...by-default...

by-default is moving...

2007-12-28T22:34:00.000+13:00

Blogger is great...

...but Wordpress is (in my opinion) a better blogging system... (no offense, Blogger!)

I've transferred everything to my new blog at:

http://fruitfulfaith.wordpress.com/

I'll leave this one up for a while, but all my new posts will be over there.

Here's a screen-shot:

Cheers!

Dale

the wright gift!

2007-12-26T17:25:00.000+13:00

A rather HUGE thanks to my wife this year for definitely choosing the 'Wright' gift this Christmas...

(See pics below!)

Below: One happy husband. One Wright gift.

Below: One Wright-Wreading husband. One Wright gift. Two Wright manuscripts.

(Books: 'The Climax of the Covenant' and 'Hebrews for Everyone')

Cheers everyone!

:)

-d-

the 'science' of intelligent design

2007-12-21T23:06:00.000+13:00

I must thrive on controversy or something. I've got posts on speaking in 'tongues', sexual ethics and now --if those weren't enough-- I'm posting on the evolution/creation debate... Sigh... Where to begin!!??

Where I've come from
Since I like honesty, I'll start with a very short (and therefore un-detailed) review of how I've thought in the past, and where I'm at now...

Growing up, I didn't think too much about evolutionary theory. I believed God created all things, and assumed that He did it like Genesis 1 & 2 said. Years later, the topic would become of greater importance to me. I listened to radio programmes, read a few books, looked at websites, etc., etc., and convinced myself that evolution could not be true. I happily enjoyed debating about it, and pointing to 'holes' in Darwinian theory... The title 'six-day young-earth creationist' would have been proudly worn by me, and any Christian who dared think that 'macro-evolution' could have happened would have gotten dis-approving looks from me.

More recently, however, I've taken a much more 'I have no idea' kind of approach to whether or not life as we know it has come about by way of Darwinian processes. My current view of Genesis 1 & 2, is that these chapters are not scientific explanatory reports, but rather theological poetic texts which were not written to explain exactly how creation 'happened', but rather to (beautifully, if you ask me!) contrast the Creator God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with all of the gods of the nations around them. I could go on, but that's enough for a 'very brief' review!

Why this post?
Firstly, I am still interested in such conversations; though at the same time, I'm saddened by the unhelpful ways they are sometimes carried out. Secondly, this interest and sadness have found me discussing such things with some atheists. As we discussed my last post (which was more of a philosophical suggestion concerning the value(s) which underlie ethics and morality) we eventually stumbled onto things to do with evolution. I thought that the conversation was too big to have there... More specifically, I wanted to discuss my thoughts on 'Intelligent Design' (I.D.).

'I.D.' scientific?
I.D. (which enters conversations about cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution) is called a lot of things by a lot of people. 'True science' by fundy young-earthers, and 'Religions' desperate attempt to attack real science' by others. Here are my thoughts, which --perhaps not surprisingly-- are located somewhere between these two...

The biggest criticism of I.D. is that it is not a testable theory. A big problem is that the evaluation of that statement is confused by various expressions of what I.D. is. If I.D. is a theory which makes suggestions about how the universe or complex organisms came to be, then it can only be 'tested' in a mental-experiment kind of way, which may prove quite useful to philosophers and logicians. On the other hand, it offers no empirically testable theories, so --in a very important sense-- it is not a theory at all, but rather an assertion.

Natural science, you see, is what natural science is. It seeks to explain things by natural causes, so you can see why a 'theory' about a super-natural 'designer' is no longer in the domain of natural science. Positing all day long about a designer leaves nothing to empirically test, and thus no way for natural science to even begin to do its thing. Therefore, the idea that the universe and/or complex organisms are designed is one of many ideas that can never be verified, tested or developed by natural science.

A confused mess
Now, having said that, there remains a great deal of value in critiquing Darwinian evolutionary theory - or any other theory for that matter! What I suspect is happening, however, is that the whole 'I.D.' movement --with it's implicit (sometimes explicit!!??) agenda to 'prove' the existence of the Designer-- actually ends up stifling and confusing what sometimes could be fruitful critique of Darwinian theory.

The comments on this article show how immaturely and impatiently the I.D. crowd react when scientists change their opinion on something. This does not encourage fruitful dialogue.

A new documentary by Ben Stein called 'Expelled' will highlight several controversial scenarios involving abuse or firing of scientists and instructors who subscribed to I.D. ideas. Debates rage about the legitimacy of the tenure denial of seemingly qualified astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez, or the dismissal of Caroline Crocker. (Two quick examples of firings that seem more justified (or at least to be expected?) are that of Kris Helphinstine and Nathaniel Abraham.)

An unfortunate example to me is the firing of Richard Sternberg for publishing an article by I.D. proponent Stephen Meyer. Sternberg himself finds I.D. flawed, but published Meyer's article because "evolutionary biologists are thinking about this. So I thought that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse." Like all such situations, there is no doubt more to the story than the public will ever know, but the firing of Sternberg (himself neither an evangelical, young-earth creationist or even a theistic evolutionist!) seems to me extreme.

So What?
So, as far as I'm concerned, one of the most disappointing things about I.D. is that it has simply gone too far too often. It seems that because of the attempts to use it to 'prove' a God, they have created justified suspicion in the natural science community. What a shame. As far as I'm concerned, it's silly to think that natural science could ever 'prove' God.

