function on this "safe" level where no one can hurt us because no one can get close enough. We become less willing to engage with life and ride out it's good and bad days, instead withdrawing within a safe emotional shell. We also tend to lash out at others if they behave in a way that reminds us of the last time we were hurt. "This is just like that time when..." and so we hold on to a serious of things that happened in our lives, and often draw out of them a lesson about who we are and what our value is, "if you were worth anything this wouldn't keep happening", "nobody loves you", "you are worthless".

My own experience in this is that over my lifetime I have developed a bit of an abandonment/rejection complex. When I was little some people I really loved moved overseas / interstate, and I couldn't understand why they would do that if they loved me. Then when my little sister was born I felt rejected, now that my parents had her, they wouldn't need/love me. Also had bad experiences at school with being rejected/betrayed by people. Then a couple of years ago I went through a nasty divorce. I don't want to get into details, I was at fault as much as my ex-husband was, so I don't want to labour the example as if he was 'the bad guy' and I the 'innocent party'. Neither of us lived up to our vows. Sadly, the marriage for both of us I think provided more of a sense of rejection than of love. It was very lonely, and deeply, deeply hurtful. I am deeply sorry for what happened, for the ways I failed to honour him and the hurt that I inflicted on him.

When the divorce finally went through I thought I would die because of the pain. I could not conceive of the possibility that the immense ocean of pain and grief would ever, ever end. I hated him as much as I loved him. What I found was this, that whole "bless those who persecute you" thing works. As I began to pray that God would bless him, more and more the pain went away, more and more I felt safe and that I didn't need to barricade myself inside an emotional shell. More and more I became grateful that if all of that had to have had happened that at least I had come to know God in the process, and I had learnt from walking with Him through suffering just how much His heart breaks for us, and also that my faith was not based on what God could do for me, but that knowing Him was consolation enough. I still regularly pray for God to bless him. It's funny but I see it now as an honour to be able to do that, given that it does me no good at all! It gives me a great sense of peace and joy.

I think an important thing to realise with forgiveness is that it requires first that you acknowledge that something wrong has been done to you. You can't forgive something that you rationalise away, and when you start building the walls you internalise the experience and make it part of who you are, and so it doesn't seem wrong, because "people just don't like me" so it was natural for that thing to have happened. To forgive I think you have to look at yourself squarely in the mirror and realise that you have worth and value and that what was done was wrong. It's only at that point that you can forgive it. If you don't think it was wrong, no matter how hurt you feel, you won't think you need to forgive it. This is particularly difficult when you weren't entirely innocent yourself, because there's a sense that "I deserved that". This comes out of spurious thinking that says "two wrongs make a right". What you did was wrong, but that doesn't make what they did less wrong. In this case, you probably need to forgive yourself as well as them.

God bless,
Bec

Selling Jesus

2008-02-20T21:46:00.000+11:00

OK, I've been holding back on writing this because it seriously gets my goat, and I don't know how dispassionately I can discuss it, but here we go... I hate the way some churches go about evangelism. I hate how marketing principles have crept into drawing non-Christians into the church. I hate how getting people to church and to make a decision has become the point of evangelism.

Here are some of the bad reasons that church marketing uses get people to come to church:

We have a great "worship experience"
Jesus wants to make you happy
Jesus wants to make you rich
Jesus wants to make you fit & healthy
Jesus wants to help you have the best sex ever

All these examples fall into two errors:

Conforming to the world by promoting the cult of Me
Selling Jesus on His "lifestyle benefits"

All these reasons are NOT about Christ but about people. It sends the message that church and Christianity is about us not about Christ. It does not matter to Jesus one bit how great the music is if it isn't centred on Him. He seeks those who worship "in spirit and in truth" not necessarily those who worship "in tune and in time". If it's about the "worshipper" and how much we enjoy the experience then we are seeking our own pleasure NOT worship of God. This is not worship of God but idolatry. I am not saying we are not allowed to enjoy worship, but the lights/smoke/volume/rockingness is secondary to the question of whether we have worshipped God in spirit & truth.

All the other reasons listed above, Jesus wants to make you happy, rich, healthy and for you to have great sex also fall into this trap of being about us rather than Christ. It is attempting to sell Jesus in exchange for money/health/sex. Jesus is not going to give us health, wealth, great sex in exchange for our love. The cross should be enough to gain our love as it is the ultimate sign of His love for us.

Does Jesus want good things for us? Yes, but ALL this is secondary to the truth of the gospel. People who teach these things as primary to the gospel are dancing dangerously close to Paul's definition of "false teachers" in 1 Tim 6, who preach that "godliness is a means to financial gain" (v5). I think Paul would be happy with my broadening the application to "godliness is a means to health, wealth and HOT sex!!"

All of this I think stems out of an unhealthily Arminian view of salvation. We need to remember predestination, those who are going to be saved are going to be saved, so we don't need to twist their arm. We need to "go" (NB. See the great commission, "go into the world" not "get them to come to church") and do a honest job of "witnessing" (NB. Interesting that the bible uses the word "witness" not "sell" or "market"). Yes the human will has a role in salvation, but to be a true convert you need not just to make a decision for Jesus, but you need to be predestined, called, regenerated, granted faith and repentence, justified before God and adopted into His family. All these things God does. If there is any role of our will in the process it's only because He enables us to do it, the decision is not a saving work!! (i.e. If making the decision saved us, it would be a work not grace that saves us).

Anything good that God does in our lives after salvation is as much pure grace as salvation itself. It is presumptuous to assume that He will do it, although it is in His character to give good gifts to His children. However it does not make a good basis for relationship, to love Him for what He can give us, rather than for who He is. I feel so strongly about this because I hate anything that seperates people from God, especially those things that have the appearance of bringing uscloser but in actual fact still divide. To try and trick people into coming to Jesus by manipulating them with their idols is sick. Idols do not lead people to Christ.

Nothing else in life is of any value in comparison to knowing Jesus. Even when that brings suffering and pain. Faith needs to be based on who Jesus is. If faith is based on the blessings of God, then if people do not "get what they signed up for" they will abandon the faith. Which is to say their faith was never IN Jesus to begin with, although they may have thought they were Christian because they prayed the sinner's prayer.

Just to finish on a bit of a lighter note, I found this vid on YouTube, talks about It's-all-about-Me worship:

God bless,
Bec

Being a Woman

2008-02-20T20:04:00.000+11:00

I have just finished reading Kevin Giles' book The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate. It is such an interesting read, there is so much that comes out of it.

His discussion on how the cultural context of the reader influences interpretation of the Bible I initially found uncomfortable. I like to think that if you do your exegesis properly that the cultural assumptions of the reader don't come into it. However, after reading his section on how the theology around slavery changed as a result of the changes in society that were happening, I can see that this makes sense.

His contention was that up until the 1800s the majority of theologians held that the bible not only regulated but legitimated slavery. That good evangelical theologians made an argument from the bible that blacks were by nature subordinate to whites, and that slavery was a divinely ordained institution. Very few would make that argument now, praise God.

Most interestingly there is actually a better biblical case for slavery than there is for the subordination of women, and yet most theologians who are pro-subordination of women are anti-slavery. It is fascinating that in the same sections of scripture that deal with the "household codes" that say that women should be submissive to their husbands, that slaves should obey their masters, that children should obey their parents, that the slavery clause is interpreted as culturally specific for the first century and not a timeless principle, YET the women clause is held to be a timeless principle.

I have been thinking about all this, and what it all means for me as a woman. Before I knew Christ I was a militant feminist, I wasn't in it for equality, rather because I feared that in my nature I actually wasn't equal I fought to prove that I was better than men. As an intelligent woman I often found that I could out-argue many men, and I rather relished 'proving my worth'. I also thought that to be equal with men meant being like men, particularly in the corporate world. It seemed that the women who moved up the management hierarchy were those who were tough and steely and who were comfortable in highly testosterone filled environments.

When I met Christ my perception of myself as a woman changed. I came to realise that I didn't need to prove anything to anyone about my worth. That my worth and my identity did not come from proving that I was better than or like a man, that I could be a woman, be gentle and soft, as well as intelligent and productive in the workplace. I started to incorporate what Jesus was showing me about myself into the way I worked. In managing my team I focussed on looking after my people rather than being so relentlessly task focussed. It is interesting, shortly later I was made redundant and was looking for work. When I applied for another team lead role at one of the major banks, the feedback from the agent after my interview with the bank was that I was "too nice" and they were looking for more of a "cold hard career bitch".

My response to all this was that wasn't the kind of woman I want to be, and that if that's what they were looking for I was glad not to work there as it would be a nasty environment! But I think in abandoning the 'career bitch' stereotype and also the 'barbie doll' stereotype I've fallen back into another stereotype of womanhood.

This stereotype I think is more subtle and dangerous, because it's so often labelled "biblical womanhood". The difficulty is, as Giles' says, you can make a biblical arguement for the subordination of women, but you can also make a biblical argument for the egalitarian position. I've fallen into the "men and women are equal, but men are more equal than women" line of thinking and that I think is just a product of growing up seeing the "Christian ideal" of women in submission to men.

This I think though was a product of the times. Growing up I heard stories about women who had stayed with their husbands who were abusive, and had heard these women commended for their faithfulness. But in many cases these women could not have supported themselves if they left their husbands, and were living in a time where divorce just did not happen.

What I am wondering is this... times have changed, do the household codes of the first century apply now? The cultural context of the first century is not the same as ours. In the first century the pater familias (the father of the household) had the power of life and death over his wife, children and slaves. In our culture and time any man who killed his wife & kids would be charged with murder. Different times.

Throughout the bible God is shown to be interested in justice and mercy. I think an interesting piece of scripture in this context is Matthew 23:23; God is more interested in "justice, mercy and faithfulness" than quibbling about law. This whole debate on what constitutes a biblical position on subordination could really be seen as quibbling about law. Giles' point about text-jam - where both sides can proof-text their viewpoint until the Lord returns seems to me a quibbling about law.

Maybe the key issue is that in the first century women did not have the opportunity for justice in the way we do now, and so the bible addresses the situation and opportunities of the time. But what does justice for women mean now?

