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
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Attractional model of church growth
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
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
Friday, March 20, 2009
Church Structure & Institutionalisation is a Stronghold
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
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
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Victorian Bush Fires
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
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
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Why I think 'The Shack' is ok
'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:
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
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Something light hearted...
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
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
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Joy Recovered
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:
He further charts our attempts to reclaim that joy in hyperrealities (ala Mark Sayers):
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
Monday, October 6, 2008
URGENT - Please email your MLCs
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
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
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Sex is NOT a toy!
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
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
Monday, September 1, 2008
Dancing with the Stars needs to "put its knickers BACK on"
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:
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
Monday, August 25, 2008
I think I like Mike Guglielmucci's song Healer better now...
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
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Guglielmucci, Bentley & Success
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
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
Friday, August 8, 2008
No spine whatsoever
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
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
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Refinement through Busyness
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:
God bless,
Bec
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
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
So the Archbishop of Canterbury does have a spine
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
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
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
God bless,
Bec
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Pornography Addiction amongst Muslims
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
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
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
And there's more...
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
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Slippery Slide
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)