The assertions that the universe looks ordered, fine-tuned or designed are assertions that I find compelling, but these assertions give natural science no counter-theory, no alternative-hypothesis, and no way to even begin to test for the implicitly suggested Orderer, Fine-Tuner and/or Designer.

true love: stranger & friend

2007-12-10T12:12:00.000+13:00

A very recent post had a moral bent, and the ensuing comment-discussion quickly observed that morals are based on values and eventually focussed on the question of what (if anything) underlies our values. In other words, are values grounded 'on' anything? Or, are they as free and changing as the various expressions of human cognition/thought? In this post, I want to try to explore this question further. Just one thing before I begin:

A request for discussion of this post:
I do not wish for this exploration and discussion to be hi-jacked by various statements (of any kind) about what 'the Bible says', and what that supposedly means. Do I think that the Bible has something to say in this exploration and discussion? Most certainly. But many assertions (both 'positive' and 'negative' ones - if I may put it like that) can derail the conversation before it leaves the station. My desire is not to have this conversation in the usual verse-quoting and scoffing fashion, but rather as thinking human beings - with whatever anthropology you bring to the table. And for Christian readers, it is my conviction (I believe C.S. Lewis once said something similar?) that if we can't discuss our beliefs in non-religious --or non-'bible'-- language, then we either don't actually believe those things or we are totally out of touch with the world. Now. Let's think together about this question.

First, we should observe that a conversation about absolute or universal principles, values and/or morals is really a conversation about what is called 'truth'. So we'll use that word here. Secondly, the discussion is often characterised by what I see to be a false choice between two views (including views that are closer to one or the other of these two):

The 1st view we will call 'absolutism'. This is the idea not only that there is absolute truth, but that we can and/or do fully know it.

The 2nd view we will call 'relativism'. This is the idea not only that there is no absolute truth, but that we couldn't and/or wouldn't know it even if there were.

'Accessing' Truth?
I suggest we have this false choice because (even though our beliefs may vary) our thinking and discussing is still largely shaped by Greek philosophical categories. More specifically, modern Westerners still think in terms of a dualist split between matter and spirit. Matter being the stuff that is less than important, and spirit being that which is most important. This directly affects how we still think about 'truth.' Popular culture still thinks of truth as unchanging, static, pure, 'up there', and needing to be 'accessed' and/or 'brought down' to us. [See diagram: I made it, isn't it neat? :) ]

What happens, then, is that the 'absolutists' not only claim total (or at least partial) 'access' to this body of 'truth', but also claim to know precisely how it is to be worked out in the context of daily life or a specific situation. Now, the 'relativist' would say that this 'truth' is not absolute, but that it changes depending on the context. Some relativists (many atheists?) would even say quite simply that there no 'up there' kind of 'truth', and that we've got nothing but 'context', which we respond to in various ways, resulting in various mental constructs which are held to be 'truth' for that person or culture.

Why do we have this false choice? Why this spectrum between absolutists and relativists with no seeming middle ground? Could there be a third way of seeing how 'Truth' works? If so, how might we understand (or even imagine?) such a thing?

A more 'down to earth' Truth?
Indeed, the English word 'truth' can represent various ideas for various people, and even one person might use it to mean slightly different things at times. Often, it's used in a kind of verifying way, with things that can in principle be verified: "Is it true that Dad is coming home early tonight?" Other times it's used for inquiry into less verifiable things: "Is it true that Macintosh computers are more sleek and stylish than PC's?" Other times the usage is to gain information that might be 'hidden' for various reasons: from "Did you eat the last slice of pie? Go on, tell me the truth!" to "Where were you last night? Tell me the truth!"

The interesting thing about all of these usages is this: They have nothing at ALL to do with an 'up there' kind of truth. Instead of having to do with floating principles in the sky, all these usages have to do with real situations - real life, the real world. So, in case you need me to say it clearer, truth ain't 'up there'! So, at least concerning the existence of an 'up there' kind of truth, I am in agreement with many relativists.

But, I am not a moral relativist, nor do I believe that truth (wherever it is 'located' or whatever shape it is, etc.) is relative. So what does my picture of truth look like? Well, I don't plan on trying to 'describe' an idea as huge as 'truth' with a few sentences... that would be silly. But I do want to present one way of which I think truth can be 'known'.

Now, my use of the word 'known' warrants an entirely separate discussion about epistemology, but suffice it to say that I'm not talking about 'knowing the truth' like one knows that 2+2=4. Rather, I'm talking about something much like 'knowing' you've just said either something entirely inappropriate which you wish you could take back or something entirely appropriate which simply had to be said at exactly that moment...

Truth Transcending Tensions?
When I picture truth, I think of Love. What a shame that the word 'Love' can mean mere feelings, as the phrases 'falling in love' or 'I don't love you anymore' or 'I love creamy Jif peanut butter' would suggest. But the attitude, mentality or disposition of selfless, patient, tolerant, kind Love remains.

I discussed this a while back in another post, but I'll summarise here. Love resides in what might be called the 'tension' between 'self' and 'other'. Tom Wright (who is drawing on the thought of Bernard Lonergan) puts it this way: "the point about love - the epistemology which love generates - is that love both affirms the other-ness of the object [objectivity] while remaining in deep, rich and close subjective [subjectivity] relationship to it. Love transcends the objective-subjective divide."

I lov... um... well, I fully agree with that. :) Love transcends more than the objective-subjective divide, however. Life is just cram packed full of tensions which Love transcends. Male-female; Order-Chaos; Logic-Emotion and more.

True Love?
Just before closing this post, I want to say one more intentionally paradoxical thing about Love. I want to suggest that Love is (as the title of this post suggests) both the most foreign and the most familiar thing to us.

On one hand, it is familiar; we know what it looks like. We've seen it - if but for a passing moment. In living rooms, at coffee tables, through tears - both of joy and pain. Strangely, we know what Love looks like as much from its absence as from its fleeting presence. Like a beautiful garden that has been 'let go' and is now over-run with weeds and tall, unkempt grass, we 'know' what it's like to see Love fade away - just out of reach, just around the corner.