The subordination of women didn't come in until the fall, Genesis 3 is the first place in the bible where a clear and unequivocal statement is made on the subject, God said to Eve "...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (v16). This situation of inequality between the sexes is a result of the fall, not God's eternal purpose.

So I'm seeing a new alternative for how I view myself as a woman. Still do not want to be a militant feminist, I love and respect men WAY too much! And the subordinate woman thing I am seeing isn't right. So maybe the issue is really in defining my value, position, identity and relationships in terms of my gender. Maybe I can be gentle and soft because I'm Bec and it's who God made me, and reflects Christ. Maybe I can be intelligent and be gifted for teaching because those are gifts God gave me for the service of the body regardless of whether I have a Y chromosome or not. Maybe how I relate to people (future hubbie included) is a result of my "Becness" rather than my femaleness. Maybe I should stop trying to shove myself into a cookie-cutter shape of what it means to be "a woman".

God bless,
Bec

Rudd's Apology Speech

2008-02-13T18:12:00.000+11:00

The full text of Kevin Rudd's Apology Speech today is available here:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/12/1202760291188.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Praise God! I truly pray that this provides a platform that allows Australia to move forward on fixing the issues of infant mortality and differing levels of economic opportunity, and general life expectancy rates in our Indigenous communities. I pray that this will save lives.

All praise and glory to Jesus.

God bless,
Bec

Subordinationism and King Arthur's Round Table

2008-02-10T14:18:00.000+11:00

OK, I want to start by saying I am getting in WAY over my head by commenting on trinitarian theology, but here we go! I'm currently reading Kevin Giles' The Trinity & Subordinationism which discusses the concept of the subordination of the Son to the Father within the Godhead and whether this was a temporal state of affairs during the incarnation (i.e. because of Jesus's manhood) or whether this is an eternal state of affairs due to some dividing issue of role/substance etc within the Godhead. The relationship between the Father and Son is used by both sides of the Gender Debate to legitimise their stance on whether women are to be always subordinate to men.

I am finding it very interesting! I'm about 1/3 of the way through and so far he has been looking at what various theologians have believed throughout the last 2000 yrs on this issue of subordination. His goal is to show that orthodox Christianity interprets scripture in light of the doctrine that all members of the Trinity are equal and of the same substance, whilst in three persons. He wants to do this as he points out that you can make an argument from scripture for both positions and that quoting particular bits of scripture at the other side will not resolve the problem, and so he is more interested in the broad scope of scripture. There is a bit of a problem in what he says about the context of the reader being an input to the interpretation of scripture - that's a very postmodern view and as far as I can tell is an excellent definition of eisegesis.

However, so far I have been fascinated by his discussion of the various ways people have grappled with the three-but-one nature of God, it has shown me a number of areas where my own beliefs have been quite inconsitent, and in all truth heretical! Now if you were to ask me whether I believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equal within the Godhead, I would have said yes. But at the same time, I've realised that I do tend to think of them in a hierarchy with the Father as "Boss". Jesus and the Spirit as somewhat lesser, partly because they intercede between the Father and us (Heb 7:25, Rom 8:26-27), and so that sort of emotionally makes them feel a bit "closer" to me, or more "like" me, and thus less like the Father. But to say all persons in the Trinity are equal but yet some how in hierarchy is like Orwell's line in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Which is an oxymoron.

OK, so here is my highly untheological contribution to the discussion. Another reason I think that I've fallen into thinking about the Trinity in terms of hierarchy is that when we name the three persons we typically say "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in that order... Check out things like the Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed. Even in the great commission we are instructed to go, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). I've also noticed that a lot of songs have them in that same order, I say a lot, because I have noticed as a bit odd when this order isn't followed. Again this is a highly untheological reflection, but I'm wondering if just listing them consistently in that order gives the impression of hierarchy?

This is where King Arthur's Round Table comes in! Because language is two dimensional maybe in listing the persons of the Trinity thusly it creates a sense of them in "a line" or company organisation chart where the Father is CEO, Jesus is the COO and the Holy Spirit is the hardworking plebs! However the picture of tables occured to me this morning. If you are planning a wedding and doing the seating arrangements then you would list people and they would appear to be all sitting in a row, if you just use words (E.g. Bill, Sally, Esther). However, if you have diagrams of the floor layout, you might discover that they are actually going to be sitting at round tables. In which case if you start your list with Bill or with Esther or any of the others is inconsequential because there is NO position at the table that is higher than the others.

This was the point with King Arthur's Round Table. It was built round so the Knights wouldn't fight about position in the court, but recognise that they were all equal. What is significant in the round table configuration is who is sitting either side of each person. And when there are three around the table, each can be defined by their relationship to the other. Just as Bill can be defined as sitting to the left of Sally and the right of Esther, so Sally and Esther can likewise be defined in terms of the relationship to Bill and each other. This I think applies in the Trinity as well, the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son is the Son of the Father etc.

So my highly untheological thought is this, we should wrap that 2D list around a 3D model of a roundtable. In this way, we can avoid the Arian heresy of thinking that Jesus and the Spirit are somehow lesser than the Father. They are all metaphorically sitting nicely around a roundtable next to each of the other persons, and each equally capable of passing the butter.

God (the whole three persons co-eternal, and co-equal) Bless,
Bec

Judging, Correcting, Rebuking

2008-02-08T14:08:00.000+11:00

I have been thinking recently about the whole issue of judging people, or saying things that can be construed as judgement. I rather wonder whether when we are corrected or rebuked we confuse it for judgement, and use that as an excuse to not hear something that we really really need to hear. Of course this could also have to do with the balance of “grace and truth” that is used. Too much truth without grace is hard to swallow.

Scripture is quite clear about not judging people. Jesus said, don’t judge or you’ll be judged (Mt 7:1, Lk 6:37). He also says we need to deal with our own “plank” before worrying about our brother’s “speck” (Mt 7:3-5, Lk 6:41-42) but it is interesting that He then says, “then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye” which means that He does intend for us to correct each other, as long as we’ve got our own house in order. Given that none of us are ever going to be perfect in every issue in this life, I’d hazard a guess that this means when we judge others for the same thing we ourselves fail at Jesus isn’t happy. For example, someone who puts in a dodgy tax return and judges someone for stealing their wallet. I think what Jesus is really objecting to here is hypocrisy. Given that we are all sinners, all fallen to some extent we are always hypocritical when we judge others for being sinners and fallen. This is picked up further in Romans 2:1-3, which says that we condemn ourselves when we pass judgement on others, because we do the same things. Hypocrisy is the issue, and we will not escape God’s judgement for doing this.

Sometimes the process of removing a speck from our own eye is hard-fought and painful, but the learning and value of that experience is inestimable in terms of its helpfulness for ourselves and others. I think it is also interesting that the next verse in Matthew (7:6) says to be careful about who we share these things with, to not “throw your pearls to pigs” and that if we do, “they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces”. How often does that happen! You tell someone something because you’ve learnt the hard way that living a certain way isn’t good and you just want to save them the pain of learning that the hard way, and yet they turn and bite you because you have “judged them”.

Within the church, Paul instructs that we SHOULD judge each other when someone is in gross sin. He is responding to the case of the man who was sleeping with his step-mother, and says not to associate with sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, slanderous, drunkard or swindling people within the church (1 Cor 5:9-11). He goes on to say “what business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."” (1 Cor 5:12-13). There clearly is a place for judging people within the church and taking action when they are not living according to their professed faith. The purpose of doing this is so that “the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” (1 Cor 5:5) So this is to be done for the GOOD of our Christian brothers and sisters, not out of hypocrisy and not because it makes us feel good. Paul says that we should be “filled with grief” (1 Cor 5:2), but yet take action.

In the Pastoral Epistles both Timothy and Titus are instructed to correct and rebuke people:

“Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” (2 Tim 4:2)
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17)
“Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (1 Tim 5:20)
“… Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13)
“These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.” (Titus 2:15)

In terms of eternal judgement, that clearly is only for Jesus to do:

“There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” (John 12:48)
“For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)

So this is something we do need to do, but with humility. Some key passages to think about when looking at how to do the grace bit of “grace and truth”:

“Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” (Col 3:12-13)
“Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom... But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” (James 3:13, 17-18)

God bless,
Bec

P.S. I love being rebuked - that's how I got saved ;)

The bubble suit

2008-02-07T13:53:00.000+11:00

If only such an apparatus could deal with the sinful desires of the heart eh!? :)

(Swiped from the funny folks at Mars Hill Church)

Mark Driscoll on Sexual Sin

2008-02-06T21:52:00.000+11:00

Apologies, Repentance & Forgiveness

2008-02-04T12:26:00.000+11:00

I am really pleased to see that one of the first things Kevin Rudd is making as PM is to make that apology to Australia’s Indigenous Community for the stolen generation debacle. It is a really good first step towards reconciliation and I hope that it really does provide us with better opportunities to address some of the problems in our Indigenous Communities such as the life expectancy gap.

Apologies are a funny thing aren’t they? I read The Five Languages of Apology a couple of years ago. I read it in an attempt to find the words or actions that I could use to clearly communicate to someone I loved how sorry I was. The book was based on the premise that just as people communicate love in different ways (ala The Five Love Languages); they also use different methods to apologise. We each have preferred languages and unless others use that particular language we don’t really ‘hear’ that they are sorry.

The five languages were:
1. Expressing Regret – a heartfelt expression of how you feel because you’ve hurt them
2. Accept Responsibility – accept that you’ve done something wrong, and don't deflect blame
3. Make Restitution – make efforts to make amends, make the person feel loved
4. Genuinely Repent – understand that the behaviour was wrong and commit to change
5. Request Forgiveness – ask for grace, understand that forgiveness isn’t a certainty, and that it is that person’s choice to forgive or not

I think that last point is the hardest; recognising that it is actually up to the other person whether they accept the apology and forgive or not. That can be really, really hard; to do everything that you can because you truly desire reconciliation and healing in the relationship, but knowing that that forgiveness bit is out of your hands.