On the other hand, it is foreign - totally other. Hundreds of beds in a clothing factory providing a few hours of rest for hundreds of human bodies which will awaken the next day to produce thousands of garments underneath florescent light to be shipped across a body of water for other human bodies to purchase at 'everyday low prices' in various large retail buildings in other countries, underneath all-too-similar florescent light. Love is a pipe dream. A silly notion. All that matters here are dollars, cents, profit margins and stock dividends.

Yes, I am suggesting a contradiction. We know exactly what Love is, and yet we have no idea what Love is.

(I look forward to rationalising about such a wishy-washy thing!)

truth hurts real good

2007-12-09T16:36:00.000+13:00

What an inconvenience!

I mean, seriously. Doesn't it just stink that the thing that people need to hear most is what they enjoy hearing the least?

It's just the way we are, isn't it? We love people as long as they always tell us what we want to hear and smile at us a lot. Are these expectations of others healthy? Are they even based in reality?

I think not.

Truth is, we tend to keep people at a safe distance from us. None of us want to be alone and not have any friends, but very few people want a friend that cares enough to say the uncomfortable but true things that they need to hear. We like friends that only talk about things they KNOW we agree with. Rugby, TV shows, or maybe that person that both of you don't really like.

Maybe you love to talk to other people that are frustrated with Christians or the Church.

Or, maybe you love to talk about how other people just don't 'get it' as much as you do.

Maybe it's been a long time since you've had a discussion that wasn't comfortable.

Maybe that's why we struggle so much with conflict.

Maybe we have forgotten how to speak the truth in love.

Maybe we don't want to hear the truth about us.

Proverbs 15 (selected verses)
A fool despises his father's instruction, but he who receives reproof is prudent. v. 5
Harsh correction is for him who forsakes the way, and he who hates reproof will die. v. 10
A scoffer does not love one who reproves him, nor will he go to the wise. v. 12
The ear that hears the reproof of life will abide among the wise v.31
He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, but he who heeds reproof gets understanding. v.32

Be willing to be the BEARER or RECIPIENT of truth.
Strangely enough, sometimes those with the hardest message to hear are often the ones that care about you most.

sexual identity remixed

2007-11-22T19:05:00.000+13:00

I'm well aware of this topics' controversial nature. In fact, that's part of the reason I've been wanting to write about this for a while. What I do not want to do is quote verses or provide what I think 'the Bible says' about this issue. Of course, I do have a view on that, but that specific pathway into this topic has been almost ruined for all kinds of reasons, not least simplistic applications of various texts.

As with any other discussion, the use of words is key. At one extreme, the sheer number of terms being created ('pangender', 'omnisexuality' and 'heteronormativity' to name but a few) does not seem to help fruitful discussion, but at the other extreme, many can fail to appreciate the complexity of the issues being discussed. Because of this complexity, it would be easy to spend huge amounts of time trying to address everything that has ever been said about human sexuality. But, of course, that's the job of a lengthy dissertation or something. My hope is to fruitfully contribute to the conversation. Quite simply, I want to raise two concerns I have relating to human sexuality.

Just one thing before I get going. Much harm has been done in this area. For all variety of reasons, people have said things in ways that are careless, abusive, condescending and just plain hurtful. To say that only religious people have done this would of course be inaccurate. The issue is far more complex than that. It's not simply a matter of Christians 'versus' homosexuals, or whatever. It's fathers against daughters, communities splitting, families and relationships crumbling and various cultures defining and redefining themselves. Many people of all persuasions simply need to apologise for what they've said and done. That is a bigger concern than any that follow...

But, alas, the issue is important and simple answers to complex questions will not do. Now, finally, here are two concerns to consider...

Concern #1 - Sexuality needs guidance like all other human activity.
I still remember hearing her say it. The younger (20-ish) of two women was sharing her inner pondering as to her own 'sexuality', and the older (50-ish) woman assured her, '...whatever decision you come to will be the right one.' One would struggle to imagine a more relativistic statement.

Also, I read a brochure from an organisation seeking to support youth dealing with these issues. It shared the same assurance: "...whatever you are, it's a perfectly natural part of being you." I talked with a representative from this organisation, and politely asked if there were any sexual activities that they did not approve of. What advice, I asked, would they give to youth feeling that they most identified with things such as incest, pedophilia and beastiality (sex with animals)? The reply was that these were not supported, and that youth wishing to identify with these things would be 'referred to a counselor.' This, of course, means that this organisation is not as all-approving as their brochure would suggest.

Guidance, leadership and direction happens in all areas of life, but when it comes to sexuality (especially in rich, western affluent areas), for some reason the only tolerated thing to do is to throw up your hands and say, 'whatever you think...' Why is this?

Now, I've not mentioned any specific sexual behaviour(s) so far - I'm just raising the concern that this is an area which I think needs guidance. For example, while I've never heard anyone suggest that heterosexuality in and of itself is 'wrong', there are indeed examples of heterosexual actions which most would say was indeed wrong; incest, pornography, pedophilia, etc. While the basis against such things may vary (which is a key question), most would agree, I suspect, that we need some kind of 'guidance' here.

Three examples may be helpful here.

1. Infidelity
Men who are in a marriage (or committed partnership) with a woman will admit that women other than their wife or partner are still sexually attractive. But most (especially the wives or partners of these men!) would say this is one attraction which would be 'wrong' to follow through on!

2. Rape

If one objects that the first example is a result of 'the socially constructed idea of commitment', then consider this example. A man attracted to a woman who doesn't desire sex with him must also answer his desires with a firm 'No'.

3. Pedophilia
If one should still object on grounds that all sex between consenting parties is valid, then consider the next example. A man attracted to a consenting 13 year old girl must also control himself.

All three above examples, by the way, are between men and women, who have what I like to call 'genital compatibility', yet they show a need for personal restraint and self control - even in view of such 'compatibility'. Indeed, the bodily organs would function quite aptly; but the answer to these desires is still a firm 'No.'

Further, very few people would deny that at least some desired sexual actions could be - at least in principle - harmful, dangerous or wrong. Nobody would suggest that desire alone ensures that a given action is a good one. If we made the rest of our life decisions that way... well... we'd buy, eat, use and do whatever we wanted. We understand the need for restraint and self-control in other areas of life - why do we so often neglect this need with sexuality?

Concern #2 - Personal identity based on sexual desire/attraction is problematic.
When people identify themselves as a "_____"-sexual person, they are identifying with a sexual attraction, and that attraction obviously implies a desire to follow-through on that attraction. That's the thing about desire; it's not desire just to have a desire - it's desire to actually do something. When we don't follow through on our desires - we don't like it; we're not getting what we're desiring. It's quite simple, really.

The reason, I suggest, why basing personal identity on such desires or attractions is problematic is this: because we don't always get what we want. For example, imagine someone who's personal identity was based on a specific sexual desire (whatever that might be). Now, if that person is not able to have the specific sexual experience they desire, then they are not able to fully express themselves according to what their personal identity has been based on. A person who identifies their whole self based upon their sexual desires, who is not sexually active, is not actualised in their person-hood. They are only a "_____"-sexual person in theory, and not in reality (like a firefighter who never fights fires, or a seamstress who never sews). Again, I've said nothing about any specific kind of sexual activity being 'wrong'. My second concern is specifically about basing one's personal identity on desire or attraction.

A helpful chapter called 'Angels and Animals' in Rob Bell's book 'Sex God' highlights two extremes for understanding ones' sexual self or identity. For one extreme ('animals'), he cites the example of two movie stars who 'hooked up' (in spite of a marriage), who later said, 'We just couldn't help ourselves.' This is a case of seeing yourself as an animal with sexual 'animal instincts' which cannot be harnessed. The other extreme ('angels') is to reject one's sexuality altogether, perhaps even viewing it as bad or evil. The healthy middle between the two is when sex is protected, valued and respected.

Western culture inundates us with messages via advertising (billboards, magazines, commercials), movies and television programmes which all too often present sexuality as a 'no holds barred' arena. The more active you are, the better. Go out and have a good time, enjoy yourself; oh, and by the way, don't get caught - whether that means the sexual partner's spouse catching the two of you, the sexual partner getting pregnant or either of you getting 'caught' by a sexually transmitted infection/disease.

We need help. The human race, obviously, is kept going because of sex. It's a good thing. But used poorly, it can make families, communities (even nations?) unstable - and harm individuals along the way. There are big questions here, and simple answers just won't do any longer.

Amos 5:18-7:17 (targum)

2007-11-21T11:53:00.000+13:00

'Targum' (plural is 'targumim') is a literary genre in which parts of the Hebrew Bible are 'modernised' and/or re-interpreted for the current time (specifically, it means an Aramaic translation.). This genre has been around for at least 2000 years, because some of the writings from the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' consist of 'targumim' fragments. Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat, in their book 'Colossians Remixed: Subverting The Empire' use this genre quite well - I think - to suggest how the message of certain parts of Paul's letter to the Colossians might be heard in modern, western culture.

Anyway, our church is almost finished teaching through the book of Amos, (I've just recently finished a course called 'Prophets in Context' by Tim Bulkeley at Carey Baptist College and his Amos commentary is - in my humble opinion! - the best fully-online commentary on this book.) and I recently preached on the text of 5:18 - 7:17. Here, for your enjoyment, discomfort (or both!?) is my 'targum' of this passage...

beginning***

(Judgment against hollow worship - 5:18-27)

"You want Jesus to come back? Yeah right! You know when He comes, He's going to judge the wicked, don't you!!?? It's not going to be fun for you! God says, 'Nothing makes me sicker than your conferences. I want to vomit during your church services. Even though you offer your so-called 'worship' I couldn't care less! I don't listen to junk like that! Will you please just shut up already?? I don't want to be your boyfriend! I want you to be passionate about justice! I want you to live lives that are righteous! Hello? Did you organise music festivals, worship conferences and other such 'Christian' things? I'll make your 'Hill' songs into 'Valley' songs – for the 'god' that you are worshipping is the music god you've made for yourself!!! I'm going to make you completely and totally irrelevant and non influential in your own culture. No one will care AT ALL what you have to babble on about!

(Judment against excessive consumption - 6:1-14)
"You are so comfortable, so 'spiritual' and so 'successful'. You're RICH as well! Your ridiculous obsession with video games, new clothing and entertainment and eating – YUCK!

Don't you care? Would you turn off your 'worship CD's' long enough to consider your out-right hypocrisy? This is why no one listens to what you say! Don't you get it!!?? It's not just the fundamentalist weirdo Christians who make a bad name for us, it's YOU – yes YOU – you hypocrite! The bach and your holiday home? I'll smash them to pieces! You've absolutely wrecked my project for justice and righteousness! Again, this is why Christians aren't listened to in Western Culture. The things you spend time and money on have more to do with the world's stupid notions of 'success' than MY values of simplicity and self-less-ness!