The funny thing is that when we refuse to forgive it really only hurts ourselves in the long run. I see this in my life, I hold on to offence, and don’t forgive because I think in doing that I’m protecting myself from being hurt again. This doesn’t only impact my relationship with the person who’s hurt me, but with others as well. The tape plays in my head, “they’ll only hurt you too/again”, “how long will it take before they reject you / leave you too?” And all that achieves is that I keep myself distant and don’t open up to allow myself to experience real relationships with people, which creates a sense of rejection by itself as the tape plays, “why don’t you have better/deeper relationships with people”.

You know more than half the time I don’t think people hurt me out of malice, I think it’s thoughtlessness. I know most of the time when I hurt people it isn’t intentional, it’s just that I have SO much space in my mouth that both feet fit in there quite comfortably, sometimes things just come out of my mouth and I instantly think, “where the hell did that come from???” but the damage is done. The other source of hurt in my life is when my assumptions and expectations are not met, which is hardly anyone else’s fault. I think other conflict comes out of miscommunication, someone says one thing quite amicably, but by the time that is filtered through my life experience I hear something quite hostile.

The "narrow way" seems to be to keep opening yourself up and loving people despite it all, and leaving the possible consequence of being hurt again in God’s hands. That is not to say He gets the blame, or it’s His fault, but just trusting that in forgiving as He forgave us, and loving our neighbours as ourselves that yes it does open us up to pain, but that He is more than willing, more than capable of healing that hurt and helping us move on. He certainly demonstrated this Himself when on the cross Jesus cried, “Father forgive them” and this is the one of whom Isaiah wrote, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isa 53:3). I love that He identified Himself with us in that way, that He chose to share our suffering. I think it is a huge temptation to not forgive, but Jesus went through that temptation to not forgive and overcame it. Hebrews 4:15-16 comes to mind, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”

God bless,
Bec

God & Dogs

2008-02-03T13:26:00.000+11:00

I'm not much of an animal person myself, but I did enjoy this article in The Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/faith-god-and-dogs/2008/02/02/1201801097274.html

Particularly the last paragraph:

As I've reflected on the relationship between Rusty and myself, it has helped me understand the relationship I have with God. This longing we have for something or someone who is ignorant of our faults is a longing for love in its deepest form. The only times I have found that in life are through relationships; with my family, my wife and my God. However many times I escape his presence to climb fences and chase metaphorical cars, God's love for me is unchanging, and no matter what I do, his love remains an everlasting love
(Jeremiah 31:3).

God bless,
Bec

Tithing vs Giving

2008-01-29T20:23:00.000+11:00

The practise of tithing is quite interesting to me. I find it interesting partly because I was brought up in a tradition that did not practise it, but also because as I understand scripture, tithing is only a requirement if you are Jewish and are living under the Mosaic covenant. Yet tithing is big in so many churches, particularly of the pentecostal persausion.

Old Testament References to Tithing
In the Pentateuch, Gen 14:20, 28:22; Lev 27:30-32; Num 18:21-28 and Deut 12:6-17, 14:22-28, 26:1-12 deal with tithing or giving of a tenth. The Gen 14:20 passage refers to when Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth "of everything". The Gen 28:22 passage refers to when Jacob said "if God blesses me then I will give Him a tenth". However the majority of the treatment of the Pentateuch on tithing is in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and this is where God states tithing as a requirement for His people when they have come into the promised land. At this point in the Old Testament, there was no King in Israel other than God, and the Mosaic Law was how God intended His people, the state of Israel to live. The law formed part of the covenant that God had with the state of Israel, which is different from the covenant He has with us.

According to Lev/Num/Deut the purpose of the tithe was as the inheritance of the Levites as they were not alloted any land in Israel (Num 18:21-28). It seems in some of these passages that the tithe of grain and meat was actually eaten by the giver in the presence of God (Deut 12:17, 14:22-28). Every three years the tithe was collected and given to the Levite, the fatherless and the widow (Deut 26:1-12).

There are further references to the practise in the historical and prophetic writings of the Old Testament; 2 Chron 31:5-6, 12; Neh 10:37-38, 12:44, 13:5-12; Amos 4:4; Malachi 3:8-10. The 2 Chronicles passage shows that no only was the tithe in the law it was practised by the Israelites. Nehemiah 10 records the renewal of the covenant between God and His people after the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem, so is a restatement of the Mosaic Law. Nehemiah 12 records the rededication of the temple, at which point people presented tithes and offerings. Nehemiah 13 records Nehemiah's final reforms. During a period of absence, Tobiah the Ammonite had moved into one of the rooms in the temple, such that the offerings could not be stored in the temple which had driven the Levites back into the fields to provide for themselves. The Nehemiah references really reinforce the covenant that God made between Himself and the Jews, and also shows some of the implications for the Jews when the Law was not obeyed in this regard. The Amos passage is a call for His people to return to God, as is the Malachi passage. The book of Malachi is about how the people of Israel have failed to meet God's requirements and have passed off blemished sacrifices, the teachers have failed to teach God's word, Judah has been unfaithful, and broken covenant with God.

New Testament References to Tithing
In the New Testament tithing is referred to in three places Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42; and Heb 7:2-9. In the Matthew and Luke passages Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for being legalistic and tithing even down to their "mint, dill and cumin" but neglecting the weightier matters of the Law "justice, mercy and faithfulness". Now this passage is often used to prove that Jesus approved of tithing, however it is interpreted out of context. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, who were under the Law and as such definitely should have been tithing. But note that Jesus' concern is more that there are more important matters of Law that they neglect, justice, mercy and faithfulness.

The Hebrews passage goes back over the Abraham and Melchizedek incident recorded in Gen 14:20. It does not state an opinion on whether tithing is required for Christians, but rather recounts an historical event to prove another point, which is that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of the Levites (because the Levites paid their tithe through Abraham to Melchizedek, and Melchizedek is a type of Christ.)

What is a New Testament view on Christians obeying Mosaic Law?
The issue of whether Christians should have to obey the Mosaic Law came up early in the years following Pentecost. This particularly came to a head when Gentiles started to become Christians. Many Jewish Christians felt that the Gentiles had to follow the law in addition to believing in Jesus to be saved, so they pushed for Gentile Christians to be circumcised. This all came to a head at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-29. A decision had to be made as to whether the Gentile Chritians should be circumcised and made to follow the Law. The determination of the Council was that "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." (v28-29). This does not mention tithing or almsgiving.

The issue of circumcision was a biggie in Galatia, and Paul deals with it very strongly at one point in chapter five encouraging them that if they like circumcision so much, why not go the whole way and emasculate themselves. (Ouch!). Gal 3:3-5,18,29 is illustrative. The problem with the whole circumcision thing (and I would argue tithing) is that it shifts people from a position where their relationship with God is based on Grace to one of Law and works. Paul says to them, "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" And that is what I see happening with the current teaching on tithing, is this idea that the blessings of God are attached to how much you give, which is to say on our "human effort" not the Spirit. Verses 18 and 29 are clear, the inheritance that God gave Abraham was before the Law, it is dependent on God's promise, and we are heirs of Abraham if we belong to Christ. The blessings of God are ours not because we obey the Law, not because we give our tithes, but because He has promised them to us freely and of His grace.

Galatians 5 goes on to tell us that we are free in Christ and we shouldn't let ourselves be reburdened by a "yoke of slavery", by which Paul is referring to obedience to the Law. So we don't have to tithe, but does this mean we shouldn't give? Galatians 5:13 says, "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love." Serving one another in love is the basis from which our giving should spring...

So how should a Christian Give?
It is interesting that although there is not continuity of teaching from the Old Testament to the New Testament on tithing, there is on giving. There is reoccuring teaching on genorosity and on caring for the poor, widows and orphans throughout both the Old and New Testament. I think this is really God's heart, and I'm reminded of Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness..." Mt 23:23. They have forgotten why God wanted the tithe, which as discussed earlier was to care for the Levites, the poor, the widows and orphans. I think this is really the transition point from the Law of Tithing, to the Spirit of Giving. Generosity is encouraged, beyond 10%. Jesus commends the giving of a glass of water, and instructs rich people to sell all they have and give it to the poor. Paul commends the church in Macedonia for giving beyond their means.

Some key passages on Giving:
Old Testament - Deut 15:10-11; Prov 11:24, 21:26, 25:21, 28:27
Gospels - Matt 5:42, 10:42, 19:21, 25:34-46; Mark 9:41, 10:21; Luke 6:30,35,38, 12:33, 14:12-13, 18:22
Pauline - 2 Cor 8:1-15, 9:1-15; 1 Tim 6:17-19

Some key passages on the Poor:
Pentateuch - Lev 23:22, 25:25,35,39; Deut 15:1-11, 24:10-15
Wisdom Literature - Pro 14:31, 17:5, 19:17, 21:13, 22:9,16,22, 28:27, 29:7
Prophetic - Isa 3:14-15, 10:1-2, 14:30, 25:4, 32:7, 41:17, 58:7, 61:1; Jer 5:28, 22:16-17; Eze 18:12, 22:29; Amos 2:7, 4:1, 5:11-12, 8:4-6; Zec 7:10
Gospels - Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21, 12:42-43; Luke 4:18, 7:22, 11:40-42, 12:33, 14:13, 18:22, 19:8, 21:2-3
Epistles - Ro 15:26; Gal 2:10; James 2:2-6
Other NT - Acts 10:5,31, 24:17; Rev 3:17

The other aspect of this is support of ministries. This one is pretty clear, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 that those who preach the gospel should earn their living from it, although Paul himself chose to work as well so that he would not be a burden on those to whom he was ministering.

So practically what does all this mean?
Well it means give as the Spirit leads you, out of a sense of love (1 Cor 13:3). We should be generous and willing to share, this should come out of a love for God and our neighbours, not out of a sense of compulsion or legalism. The key issue here is one of the heart, are we giving out of freedom and gratitude for all that God has given us, or fear that if we don't He won't look after us? Jesus gave us the answer for that; seek first His kingdom and His righteousness and all these things (food, clothing etc) will be given to us as well (Matt 6:25-33)

God bless,
Bec

Biblical Illiteracy

2008-01-29T18:47:00.000+11:00

I've been challenged a bit recently on the topic of biblical literacy. I have been reading Jerry Bridge's The Practice of Godliness which discusses how we can develop godly character. One of the key methods he suggests, and uses himself is scripture memorisation. He suggests the memorisation of key pieces of scripture that deal with specific godly characteristics that we need to develop. This is helpful in two ways; to facilitate meditation on scripture, and because the Holy Spirit reminds us of pertinent bits of scripture that we have memorised at times when we need it.