(The three 'visions' - 7:1-9)
God gave me three word-pictures. Check them out…

First, He showed me a timer counting down rapidly toward zero, and it was like the number of professing believers in New Zealand. I prayed to God, 'Please forgive us! There won't be any of us left!' He had mercy because of this and said, 'OK. This won't happen.'
Second, God showed me a Smith & Caughey's Christmas display –with Carols echoing 'God and sinners reconciled' -but next to it was a sexual advert objectifying men and women made in God's image! God said this was exactly like the mixed message that comfortable, affluent Christians are sending to the world, and therefore our influence will perish. I prayed, 'No! Please! We're weak!' He again had mercy…
Lastly, God showed me a funeral service. He asked me, 'What do you see?' I said, 'People weeping and mourning.' Then He said, 'See, I'm causing my people to weep and howl and mourn, because I am incensed at their hypocrisy! I will not stay silent. I will show them that their lack of works means their faith is DEAD!!!'

(The brief encounter narrative - 7:10-17)
Now, the most 'spiritual' and 'successful' Christian in Auckland complained to his pastor, saying "This guy is preaching against us and we can't stand his muttering. He says we're missing the point of the Gospel." So he went to me and said, "Your so divisive! Spare us your theological musings! Save it for your dead spirit-less church! Don't quench what the Spirit is doing with us!" And I said, "Hey, I'm not saying anything that you need a Masters in Divinity to understand! I saw hypocrisy, and God compelled me to call it what it is. I cannot BUT speak! You say, 'Don't touch the Lord's anointed', therefore God says, 'You will be seen to be hypocrites by the entire world. Your self-serving hollow worship and your romanticised moment-spirituality will leave you dry, naked and poor! Your sons and daughters will reject the faith you've taught them because they will see how shallow it really is!' "

***end

Do compare it with the original, and if you can/want to, do comment with thoughts (positive or negative) that come to mind!

Cheers,

-d-

three paths

2007-11-12T18:09:00.000+13:00

Being followers of Jesus means, of course, that we follow Him on His way, His path...

So what does the 'way' or 'path' of Jesus look like?

I want to describe three 'paths' that Jesus faced, which I also think life presents us with. Of course, I'm not suggesting that we will always have exactly 3 choices for every decision, but I think all of the choices we encounter in life can be boiled down into three 'directions', three 'ways', three 'paths'...

The setting...
Jesus was a 1st century Jew. Most or all Jews for about a century on either side of Jesus all were hoping and waiting for God to break into history and bring in the 'Age to Come', which would see God's true people vindicated, and God's enemies punished. A very important matter, then, was to ensure that you really were a true Jew! As many of you will know, there were different 'sects' of Judaism - different versions, if you will, of what it looked like to be a true Jew. Two of these sects, the Essenes and the Zealots, will be discussed here.

The first path - Attack
The first path Jesus could have taken was the path of Revolt. The Romans, with their burdensome taxation and meddling in Temple observance (and much more!), weren't simply disliked - they were despised; to the point of armed rebellion. Several revolts had happened before Jesus' day (not least the famous Maccabean revolts), and two happened afterward (70 & 135 AD). There were plenty of people so full of zeal that they were ready to use military might to help God overthrow the Romans. Though the 'Zealots' weren't an 'officially recognised' sect at Jesus' time, this path was most certainly alive and well! Jesus would have had little trouble attracting and leading an army like all the others before and after Him, and of course, many people were expecting the coming Messiah to be just the military figure they needed and wanted to lead this army. But this was not the path Jesus walked...

The second path - Escape
The next path Jesus could have taken was the path of Escape. Revolt wasn't the only reaction to the oppressive Roman occupation and rule - some wanted out. Particularly, the Essene sect (some think that the Essenes were the group responsible for the writings we know of as the Dead Sea Scrolls) took this path. They saw the sacred and pure system of worship, sacrifice and purification as having been corrupted by the Roman involvement, and therefore saw the entire thing as invalid and worthless. As far as they were concerned, being a true Jew meant maintaining purity above all costs. So, seeing Jerusalem as a corrupt, sinking ship, they jumped overboard, and headed out into the desert. Again - not the path Jesus walked...

The third path - Endure
The path Jesus took was the path that led Him to the cross. The cross stood as an ugly reminder of what anyone would get if they would dare try and revolt against Rome. Tom Wright has aptly pointed out that the Roman cross had been a symbol of the 'love of power', and Jesus turned it into a symbol of the 'power of love'. The cross was the strongest answer the Empire had for any who opposed it, and Jesus demonstrated the supremacy of love's power. This path - the path of endurance, the path of the cross - stands in stark contrast to the other two paths. To attack or revolt is to become like the oppressive enemy. It's trying to overcome evil with evil. To escape is to leave evil un-met, not confronted, not called to account. Both paths end in defeat. Only the path of love - enduring, sacrificial love - is victorious.

I suggest that this pattern is applicable in all of life. One of the most obvious examples is that of a marriage. When conflict arises (and it will!), you can (a) try to 'win' by attacking; (b) decide not to deal with it by escaping; or (c) walk the hard, difficult, patient path of working it out. This applies for the tiniest and the hugest of problems.

Like other things, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so have a think about it, and see if this pattern isn't relevant to your life. And of course, I never said that love was easy or convenient or 'fun', but the path of enduring love is the path that brings life, reconciliation and healing.

buddhist monk delivered by the cross?

2007-10-26T10:28:00.000+13:00

A buddhist monk recently escaped from the ongoing fiasco in Burma/Myanmar. He escaped police by climbing a brick wall, hiding out for weeks with minimal resources. To disguise himself, he dyed his hair blonde, donned a sarong, reading glasses, a light-blue cap... and a crucifix.

Some Christians might be offended by this 'use' of a 'christian' symbol. I for one, am thrilled that Ashin Kovida, the 24 year old monk, was able to get out alive, and all the more pleased that a simple necklace could aid his escape.

It will be interesting to see if Christian fundies complain. I hope not.

Derek Lind on You Tube

2007-10-05T22:59:00.000+13:00

Derek Lind is a truly gifted song-writer and good friend.

I count it a privilege to have met and befriended him.

He just plain 'gets it'. Life, Politics, Religion - the whole shooting match.

Here's one of his songs off of you tube...

Derek Lind - 'Nothing Looks The Same'

harder than it looks...

2007-09-21T23:41:00.000+12:00

I've got a quick thought to share...

It's easy to distance ourselves from people like Hitler and Stalin. We can't imagine such horrible evils. I mean really, what was the rest of the world doing, right? Why didn't someone stop him sooner? I guess they just stood by and said, 'Who are we to say otherwise?'

While I'm sure it's not a one-for-one analogy, many would say that the large number of modern abortions is comparable to the genocide of those days, and that the same thing is happening today, and still, the world stands by and says, 'Who are we to say otherwise?'

Now, abortion is a huge issue and I'm not going to take the time to offer a well-nuanced and carefully phrased view, but what if this was actually the case?

One of the small, behind the scenes things that helped bring an end to the regimes all those years ago was people using their voice to let the world know about what was really happening, not what they wanted you to think was happening. (go out right now and watch the movie 'Sophie Scholl' - it's incredible!)

My point is, they didn't start by physically going in with guns blazing. Some had to make the difficult but necessary decision to not act then and there, but to wait and tell others that could make a bigger, more permanent difference.

What if abortion is a modern-day genocide?

Well, if it is, I think something needs to be done. But what? Try and get the law changed? Use brute political force? Fund Christian political lobby groups?

I think that's not the wisest way. I think we've got to face the fact that the abortion issue, as horrible as it is, is only a part of a much more foundational issue - toxic and destructive human sexual values and practices...

Changing laws won't last. It won't help. We've got to do the difficult work of influencing people. Now. With grace and truth.

That's my quick thought...

-d-

trusting the bible?

2007-09-15T12:13:00.000+12:00

The other night, I went to a lecture by John Shelby Spong, an Anglican Bishop and popular author.

The title of Spong's lecture was this: 'The Bible is not the solution - it's the problem.'

Wow.

In one point I agreed with, he criticised those that pick their most favourite verses here and there from the Bible; but then he did precisely that in his lecture - except the verses he picked here and there were his least favourite...

I would like to suggest what I see as a spectrum concerning views of the Bible. At one end, you have Spong's view on scripture, and at the other end you have various teachers of what I like to call 'biblianity'. It may not be a perfect analogy, because I think the issue is more complex and multi-faceted than a simple spectrum can show, but it may be helpful.

What I'm talking about here, has to do with what I think are false choices being presented everywhere you look. The obvious example being the false choice between worshiping the Bible (hailing it as pure, un-defiled and able to do your laundry) on one hand, and on the other hand treating it as a 'sinful' thing, perhaps useful for gleaning a few nice sentiments or putting under a short leg of a table.

I don't want to use the phrase, 'middle ground', as that conjures up images of compromise, but there is certainly a third option other than those two.

Directly or indirectly, we're talking about the Bible's trustworthiness. Can we trust the Bible? Spong would not hesitate to say, 'Not at all.' Most Christians would say, 'Yes.' Now, I agree with the latter, but I want to comment on what this 'trusting the Bible' might look like...

The problem is the vagueness of the question - 'Can we trust the Bible?' A better question is, 'What can we trust the Bible for?' To forgive my sins? As a flotation device? I certainly trust the Bible, but what do we mean by this?

-I don't trust the Bible to cook my food.
-I do trust the Bible to tell how to eat responsibly.
-I don't trust the Bible to teach me how to play guitar.
-I do trust the Bible to tell that music is a gift from God.
-I don't trust the Bible to explain dark matter in the universe.
-I do trust the Bible to tell that the heavens declare His glory.
-I don't trust the Bible to explain micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
-I do trust the Bible to tell that God is the creator of all things.
-I don't trust the Bible to make my website look cool.
-I do trust the Bible to say when to turn off the computer and sit face-to-face with others.
-I don't trust the Bible to fix my car.
-I do trust the Bible to tell us walking might often be a better option for many reasons.
-I don't trust the Bible to contain secret codes that the Bible itself says nothing at all about.
-I do trust the Bible to tell us about life.
-I don't trust the Bible to be a spooky magic trick kind of book.
-I do trust the Bible to be a down-to-earth real kind of book.
-I don't trust the Bible to provide convenient proof-texts to randomly affix to life.
-I do trust the Bible to provide wisdom and orientation to all of life.

The Bible that Spong hates is the same Bible of biblianity. It is a Bible that was handed down on a cloud, leather-bound and ready for quoting-battles. Ready to be chopped up into bits and stuck 'on billboards and backs of cars' (from the lyrics of Derek Webb). Ready to be defended by 'deep-sea-fishing' (term from Hank Hannegraaf) code-finding methods. Ready to be worshipped.

I don't love that Bible of biblianity. I love the actual Bible. I can trust it. Not to answer any silly question I wish to ask of it, but to answer the most important questions.

mary elizabeth toalson cottingham

2007-09-13T22:16:00.000+12:00

My grandma passed away early this morning.

She lived in Columbia, Missouri, with my aunt Mary Jane, which is about a 3 hours drive from where I grew up in Bolivar. We probably went up to see them a couple times a year, and I always enjoyed grandma.

There are two memories of her that I will always cherish:

1. She had this really... well... unique way of greeting you. (this was when I was young - and shorter than her!) She would hug you really tightly and press her teeth -- yes, her teeth! -- against the top of your head - hair and all! It was the strangest thing AND the most endearing at the same time! :)

2. Much later, after she had one of her strokes (and when she could still for the most part recognise who you were), I went up by myself to visit. I brought my guitar and we all sang some hymns together. My favourite song that we did was 'Trust and Obey.' The chorus goes: "Trust and obey, for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus - than to trust and obey."