This memorisation thing is a key challenge for me, I have always really hated rote learning. I still do not know my times tables because in primary school I refused to apply myself to it because it required rote learning. Similarly, in high school French, I lost interest as soon as we started having to memorise verb conjugations. I do not know my home telephone number (and I've lived here for nearly 18 months) because I hate memorising things.

With scripture, I read it everyday, and lots of it. But the idea of specifically trying to memorise a bit of scripture (let alone the whole Torah like the Jews used to!!!) makes me feel like running for the hills. Now I find this weird, because the bits of scripture that I do remember (sometimes bits just stick) I love having in my head. But if I quote something it'll sound something like "You know that bit (in 2 Corinthians I think) that says.... No temptation has seized you except that which is common to man, and God is faithful He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, He will provide a way out".

I was reading an interesting blog post today which has the text of Clinton Arnold's paper, "Early Church Catechesis and New Christians' Classes in Contemporary Evangelicalism" included in it. Now it is a bit of a read, and I know talk about a riveting title, but it made some very interesting points and is definitely worth it. It discusses how the early church went about bringing new believers into the fold, compared with today's approach.

A key practise of the early church was that each new christian underwent three years of specific teaching before they were baptised and admitted into communion with the rest of the fellowship. The three years included:

An immersion in the Word of God
Learning about central doctrines of the Faith
Being mentored in Spiritual and Moral Formation
Deliverance Ministry

All of which are fascinating, but I'll concentrate on the immersion in the Word of God! Arnold's early church sources show that the immersion in the Word included:

The reading of vast portions of the text aloud
The exposition of the text being read
The surveying of the entire bible in order to understand "salvation history"

He goes on to ask how many Christians nowadays would have read the majority of the bible in the first three years of their walk with Christ. One of my personal bugbears is that I don't hear a lot of expository teaching. When I do hear an expository sermon, it is like a good steak dinner, I feel FAT on the Word! Well back in the early church to be allowed to be baptised and become part of the Christian community EVERY CHRISTIAN had to have heard vast amounts of the bible READ and EXPOSITED. Man, I was SO born in the wrong century!!!!! Three years of expository teaching, I'd be spiritually the size of the good year blimp!! Yeah, bring it on!!! :)

In our day and age, in western cultures there is now a general literacy level such that most people can read. We also have access to many different translations. And yet, to get this level of education in the Word is for a select few, those who choose to go to bible college, or attend bible study groups like BSF (as distinct from bible studies that feature the "what does it mean to you?" method - a nasty product of postmodernism.)

Now the three years of catechetical instruction does sound intense, and that's without going anywhere near looking at what they did regarding learning of doctrine, spiritual and moral formation and deliverance!! I would so love to see this kind of approach return. The benefits of a return to this kind of approach:

Christians would expect teaching that is of more depth
Christians would recognise shallow and false teaching more readily
Christians would be able to pick scripture that is being quoted out of context

So some practical things we can do to immerse ourselves in the Word and increase our biblical literacy:

Read scripture aloud
Read all of scripture (yes even Leviticus)
Memorise scripture (*gulp*)
Meditate on scripture
Find podcasts that feature expository teaching
Encourage our pastors when they do heavy teaching
Learn proper exegesis & hermeneutics
Don't quote or memorise verses out of context

God bless,
Bec

Not another offering sermon!!!

2008-01-27T21:37:00.000+11:00

Just to define the offering sermon if you have been lucky enough to have missed out on hearing one... In some churches (typically of the pentecostal bent) prior to taking up the offering, someone will get up and take some piece of scripture (usually out of context) and use it to try and prevail upon you to give. This is sometimes accompanied by some "Make room for God to bless you" teaching, which suggests that if you clear out space in your bank account God will make a suitable deposit to fill it.

I hate this with a passion and think it is straight from the pit of hell because:

God gives to us out of His graciousness, and because He is a good father who delights to give good things to His children (Mt 7:11), NOT because we bribe Him. We need to get this straight, we love him, we give because He first loved us, first gave to us (1 Jn 4:19). We need to remember it was while we were sinners that He died for us (Ro 5:8), and having given us Christ He will also give us all things (Ro 8:32). He really is FOR US.
If God gave to us because we gave to Him that would be a WORKS based relationship rather than GRACE (Eph 2:8, Gal 3:3). Our giving is a response to our experience of God's grace in our lives. It is one of the good works He has predestined us to do (Eph 2:10) but one we can do only because He first has "created us in Christ Jesus".
God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor 8:7), not one who is guilt-ridden and fearful that God won't bless them unless they give. Generosity comes out of "overflowing joy" (2 Cor 8:2).

We need to be really really careful about thinking that God blesses us because of what we do. Anything good we do is only because He has enabled us to, so we don't actually get any credit for it. It is His grace that enables us to do good, and His grace that gives to us so bountifully. Everything about the way He deals with us is GRACE.

To believe that God gives us good things because we give financially is analogous to Simon the Sorcerer's mistake. He tried to buy a blessing, the ability to give the Holy Spirit with the laying on hands. In Acts 8:20 Peter's response to this was, "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!"

In Isaiah 55 God describes His economy of blessing. It is an economy of grace, where we can come to Him and buy what we need "without money and without cost" (v1). This is an economy that makes no sense to us, but as God says, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" (v8).

I think a biblical stance on this issue is:

God doesn't need our money, the whole earth is His (Ps 50:9-12)
Give because God has already given to us, He provides well for us (Mt 6:25).
Give as a way of loving our neighbour as ourselves (Mt 22:39)
Budget for it (1 Cor 16:2)
Be aware that money can become an idol in our lives, and that we need to make sure that we are serving God not money (Lk 16:13)
Be generous and share (1 Tim 6:18)
Place our hope in God not in finances (1 Tim 6:17)
Remember that all we have is on trust from God to build the Kingdom, we are accountable to Him for 100% of it, not just 10% (Lk 19:12-27).

I would really recommend 1 Timothy 6:3-10, 17-19 on this whole topic of money and giving. And in that context we need to remember that as we live in the West we count as "rich" in comparison with the majority of the world's population.

This whole issue of giving needs to be framed in terms of love for God and love for our neighbours. Love not compulsion.

God bless,
Bec

Corporate Prayers of Confession

2008-01-20T15:29:00.000+11:00

I grew up in the Anglican church, but of recent years have been attending Baptist and Pentecostal churches. I'm not even sure what you'd call me now! Anglibaptacostal???? LOL. I do know I love Jesus, and I'm probably more evangelical than pente.

As a rebellious 16 year old I remember really really hating the set liturgy. I could say the words easily enough but the connection between my heart/head and mouth was uncertain. But it struck me yesterday that prayer-wise I'm a bit illiterate. I have feelings about stuff, but not always the words to express them to God in prayer. And the words of one of the ol' prayers of confession came back to me, and I saw in them the words that expressed what I needed to say to God, and had so much theological richness:

Merciful God, our maker and our judge,
we have sinned against you in thought, word and deed:
we have not loved you with our whole heart,
we have not loved our neighbours as ourselves;
we repent, and are sorry for all our sins.
Father, forgive us.
Strengthen us to love and obey you in newness of life;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
(An Australian Prayer Book, 1978: page 137)

There is another form that I also really liked:

Most merciful God, we humbly admit that we need your help.
We confess that we have wandered from your way:
we have done wrong, and we have failed to do what is right.
You alone can save us.
Have mercy on us: wipe out our sins and teach us to forgive others.
Bring forth in us the fruit of the Spirit that we may live as disciples of Christ.
This we ask in the name of Jesus our Saviour. Amen.
(An Australian Prayer Book, 1978, page 39)

I liked the following points from these:

We are affirming who God is
We are admitting that our sin is thought, word and deed
We are admitting that we've sinned also by what we have omitted to do
We are admitting that we haven't loved God as we should
We are admitting that we haven't loved our neighbours as we should
We are confessing and asking forgiveness (ala 1 Jn 1:8-10)
We are admitting that we are dependent on Him to live godly lives
We are taking seriously His word that He will forgive us as we forgive others

Generally I had the following thoughts about corporate prayers of confession:

I haven't heard sin talked about like this in church for ages, we focus so much on "triumphant living" and ideas like "the best is yet to come" that I fail to have succinct words that express all that these prayers of confession say.
Despite what I thought when I was 16, set liturgy isn't evil. It might just be a valuable tool for teaching people how to pray Monday to Saturday.
It is good to corporately admit sin, as we are the body of Christ, not just individuals in relationship to Christ. And it reaffirms that idea in Rm 3:23 "All have sinned", places us all equally at the foot of the cross together.

God bless,
Bec

Adam vs Jesus: The Temptation Showdown

2008-01-20T13:58:00.000+11:00

Don't you love it when quite accidentally you read two bible passages on the same day that teach you about the same thing?? I had that this morning. My normal quiet time habit is to read a chapter of two of the OT and a chapter or two of the NT each morning, and work my way through sequentially each testament in parallel. Last year that meant I got through the OT once and the NT twice. Since the end of last year up until yesterday I'd had a bit of a break by just working through the epistles, reading each in one go where I had time. Yesterday I restarted the OT/NT reading pattern. So this morning I read Genesis 3 and Matthew 4.

Genesis 3 is the story of the Fall of Humanity. Matthew 4 is an account of Jesus' temptation in the desert after His baptism. Both look at the ways we can approach temptation.

In both cases there is DESIRE. Eve was made with a desire to eat and a desire to gain wisdom. Jesus had been fasting for 40 days and 40 nights so He had a desire to eat. In and of themselves these desires are not wrong, they are healthy.

Next the devil comes along and introduces the LIE. He questions Eve, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" This manipulates her into a response that will highlight not the 99 the trees that she can eat from but the 1 she can't. Her response also falsely exagerates how 'forbidden' it is, "we can't even touch the tree". The devil lies more, appealing to her desire to gain wisdom. Then she saw that "the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom" and so they ate. The LIES here include, what God told you was wrong, He is mean and is trying to hold you back from something that is good. The lies the devil uses do two things, questions the truth about a situation, and questions the loving, good and faithful character of God. When the devil tempted Jesus he raised questions about whether Jesus really was the Son of God, and tried to use Jesus' desire to fulfil His role as the Son of God, and His desire to eat to try and tempt Him. Each time Jesus responded with TRUTH and He did not sin.