The reason it was my favourite song was not the theology of the song or whatever. It was the experience of singing it with my grandma, and seeing the smile on her face. And most of all, the fact that it didn't matter at ALL that she wasn't articulating all of the words too well. I remember her sort of singing, "Trust and obey, for is no other way ...(mumbling)... Jesus - ...mm... trust and obey."

Priceless moment.

Where is my grandma now? That depends on how you define what a human being is, and how you interpret reality.

Some 'spiritual' religions would say that her 'soul' has finally been 'freed' from it's prison-like cage, and is now able to perhaps be re-incarnated into another body, or in other religions re-join the 'oneness' of the universe. I talked to a Hare Krishna guy the other week that said that the state that the soul is in when it leaves the body is the state it will stay in afterward. Therefore, the goal is to get your soul in a 'good' state before you die, I guess...

Some versions of Christianity (not completely unlike the 'spiritual' religions) would say that her 'soul' went either to 'heaven' or to 'hell', depending on whether she had signed on with the correct religious group. The goal for some of these people is first to ensure that they are in the correct group, and second to get everyone else in their group. Choose carefully, I guess...

The atheists/naturalists would say that my grandma, like all humans, was only made up of atoms, chemicals and elements, and that her body will simply decompose. They would say that the best thing to do is remember her. Well, lucky for me, I've got good memories! Unlucky for those whose deceased family weren't so nice... I guess you try to forget them...

I can't make sense of the 'spiritual' worldview where your 'immortal soul' floats around somewhere and perhaps does something interesting every once and a while for the rest of eternity. A soul without a body seems to me like software with no CPU (central processing unit) - a set of strings with no guitar - words with nobody to say them. I'm very nervous about this sharp distinction between soul and body.

I also can't make sense of the worldview that says reality is only material. I can't make the logic work that the universe of matter and ideas caused itself into being. I'm not interested in hiding from scientific discoveries or trying to prove God from what science has not discovered yet. I think every discovery science makes simply shows how interesting and bewildering God's universe is.

I also can't make sense of the obsession of some Christians with trying to ensure that you've got the right group, the right list of beliefs, the right day of the week, the right rules and regulations. It seems ironic how consistently each type of group assumes that their group is the right one. And wasn't this kind of assumption about being the right group precisely the kind of thing John the Baptist (not to mention Jesus) warned against when he said, "Don't say to yourselves 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones!"

It does, however, make sense to me that the universe, reality - Life; is the result, intention and action of a Creator. It makes sense to me that a good Creator would create a creation that was not mechanistic, predictable and tied-down, but rather a creation that was alive, teeming with chance and possibility - a free creation full of danger, mystery, beauty and grandmas that press their teeth against your head.

It makes sense to me that human beings are just as dangerous and free as the rest of the universe. It makes sense to me that human beings are more than atoms and particles. It makes sense to me that a soul and a body would be so over-lapping and intertwined, you wouldn't know where one stopped and the other began.

It makes sense to me that these heart/soul/mind/body/spirit/strength interwoven realities called human beings would be God's primary means of caring for each other and creation. It makes sense to me that the Creator would have a plan to renew all things. It makes sense that a Creator would re-create things at the end of the story.

It makes sense to me that my grandma is not merely decomposed forever. It makes sense that her 'soul' is not flying laps around Jupiter. It makes sense that my grandma is somewhere between now and the end of the story. It makes sense that the finer details of the end of the story are not things I've got advanced information on. It makes sense that we'll all be surprised.

It makes sense, to me at least, that I'll be able to feel teeth on my head again some day.

new look for by-default

2007-09-10T13:30:00.000+12:00

OK, this has been due for a while now. I've finally put a little time/effort into the look of my blog.

It's not anything incredible, but hopefully gives my blog a bit more personality instead of looking like ump-teen trillion other blogs... :)

Enjoy!

-d-

chatting with atheists

2007-08-22T15:06:00.000+12:00

I've recently been chatting with a couple of atheists, Ian and Ken.

They're really nice guys, and I'm not just saying that to be P.C., either.

If you're a Christian (or any kind of theist, for that matter!), I whole-heartedly recommend dialogue with atheists. We Christians are guilty of saying many things that simply don't make sense, and dialogue with atheists can really help sharpen (and therefore strengthen) your beliefs. Here are a few things you'll want to do when talking to them (or anyone else as well!).

Use words carefully.
When conversations get past a certain point, you quickly realize that many words mean slightly (or very!) different things to different people. Words like 'objective', 'reality', 'supernatural', 'miracle', 'authority', etc., can be very, very slippery. Use them carefully (or don't use them at all!), and press their use of them as well.

Be willing to be sharpened.
There are many complaints of atheists that are very valid. Christians need to be open to learning, re-thinking, re-shaping their ideas. I dare say God would want us to do this! There are a lot of things that a lot of Christians say or teach or write in books, etc., that is really embarrassing, and quite often, one simply needs to agree with the complaint of the atheist and perhaps share the 'better' position that clears up the distortion that they are complaining about.

Focus on the topic of materiality.
I've learned that one of the most vital beliefs of atheists is that reality is only material. Press them on this, but don't make the mistake of claiming 'objectivity' in this area. Logic, reason, emotion, art, etc. - these areas are difficult to explain for materialists.

Highlight the logical absurdity of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory posits that the universe results from a Singularity - a non-dimensional point under massive atomic pressure. This non-dimensional point existed in nowhere, because there was nowhere for it to be, and it existed at no time, because there was no time in which it could be. In short; where there is no time and no where, no thing happens, and no thing exists.