This suggests to me the following:

DESIRE + LIE(S) = WRONG BELIEF = SIN
DESIRE + TRUTH = RIGHT BELIEF = RIGHT BEHAVIOUR

This is the point where the two stories diverge. For Adam & Eve there was a descent into SHAME. This manifested itself in two behaviours HIDING and REFUSAL TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. After they had sinned they realised what they had done, and first of all tried to hide their nakedness (which had not previously been a source of shame between them) from each other, and then when they hear God walking in the Garden they try to hide from Him too. When God calls them out, and asks them if they have eaten the fruit they pass the buck, they refuse to take responsibility for their behaviour. Adam says "The woman you put here with me" - so it was God's fault for giving him "the woman" and "the woman's" fault. Eve says it was the serpent's fault.

As a result of this there are a number of CONSEQUENCES of that sin. Pain in childbirth, desire for the husband who will rule over the woman, the ground is cursed, and death. Ick... Not good. But God also says some other stuff. In verse 15 when God is talking to the serpent about what he has done, God makes the first messianic promise, His PROMISE OF DELIVERANCE. He foretells when one of the offspring of Eve will crush Satan's head. God also has GRACE on them and provides them with better coverings than the fig leaves they had sewed together, by providing animal skins. In this way demonstrating that the shedding of blood is required for forgiveness.

In contrast after Jesus had stood against each of the devil's temptations, "...the devil left him, and angels came and attended him" (v. 11). God met Jesus' needs when the time was right. God is faithful, one of the lies the devil uses is that if we don't take care of ourselves in accordance with our perceived needs that God won't and nobody else will either.

I was thinking about each step in the Genesis 3 account and how good God has been to provide instruction on how to deal with each step or how God has already dealt with it:

Lies - Romans 12:2
Wrong belief / Unbelief - Ephesians 6:10-20; Matthew 4:1-11
Desire - Ezekiel 11:19-20; Galatians 5:13-25; Romans 8:5-13
Sin - James 1:22, 4:1-10
Shame - Romans 8:1, 33-34
Hiding - Hebrews 4:16
Refusal to take responsibility - 1 John 1:8-10
Consequences - Romans 8:10-11, John 10:10 (Death); Romans 8:38-39 (Seperation from God); Romans 3:21-24 (Insecurity)
Covering of shame, cleansing - Hebrews 9:14, 22; Hebrews 10:14, 17-18.

I also noted with some interest that Jesus' temptation comes right after a SPIRITUAL HIGH for Him. At the end of Mt 3, Jesus is baptised and a voice is heard from heaven saying "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (v.17). This is interesting for a couple of reasons, firstly this temptation is not because God is displeased with Jesus, or that He didn't love Him. Secondly, was the temptation an attempt from the devil to undo the good that what God had said to Jesus had done in His life? This seems plausible as the first thing the devil says to Jesus is "If you are the Son of God...", he questions the very thing that God has just said to Jesus.

The other thing that was interesting contexually to the temptation story is that immediately following the temptation Jesus starts His public MINISTRY. In chapter 4, verses 12-17 he starts preaching, in verses 18-22 he calls His first disciples and in verses 23-25 he heals the sick. This leads me to wonder, what would have happened if Adam & Eve had not eaten the fruit, if they had withstood the temptation? What amazing things would God have done in their lives following that?

This lead me to: "For if, by the trespass of the one man [Adam], death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. " Romans 5:17 and "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven." 1 Corinthians 15:47-49.

So we've seen how to deal with lies, the devil and temptation through two examples; that of Adam & Eve and that of Jesus. I know which I think is the better way :-)

God bless,
Bec

Why Mark Driscoll is my favourite preacher at the moment

2008-01-19T10:58:00.000+11:00

OK, so we should love the word and the preacher is just a vessel for God to say what He wants to and all glory should go to God, but having said that I still have favourite preachers and writers who I hear God through that much clearer than others. Other favourite preacher/writers are Joseph Prince, Charlotte Scanlon-Gamble, Jerry Bridges, C. S. Lewis, Joyce Meyer, John Bevere, Lisa Bevere.

The first thing of Mark's that I heard was his Q&A session from 6 Jan where he answered questions about sex. Not easy questions either! Things like is masterbation an appropriate birth control method and is abortion after falling pregnant because of a rape ok. What I loved was that he dealt with it all with good humour, was not condemning but was really clear about the truth. His responses were clearly educated and his use of scripture was appropriate. He did not proof-text anything out of context. Subsequently, I watched his full sermon on the subject of birth control. I was very impressed by the depth of the research he had clearly done, and the grace-filled approach he took. Where there were ethical questions that were uncertain he said so and did not dogmatically impose a viewpoint. Where the ethical implications were clear but potentially unpopular he was true to scripture.

Last night I watched his sermon from 13 Jan on humour. It is part of Mars Hill's current "Religion saves + nine other misconceptions" series where he is dealing with questions that the congregation have raised (ala the way 1 Corinthians is a response to the questions the Corinthians asked Paul.) The question was whether humour is appropriate, is there humour in the bible, and is it ok to make fun of people. He started by doing a run through of some of the comedic high-points of the bible. A couple of my favourites are Aaron's response when asked by Moses about the golden calf, "What?? I just threw the gold in the fire, and the idol jumped out by itself!!!" and Paul's instruction to the Galatians that if they like circumcision so much why not go the whole way and emasculate themselves!!

I'm really excited about the rest of this sermon series. They are covering some real doozies. Next week is predestination, and why does God destine some people for glory and others for wrath. Definitely worth checking out, one thing to note however is that he does tend to talk for a while, so it's wise to allow an hour to watch the sermons:

http://www.marshillchurch.org/sermonseries/religionsaves

God bless,
Bec

P.S. This is a late addition to this post (15 May 2008). I've noticed that I get a HEAP of hits on this particular blog post. My views on Mark Driscoll's teaching have changed somewhat from when I first posted this so I feel bound to add this comment. I still find his preaching engaging and well studied, but I have found after listening to more of his stuff that his position on gender roles is unbiblical. Everyone has weak points in their theology-- the gender stuff is Mark's. If you take that caveat, then there is much to learn and enjoy in his preaching, just don't be surprised when for instance his series on Ruth turns into a lesson in gender roles.

References to oneself by implication in other blogs

2008-01-16T22:07:00.000+11:00

It was a bit of a funny day today blog-wise. I made a comment on another blog where I made reference to some people who had a major influence on the beginning of my Christian walk (I didn't mention them by name). By coincidence one of those people on their blog mentioned in passing having read a comment that had referred to them by inference (they did not mention me by name either). Interestingly, this person has also referred to me in previous posts mostly without use of names.

Now I could mention names, but that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of things, so this post will continue only to refer to those persons by the use of the personal pronouns "they" and "them" :-)

I would like to say that I am very blessed to know them. That I am still years later so very grateful for the grace that they and their family showed me when I was at my worst. I think that as Christians it is easy to talk about grace as a theological concept, it is completely another thing to live it. These people lived that in a way that was exemplary and really caused me to understand for real that God is a God of unconditional love, and that His love and grace were for me, not because of who I am or what I've done, but because of who HE is and what HE has done. His grace has been so very real in my life since then. It is a continuing pleasure and joy to share my life with these people. And although God has been really good to me since that time showing me amazing grace, I have sensed recently that there is still wreckage, for that I am truly sorry. It is one of my most frequent and fervent prayers that the grace God has shown me will be even more abundant in what remains of the situation that needs to be healed for everyone who was involved.

I hope that as they read this they would know that I appreciate them so much and the incredible way that they chose to love me. I pray that the Lord would bless them and keep them, make his face to shine upon them and give them peace. They truly bring glory to God.

God bless,
Bec

On the world's doctrine of Tolerance

2008-01-15T21:45:00.000+11:00

I just watched this clip from Mark Driscoll on YouTube. I found it refreshing to hear someone being honest about the concessions that have to be made if we are going to go with the worldly doctrine of tolerance, or "if you don't bug me, I won't bug you". Sometimes we have to say things people don't want to hear for the sake of the truth. It is more loving to speak the truth than to pander to people's itching ears.

God bless,
Bec

Weight Loss as a Parable for Spiritual Transformation

2008-01-12T10:12:00.000+11:00

It often strikes me that weight loss is a great parable for spiritual transformation. There are three types of people who try to lose weight, and these parallel the ways we try to deal with sin:

1. Fad Dieter
These are the people who want a quick fix, they don't want to change their habits, and who see minimal change as a result. They want a miracle fix, that will help them lose lots of weight really really quickly. They really love weight loss products/plans that promise that they can continue to eat everything they are currently eating, and that they will still end up a size 8. Most usually this approach does not work. It is psychologically comforting, however, because if you are taking some "miracle weight loss pills" you can make the excuse that you "are trying", despair and return to your old ways with the comfort that it's not as though you didn't try, it's just that it's too hard.

2. Starvation Protest Dieter
The starvation dieter decides that it isn't really their fault that they are overweight, it's the food's fault. As a result, war is declared against all food. All food is evil, it is the enemy and must be stopped at all costs. They either refuse to eat at all, or go the way of the bulimic. This results in massive weight loss, but not only does fat get broken down, so does muscle. In time they become emaciated and die.

3. Change-in-Lifestyle Dieter
The dieters that have the most success are those that understand that food is NOT evil, food is not the problem. The problem lies in their relationship TO food. They simply over-indulge in something that is by nature GOOD. They seek to change their lifestyle so that their relationship with food and exercise is a healthy one. They seek advice from doctors and other health experts. They organise a support group, so that they are encouraged to keep going, particularly when things get difficult. They do what their personal trainer tells them to do even when it hurts or doesn't make sense. Instead of worrying about what they SHOULDN'T eat, they make sure that they ARE eating the right things. They don't buy problem foods, they buy lots of fresh fruit and veg. Once they've got the 5 veg, 2 fruit, meat, legumes etc etc thing down, there is less room for the higher fat foods. Over time they begin to enjoy more and more healthy food, and not having the higher fat foods all the time becomes less of an issue. Because life is meant to be fun, they do have the occasional slice of cake or tim-tam, but because they are now not eating them constantly, the effect on their waist line is negligle or non-existant, and they do not desire to eat more than a healthy portion.

I think weight loss illustrates the following spiritual transformation principles:

Don't look for the latest fad or instant fix. Such change is unsustainable.
Don't look for the "New Idea" / "Woman's Day" solution. Such solutions are unrealistic.
Don't go on a starvation diet, cutting everything good out of life for fear that you may become corrupted by it. John 10:10, we are called to abundant life.
Focus on what you SHOULD be eating rather than what you SHOULDN'T. If you fill up on "The Bread of Life" you won't have room for unhealthy "spiritual foods".
Don't buy the "chocolate", if it isn't in the house, you can't eat it. Control the things you allow into your life that you know will later be a temptation. Win the battle at the "supermarket".
Don't try to do it on your own, get help from 'experts' like mature Christians, elders, pastors etc. Have a support group in place, people who will remind you of God's grace, and support you in prayer.
Follow your personal trainer's (Holy Spirit) instructions
Don't kick yourself if you have the occasional tim-tam, God's grace is sufficient, get up have another go.
Don't believe labels about yourself that define you in terms of your problem. You are not "Fat" or "a Loser" or "weak" because you struggle. Those labels are not from God. He labels you as "chosen", "redeemed", "accepted", "loved", "son/daughter of the King".

God bless,
Bec

Virtue vs. Innocence

2008-01-12T09:52:00.000+11:00

I found the following quote a few months ago, I can't remember where, but it struck me at the time as being very insightful:

"There is a difference between virtue and innocence. Virtue has successfully passed a point of temptation. No one is a mature Christian until they have attained virtue--innocence is not enough." Anonymous

I hate temptation, I quite often pray that God will remove it. But as a good friend pointed out in his comment on my post about the Desert Fathers, according to James 1:2-4, the testing of our faith is a good thing, because persevering through trials and temptations brings us to maturity.

I was reading 2 Peter this morning. I really really love the first chapter, particularly verses 3-9. It also addresses this issue of growing in virtue. Peter lists a number of virtues that the Christian should add to their faith; goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love. Peter says if we possess these qualities in "increasing measure" we will be productive and effective in our knowledge of Christ. I think "increasing measure" indicates a process of growth, as the wording around the list of virtues does by use of the "and to this quality add that" phrasing.

What I think is particularly useful is verse 9. Sometimes when we are going through a season of temptation and are not seeing progress it can be difficult to see how we will ever move forward, and think will I always be this sinful?? Is this the area of my life that will never be sanctified this side of eternity. God's answer in verse 9, is that we are short-sighted to think like that, and that we "have forgotten that he has cleansed us from our past sins". I think this means we trust in Him to cleanse us again and again, we trust in the finished work of Christ.

So I think we keep at it, keep working to add those virtues, keep facing the temptations knowing that He is using them to work in us, and remember the cross, and that as much as we continue to fail He is still faithful to forgive us when we confess our sins.

God bless,
Bec

Enchanted by 'Enchanted'

2008-01-09T13:05:00.000+11:00

Last night we went and saw 'Enchanted', the lastest Disney flick. It was lots of fun, the heroine was so delightfully innocent, and the prince... Well the prince he did look good with puffy sleeves, but there wasn't much between his ears, if you catch my drift!! :) Susan Sarandon played an amazing Evil Step Mother. And her cronie was similarly wonderful.

I loved the following points that the movie made:

Real love is romantic and fairytale-like

AND

Real love accepts the imperfection of the other person, and is rational about love

It's really easy to get caught up in one of two camps. The overly-romantic-hopelessly-naive camp which says as long as you love each other nothing else matters, that love will find a way, but is sketchy on details of HOW. Or the love-hurts-best-not-to-risk-it-all-based-on-feelings camp, these people have been hurt, and quite justifiably do not want to risk their hearts, when their heads tell them it's going to head in pain.

I think the balance position is right, we need to love with our hearts AND minds. It would be stupid (but how often do we do this) to run into a relationship with someone who we can quite plainly see is incompatible with us, or does not have the maturity to be in a relationship, or is not a Christian, or has a life controlling habit, or has completely different aims in life etc etc. So there should be a level where we check off the mental list of what we are/are not looking for in a life partner BEFORE letting our hearts run away with us.

My understanding is that God doesn't always reveal a specific person to whom He wishes us to marry. However, to my thinking if we ask Him to lead us in this, are diligent about following what He says in His word about choosing partners, and then He does say "Yes" about a particular person, that's as safe as you can get. As He is the only one who knows you perfectly and the other person perfectly, He is the only one who can say definitively whether you are compatible, sufficiently mature to be in a relationship, of similar grounding in the faith, etc etc. Probably worth testing what you are hearing though, just in case the flesh is speaking louder than His Spirit! :) (e.g. If you are rationalising about something, that isn't God)

If you do get the "Yes" from God, and it's confirmed by people who are mature in the faith and you respect, I reckon enjoy being in love for all it's worth!!! Be the hopeless romantic. Be the princess, and he the prince. Don't hold back in fear, in faith trust God's choice, and choose to love that person with all you've got. Not just in mushy feelings, but make the choices that say you love them too.

God knows best who is "made for us", so when He brings "Eve" to "Adam", say, "Woah! S/he's the one for me!" To hold back in fear, would be like if Adam had instead said, "meh, she's kinda pretty, but I think I like the elephant better".

God bless,
Bec

Some interesting thoughts from the Desert Fathers...

2008-01-07T18:26:00.000+11:00

From The Desert Fathers: Sayings of the Early Christian Monks, Penguin Classics

On controlling the tongue
"They said of Agatho that for three years he kept a stone in his mouth in order to teach himself silence." (p20)

On temptation
"When Cyrus of Alexandria was asked about the temptation of lust, he said, 'If you are not tempted, you have no hope; if you are not tempted, it is because you are sinning. The man who does not fight sin at the stage of temptation is sinning already in his body. The man who is sinning in his flesh has no trouble from temptation.'" (p35)

"Poeman said, 'The character of the genuine monk only appears when he is tempted.'" (p63)

"A hermit said, 'We do not make progress because we do not realize how much we can do. We lose interest in the work we have begun, and we want to be good without even trying.'" (p66)

"A brother came to Poemen and said to him, 'Many thoughts come into my mind and put me in danger.' He sent him out into the open air, and said, 'Open your lungs and do not breathe.' He replied, 'I can't do that.' Then he said to him: 'Just as you can't stop air coming into your lungs, so you can't stop thoughts coming into your mind. Your part is to resist them.'" (p101)

"A hermit said, 'Satan has three powers, which lead to all the sins. The first is forgetfulness, the second negligence, the third selfish desire. If forgetfulness comes, it causes negligence, negligence is the mother of selfish desire, and by selfish desire we fall. If the mind is serious, it repels forgetfulness, negligence does not come, selfish desire finds no entry, and so with the help of Christ we shall never fall." (p127)

On Fasting & Humility
"Joseph asked Poemen, 'How should we fast?' Poemen said, 'I suggest that everyone should eat a little less than he wants, every day.'" (p99)

"Antony also said, 'I saw the devil's snares set all over the eart, and I groaned and said, "What can pass through them?" I heard a voice saying, "Humility".' (p148)

"Evagrius said, 'To go against self is the beginning of salvation.'" (p153)

On the Word of God
"John who had been exiled by the Emperor Marcion, said, 'One day we went into Syria to see Poemen for we wanted to ask him about hardness of heart. But he did not know Greek and we did not have an interpreter. When he saw we were embarassed, he began to speak in Greek saying, 'The nature of water is soft, the nature of stone is hard; but if a bottle is hung above a stone letting water drip down, it wears away the stone. It is like that with the word of God; it is soft and our heart is hard, but if a man hears the word of God often, it will break open his heart to the fear of God.'" (p191)

God bless,
Bec

Pursuing Holiness

2008-01-06T21:02:00.000+11:00

I've just finished reading a collection of sayings of the desert fathers. These dudes were intense! In the third century they moved off into the desert often on their own, some became hermits or lived in communities with other hermits/monks and dedicated themselves to putting their flesh to death.

It was very interesting. Partly, because the austerity of their way of living is SO in contrast to the way the average modern believer lives. I'm not entirely sure that they were completely right in the way they lived, my biggest objection being that it is hard to love your neighbour as yourself if you don't have any neighbours. Also hard to spread the gospel if you are not at all in contact with the world. However, I am really impressed with the intensity with which they desired and sought after holiness. OK, so some of it was probably in reliance upon themselves rather than God, but they definitely seemed to live that verse where Paul says, "I beat my body and make it my slave" (1 Cor 9:27). They fasted, they lived in seclusion, avoided women, kept vows of silence, subjected themselves to suffering for their sins. A couple of them went so far as to castrate themselves based on an overly literal interpretation of Jesus' statement, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off" (Mark 9:43) Ouch!!!

There were some bits that suggested to me that they were working on a works based theology rather than grace, but you could equally interpret their behaviour in light of James 2:14-26. Faith without deeds is dead. If we truly believe that He has redeemed us, and called us to live holy lives, then surely some degree of zealousness in pursuing holiness would be a sign of faith.

I was challenged by the desert fathers. Not to move into the desert, praise God! But to take more seriously the call to live a holy life. I think I need to stop making excuses to myself about the weakness of my nature, and be more determined to lean on God for the strength to make the hard choices that are needed in my life in order to overcome sin. God willing that won't be actual bodily amputation (although some days I think that physical bodily mutilation would be easier than dealing with the sinfulness of my heart). But I think it is wise to cut off opportunities for sin. Proverbs 5:8 is illuminating, and I think applies more broadly than just to the context of avoiding adultery, "Keep to a path far from her, do not go near the door of her house".

I want to learn better to follow the promptings of the Spirit, and work with Him better to live a life that is pleasing to God. I want to understand more fully the offensiveness of my sin to God, so that my desire to not sin will be more motivated out of a desire to please Him rather than a sense of guilt and condemnation that makes me feel bad. I do not want to presume on His grace, although I know that my entire existence presumes on His grace. I want to better understand Christ and what He did for me at Calvary. I want to walk free because He paid so dearly for my freedom. Mostly, I want to know Him better, more closely, more deeply, more intimately. I want to know Him better than I know myself.

God bless,
Bec

The effects of pornography

2008-01-03T11:29:00.000+11:00

Following on from my post yesterday about Rudd's clean feed policy the following article from The Age today is interesting:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-internet-and-the-rise-of-porn/2008/01/02/1198949896984.html

If anyone doubts that the internet has meant that children are being exposed to sexually explicit material at an earlier age than in previous generations, then the statistic that 84% of boys and 60% of girls had been accidentally exposed to pornography on the net is illuminating. And as this article shows, much of the content is not only sexual but of a violent nature as well. If this is the material upon which young people are forming their values regarding what is right within a sexual relationship then we can expect to see a big rise in sexual violence. The sad part will be that as that behaviour is normalised in society people will become increasingly accepting of being used by each other in degrading and violent ways.

This to some extent is already true. There is already a culture that teaches young women that their value is in their looks, and in their ability to attract men. It teaches women that they need to be sexually available and if they do not want to participate in some sexual acts that they won't be able to get/keep a man. The disturbing thing is that this has all happened in such a way that women defend this sort of thinking and behaviour as "equality with men". The other attitude that can accompany this is a pleasure in the power that men's lust gives women over men.

All of this is SOOOOO far from what God intended. A relationship that is based on taking from each other, and manipulating each other by what each person can give/withhold from the other, and on various power-plays is sick and doomed to failure. There is no intimacy, no sharing of hearts & minds. This is slavery not freedom.

It is hugely important that as a society we do something about the proliferation of pornography. Since the advent of the internet, because of the increase ease of access, as an emotional, spiritual and pyschological threat it is like this threat has gone nuclear. It will destroy the lives and loves of children, teenagers, adults, men and women if something is not done. It destroys relationships, marriages, tears apart families. It hurts our relationship with God. It isn't just "a bit of fun".

What God wants for us all is SO much better. Mark Conner's Sacred Sex series was great on the topic of what God DOES intend sex to be. See especially the first part!

God bless,
Bec

Rudd's Clean Feed (Internet Filtering) Policy

2008-01-02T17:40:00.000+11:00

As a part of the recent election campaign, the Labor party promised to protect Australian children whilst online. The Labor policy is here: http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf

One important part of this policy is the promise of a "mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children". This filtering will be done at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level NOT on the user's PC.

In light of the detail of the Labor policy (ie. ISP NOT PC Filtering) it is interesting that the NSW Council for Civil Liberties says that a computer saavy child will be able to get around the filters. Hmmm. Unlikely. To do that they would need access into the ISP's computer systems to tamper with the filtering software. The majority of children would not be capable of hacking their ISP. In fact if you read Labor's policy (as linked above) it is clear that the reason they have selected the 'clean feed' approach is that they understand that filtering inside the home IS simple to get around.

I rather think that this comment by the NSW Council for Civil Liberties is just a distracting tactic. I think later comments reflect more what their objection is, "adults would be restricted by the filters" and "Will there be some database of people who want to access adult pornography, which is legal in most democratic countries?" and "It has serious implications for freedom of expression. When you start filtering material on political grounds - even if the material is objectionable or quite awful - we're heading in the same direction as China and Singapore."

OK so there are really two points here, firstly adults will also be restricted in their access of pornographic material, which is seen to be undesirable because it "is legal in most democratic countries" and has "serious implications for freedom of expression".

There are some an interesting assumptions in this:

Legality in democratic countries is a measure of what is moral or good
Freedom of expression is an absolute ethic

The first statement is quite obviously false. There is of course the extreme example of Nazi Germany; where murder of Jews was legal and yet obviously not moral or good. Another less extreme example would be the way laws regarding smoking have been changing over the last 20 years. 20 years ago you could smoke anywhere, anytime pretty much. The laws have subsequently changed to protect others from passive smoking, such that now it is not legal to smoke in restaurants and pubs. One cannot say that at the time that smoking in restaurants and pubs was legal that it was GOOD. The law has changed, because that original law that allowed smoking in restaurants and pubs was not beneficial or constructive. I would say that it equally follows that just because it is legal for adults to view pornographic material that it is necessarily good.

The second statement that makes freedom of expression an absolute is naive. Freedom is good. It is wonderful to live in a country that allows me choice and freedom. But there is obviously a level of restriction that is good for us. For instance, one could view road laws as inflicting an unecessary level of restriction of freedom. However, I for one am GLAD that when I cross the road when the green man is blinking, that the freedom of drivers is restricted so that I may get to the other side without being run over. I am equally glad to have MY freedom restricted by not crossing the road until the green man blinks, because I know that it is for my good. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties comment that this moves us closer to China or Singapore is a scare tactic. It is common sense that our freedom can and should be restricted at times, and that this is good.

The other side of this is that what is ok for me is not necessarily ok for others. Even if one buys the argument that adults can safely view pornography without harming themselves, it does not necessarily follow that adults SHOULD view pornography knowing that having it accessible means that children may be exposed to it. In 1 Cor 10:23-24, Paul writes that everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial or constructive, and that we should seek the good of others not ourselves. We live in community. As much as our individualistic society tells us that each of us individually are the centre of the universe, the fact is that none of us are. We are responsible not just for feeding our own appetites but also for looking out for one another.

For this reason, even if instituting the clean feed policy means that adults are also restricted from viewing pornographic material, it should most definitely be implemented to protect the children in our community. Actually, I believe this policy is beneficial for adults as well. I think it will mean that fewer adolescents fall into sexual addictions. I think that it will mean less adults will develop unrealistic expectations about sex, and thus will be freed up to better enjoy what sex really IS rather than they imagine it is. I think it will also have a positive impact on women having realistic and positive body images. If the image of women that men desire is not distorted by pornography then the pressure to be a barbie-doll will diminish, and real beauty will be rediscovered.

So personally, I am EXCITED about the clean feed policy! It will protect our children, but also will provide an opportunity for us to rediscover real sex and real beauty. The real is always better than what is imagined, fantasies dry out and get boring with time. True contentment can only be found in appreciating what is real and true.

God bless,
Bec

A response to Philip Pullman wanting to kill God

2007-12-24T08:39:00.000+11:00

I find the idea of trying to kill God an odd notion. That a created, finite being is uppity enough to think that he can kill the Holy, Eternal and Uncreated One is amusing. It's about as likely as an ant being able to kill an elephant just by sheer will power!!! Apart from anything else the last time we killed God, He came back to life after three days. History has proven this approach not workable!!

I think God's response to this "kill God" idea is covered in the parable of the lost son. In the parable (Luke 15:11-32) there is a man with two sons - I will paraphrase:

The younger son wishes his father were dead and rocks up to the old man and says "Hey Dad, I can't wait until you are dead, give me my inheritance now". His father divides his property and gives the younger son his share.
This dude goes off into the world, abandons his family, abandons his faith, abandons his country, and lives it up big time spending all his Dad's money on drugs, sex and rock n' roll.
After a while he runs out of money and his "friends" abandon him too. He ends up having to do some pretty crappy jobs just to feed himself. When the worst comes to the worst he's working at McDonalds clearing tables, and he's SO hungry that when he takes the rubbish out he looks at a half eatened cheeseburger, that has been on the floor most of the day and has been stepped on and is all squished and longs to fill his stomach with it, cos it's been days since he's eaten.
At this point he has an "Ah ha" moment, he wakes up to himself and thinks, at least at home his Dad always made sure that he was well fed and perhaps he can get a job in the old man's business, even if it's just as the cleaner, it'd be better than this!! Dad paid above award wages!!
So he sets off back home. In his head he's rehearsing what he'll say to his father. "Dad, I've been a doofus. I treated you like shit and I don't deserve to be your son" As he's having this little conversation with himself, and he's still miles and miles away from home, his father is out looking for him, and sees him coming home.
Now male ego being what it is, it's pretty weird that his father is even looking for him. The father could at this point wait until the son comes to him and begs on hands and knees for his forgiveness. He could drag that out for a while and then grudingly bestow his forgiveness, and then use his son's behaviour as collateral whenever he stepped out of line, "You ungrateful wretch and after I forgave you.... " etc.
But no, the father loves his doofus son, and runs all the way to meet him. He's out of breath, he's sweaty and he grabs him and hugs him. The son starts his speech, "Dad, I've been a doofus..." his father cuts him off, and says to his mate that is with him, "Mate, go book a table at the steakhouse, my son is home!! We have to celebrate!" He puts a fine Italian leather jacket on him and cleans him up.
Well you'd think everyone would be happy wouldn't you? Beautiful family reunion, just the kind of thing to make you go "aahhhh", nice hollywood ending, queue the music, roll credits. But no, big bro is not happy! He finds out about the dinner, and is cheesed off! He sits outside the steakhouse having a big sulk, "I'm not going in! Nobody can make me" he sulks.
His father comes outside to see what's up. And big bro says, "Dad!! It's not fair!! I've always been good, always done EVERYTHING you wanted and you never took me & my mates out for a steak dinner! Yet when my idiot brother treats you like shit, spends all your money on drugs, sex and rock n' roll you accept him back and treat him like like royalty! It isn't fair!!!"
Well the father says, "Hey, everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate because this brother of yours was lost, but now is found. He was dead to us because of what he did, but now he is alive to us again."

I rather think this illustrates rather beautifully God's position:

Philip Pullman can wish God dead as much as he likes, he's not the first and not the last to come up with that as an idea, God is used to it.
God will let him walk away and do his own thing, but He will never stop loving him, and He will never stop seeking him out. Given the chance God will welcome Philip Pullman back home and treat him with grace and honour.
It is really easy for us Christians to get all irate about the athiests who go off and treat God like shit and wish Him dead, but that's the older brother attitude. We should instead pray that God will find and bring home our wayward sibling(s), and when He does, join in the celebration that ensues. (I'm talking to myself here!! I'm prone to older-brother syndrome as much as anyone. I feel duly rebuked!)

God bless,
Bec

Anglican Submission on Victoria's Abortion Laws

2007-12-22T11:42:00.000+11:00

The Diocese of Melbourne recently made a submission to the Victorian Government to be considered in the state's review of Victoria's abortion laws. The full text of the submission can be found at:

https://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/main.php?pg=download&id=10497

I found it a very disappointing read. The prophetic literature of the Old Testament makes it very clear that God loves deeply those in society that are without legal status, and he is very interested in how the rest of us treat those who cannot defend themselves. Indeed a major reason that He sent the Israelites into exile was because of how they mistreated the poor and marginalised.

In our day and age, it may not be widows and orphans that are in particular need of protection because we now have systems in place for their support, but there are still those in our society that cannot protect themselves. Amongst these are unborn children who do not even yet have the air in their lungs to scream against the injustice of their deaths. It is the role of the body of Christ to protect the weak and defenceless.

I recently read How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt. It was very enlightening. It looked at the state of the world before Christ and what forces had been at work to bring about the freedoms that we enjoy in today's western world. In the Greco-Roman world abortion was practised widely and a very low value was placed on human life. It was the actions of the church throughout history that brought about laws that made abortion illegal and protected the life of the unborn child. This was done in the face of great opposition from the Roman world. We should remember that no matter how much opposition we face, continuing to fight for the lives of unborn children we could end up being successful. Christians fighting for the unborn worked the first time around, by God's grace it could work again.

In the Anglican submission, when responding to the question of moral and ethical principles that should inform the abortion law in Victoria it is telling that they cite "public acceptance of the reality of abortion, including acceptance of the practice among women of diverse religious communities" (p3) as the basis on which they believe the law should be changed. Practise should not inform ethical and moral principles but rather the other way, ethical & moral principles should inform practise.

As Christians the ultimate source of ethical and moral principles is the Bible. It is His revealed will for how we should live our lives. What it says about the value of human lives, loving others, and about protecting those in our society that have no voice should not be put aside by the church just because it does not fit with public practise or opinion. The Bible is still truth whether or not the world accepts it. The church should SHOW how it is relevant and applicable.

An unborn child is human from the point of conception. Before they are even conceived they are known to God (Jer 1:5). You can't know an inhuman lump of flesh. A foetus is a child, a human being. Psalm 139:13-16 further shows how God is involved in creating the unborn child and that they are a marvellous creation. All made in the image of God, all made to bring Him glory.

Sometimes life is hard. Sometimes life isn't fair. Sometimes things happen to us that are not our choices and we have to live with it. The biblical position on this is that it builds our character and makes us better people when we face it with faith and belief that God will carry us through it, and that in His grace He will work ALL things together for good for those who love Him (Ro 8:28). So just because the pregnancy might be difficult, or just because the child might have a disability, or just because the father has run off, or just because the child was conceived during rape, or just because having the child is inconvenient to the parents does not mean that having the child is not still the BEST way forward when a woman is pregnant under those circumstances. Ok so this is tough stance, and not everyone could take it, but the church should be presenting a view on abortion that is based on the crappy circumstances of life but on the eternal and unchanging nature of God which is that HE WILL NOT ABANDON ANY WOMAN IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IF SHE WILL ACCEPT HIS HELP. He is entirely faithful and loving. My experience is that the most utterly horrendous, awful and abhorrent thing that has ever happened in my life God turned around and made into something beautiful. Yes, it is hard to live through those kind of days. Yes, often you cannot see HOW you will get through it. But God picks you up, carries you through (yes, through not around), and heals the hurt and the pain, and gives you the strength day-by-day to keep going. This is what He desires to do in everyone's lives if they will let Him.

I really believe that there is nothing more relevant to the world than God's grace. They might not get it, mightn't want to hear about it, but we all need grace more than we need oxygen. This is the message the church should be bringing on the issue of abortion. That there is a God of grace who will not abandon any woman in her distress and that she doesn't need to rely on her own strength, her own resources to get her through the difficulties of parenthood. Abortion might seem like the answer, but it isn't. God is the answer.

God bless,
Bec

Christmas: It's about PRESENCE not PRESENTS

2007-12-21T14:45:00.000+11:00

It's been a busy year, and the lead up to Christmas has been no different, particularly with all the Christmas shopping to be done. This year it's struck me particularly forcefully that we don't "get" Christmas anymore.

There is so much busyness around the event of Christmas that we have forgotten what it is all really about. We spend hours in the shops buying tons of presents, out of a sense of obligation because "it's that time of year", and it's expected. If you ask the average 5 y.o. what Christmas is all 99% will reply something to do with getting presents.

It really strikes me that we've got it all wrong! Christmas isn't about PRESENTS it's about PRESENCE. I was reading Matthew's account of the birth of Jesus this morning, and there is a lovely couple of verses (where he quotes Isa 7:14) that read as follows:

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel—which means, "God with us."

There it is! This is what Christmas is really about. It's about Jesus who is called Immanuel, which means "God WITH us". God's PRESENCE with us, not PRESENTS.

God bless,
Bec

Reflections on Grace & The Phantom of the Opera

2007-12-14T18:05:00.000+11:00

Yesterday was an important day for me. It marked 2 years since God moved into my life in such a significant way that I could not continue to ignore Him and the fact that He is entitled to my love and worship. Ever since that day life has never been the same. I think there’s a really good reason why the bible refers to the process of becoming a Christian as being “born again”, because in SO many ways my life really started then. Also that image that is captured in baptism, of dying with Christ and being raised again with Him is so true. Who I was, what I wanted, what motivated me, what my core beliefs and values were have seismically shifted.

Quite incidentally I went and saw Phantom with some friends last night. Now the two things may not seem to be particularly linked, however I saw in the characters of the Phantom, Christine and the Vicomte de Chagny some pictures that say some great things about the human condition and the capacity of love and grace to free us; which illustrates much of my testimony of the past two years walking with God.

The character of the phantom is a great picture of someone who is broken. Some crappy things have happened in his life, and so he hides from life and the world, because by putting up those walls he thinks he can protect himself from being hurt. He’s different, and even around people he’s felt alone because the loneliest place in the world is in amongst people who do not ‘see’ you and do not accept you. The more isolated he has become the more his needs have ached, and so he’s buried himself in the music and in a dream of a relationship with someone who he sees as lovely and innocent. He starts in the relationship with her on the assumption that she could not love him as he is, so he hides from her too. Only showing her those parts of himself that he believes that she will find attractive. The sad truth being that the relationship can never be genuine when he is not being himself, in all of his imperfection and brokenness. But because he has never been able to address his need and his pain through conventional means he has become desperate and will do anything to have what he wants, thinking that it will make the pain go away. His behaviour becomes more and more extreme, from being Christine’s “Angel of Music” to where he tries to force her to marry him by threatening the life of the man she loves.

At two places Christine tears his mask away from him. She is actually interested in who he really is, not just the “Angel of Music” persona that he has adopted. When she does this he shrinks away from her. There’s this fear that she will reject him. Yet by not allowing her the chance to decide for herself, he in effect rejects himself on her behalf. He carries around in his head this belief that he really is not good enough. He does not allowing for the possibility that someone could love him in his imperfection and brokeness.

What is so beautiful about this play occurs very close to the end. Christine’s boyfriend is suspended from a noose, and the Phantom demands that she choose, to marry the phantom and her boyfriend lives, or not to marry him, and her boyfriend dies. Nice position to be put in, and as Christine puts it, “The tears I might have shed for your dark fate, Grow cold and turn to tears of hate”. A perfectly normal human reaction, but what follows is amazing. It is a wonderful picture of someone who out of their own human compassion COULD NOT show love or grace, but instead calls on God to help them do it anyway. Christine cries out, “God give me courage to show you, You are not alone...” and then plants a great big kiss on the demasked phantom. Not on the phantom when he’s all masked and hidden, not when he’s playing his “Angel of Music” role. But when he is demasked, and when the worst of his character and behaviour has been exposed. And what is his response? In a word, repentance. He lets them both go.

In Raoul (Vicomte de Chagny) there is a certain Christlikeness. In that last scene where Christine has to choose between a life of slavery with the Phantom versus her own freedom at the expense of Raoul's life, Raoul is entirely willing to lay down his life so that she can be free, "Don't throw your life away for my sake!" he calls out. He would rather die than have her live in darkness. And then in the song, "That's all I ask of you" the things that Raoul sings to Christine are so reminiscent of much of what scripture says:

Walk in the light as he is in the light (1 Jn 1:7) vs Raoul - "No more talk of darkness"
Do not fear (1 Jn 4:18) vs Raoul - "Forget these wide-eyed fears"
He is with us (Mt 28:20) vs Raoul - "I'm here"
He will look after us and protect us from harm (Ps 121:7) vs Raoul - "nothing can harm you"
His word is sweet! (Ps 119:103) vs Raoul - "my words will warm and calm you."
He has set us free (Gal 5:1) vs Raoul - "Let me be your freedom"
He will protect us (Ps 12:7) and He will guide us (Ex 15:13) vs Raoul - "I'm here, with you, beside you, to guard you and to guide you..."
He is our shelter (Ps 31:20) vs Raoul - "Let me be your shelter"
We are safe (Ps 4:8) vs Raoul - "You're safe: No-one will find you, your fears are far behind you"

So who was I two years ago? The girl behind the mask, disconnected and hurt. Lots of little things during my life had lead me to a point where I felt completely alone and unwanted. Like the Phantom there were certain parts of myself that I let people see, only that which I thought they wouldn't reject. Like the Phantom I created alternate people to be, he was the 'Angel of Music', for me it was any number of the stereotypes of what a girl/woman should be.

Two years ago I came to a fork in the road, more darkness, or a new path. Some beautiful people saw behind my mask. Like Christine had every right to recoil from me, but instead relying on God they showed me love and grace. I could not explain it as being anything other than God, because there was no natural reason for them to love me. It revealed something of the heart of God towards me, and set me on that new path. So now the mask is off. I am broken, I am imperfect. But I am Bec. It's been wonderful to discover that I'm loved just for being Bec. And God's working on the brokenness :)

God bless,
Bec