Don't scientifically argue creation from the Bible.
Genesis (or any other place in the Bible) is not a scientific text. It is a theological one. Whatever you think you know about the age of the earth, carbon-dating or evolution (micro or macro), please don't bring the Bible into these conversations. It's like wiping your nose with an anvil.

Don't argue for the existence of God using some experience you had.
You will be quickly told that your experience is subjective and therefore not valid for evidence. Don't bother.

Press them on the word 'science'.
The Latin root for 'knowledge' is 'scienta'. Science, therefore, is a general term about 'knowledge'. Press them to specify what KIND of knowledge they are referring to. They will want to give supremacy to physical science, but remind them that this is only one kind of 'knowing'.

I could go on, but that should do for now.

Happy chatting!

-d-

as iron sharpens iron, so one thesis sharpens another

2007-07-26T16:19:00.000+12:00

I love logic. It just makes sense!

I want to share with you a method that will save the world. Well, not really, but it's really cool.

Basically, this method consists of the principles behind the Scientific Method. Call it what you will, but it applies to ANY topic - Theology, Philosophy, Physics, Geology, Sociology - ANY topic.

It has to do with making sense of 'things' that we observe in reality (whatever 'things' you may be 'observing' in 'reality'). People have different ways of interpreting and explaining what they observe in reality. The so-called 'law of non-contradiction' (which is about as basic as it gets with logic!) says that two contradicting statements about the exact same thing cannot both be equally accurate.

Anyway, you start with an observation of a 'thing', then when you explain this 'thing' to someone you do so by means of a statement - your 'ideas' about it - your 'thesis' (or hypothesis, if you like). A diagram of this would look like this...

Now, the problem with an idea or 'thesis' all by itself is that it could be wrong. Sure, it could be right as well, but you'll never know unless you contrast it with another one. It is really unfortunate that many people never even make this first step. They simply hold on to their precious thesis and never test it to see how strong it is. You need to test your 'thesis' against other ones! The diagram enlarges to show the 2-way dialogue with another 'thesis'...

This is wonderful when this actually happens. It could be a simple mis-understanding between friends. "Oh, I see. I thought you meant 'x', but now that you've explained it, I realise you actually meant 'y'! I'm no longer upset anymore!" Of course, this could play out in an endless number of scenarios. Either the 'thesis' or the 'anti-thesis' could become (or appear to become) more correct or less correct.

What happens (if an agreement or 'middle ground' is reached) now, is that something emerges from the conversation. This 'something' is one of a few things: a) it is the original 'thesis' (only now stronger - having been contrasted with another one), b) it is the 'anti-thesis' (having been shown to be stronger than the 'thesis') or c) a mixture of the two - a syn-thesis! This looks like this...

What happens here, is that this stronger idea - this syn-thesis - becomes the NEW 'original' thesis! Which makes our diagram look like this...

At this point, what do we do with all theses (plural of 'thesis)? Remember? We test them against other ones! This is no different here. The NEW, stronger thesis needs to seek yet another 'anti-thesis'.

This is called learning. I hope it is clear that this is an on-going process!

I think we actually can make real progress, but also think we need to remember that as we 'advance' our theses, we may look back and observe that what we thought was an 'advance' in the past was actually a step backward (and yes, even this observation itself could later be seen to be 'wrong' - and so on 'ad infinitum'!).

Two 'theses' in dialogue is a wonderful thing, but it is even better to have 3 or more! The 'synthesis' you emerge with will be all the more stronger! (This is often referred to as the process of 'peer review' - and it's a wonderful thing.)

There are difficulties, too, which we will need patience for. Too many voices in one 'conversation', means that it will simply take longer for each thesis to have its say. It could well be that a mixture of 'smaller conversations' and 'larger ones' could be a great thing, because each would have its own strengths and weaknesses/hindrances.

Another hurdle come because this process has been going on quite naturally for some time now, and in many, many different fields - theology, sociology, etc. It seems that after a time, there can be 'patterns' that emerge. Details that were originally hotly debated are given less and less time and often assumed to be valid in later conversations. This can be antithetical to the process of this method, as the whole point of it is, of course, to expose ALL of a thesis to criticism.

As I suggested earlier, patience is necessary! But we must be about this business of dialogue with other theses! We must grow. We must learn. To not dialogue is to fail to 'advance' at all (whether or not they are real or 'illusory' advances!) To not even attempt to advance is to slip backward.

"Iron makes iron sharp; so a man makes sharp his friend." Proverbs 27:17 (BBE)

science, faith and the process of Q&A

2007-07-20T09:15:00.000+12:00

Science has produced some very interesting theories about reality...

I ask that those partial to the field of science hear me out before crucifying me, but I think there is a reality that we must all put up with, whether we are holders of Ph D's in physics or at the level of simple observation – namely the reality that science (like essentially every other field) is limited by our level of observation.

For example, as is commonly known, we know of many ancient suggestions about reality that have long-since been proven to be... well... silly. The sky has been thought to be a solid 'dome', with the stars being seen to be holes in the dome. The earth was, of course, thought to be flat, or perhaps a square-ish thing held up by four elephants. Advanced scientific opinion suggested that the earth was the centre of the universe, with the sun and other planets revolving around it.

More perspective had led us to better suggestions of reality. This is, after all, a foundational principle of the scientific method. I'm very much a fan of science, myself, so I hardly mean to devalue the great field of science, but simply want to demonstrate the (for lack of a better term) 'fallibility' of science.

Telescopes and Microscopes

As our telescopes and microscopes have gotten stronger, we've been able to have precisely what we've needed to arrive at progressively better theories of reality. But it's an interesting consideration that, for example, as our microscopes have taken us further and further into the detail of our universe, to the atomic level and beyond, more and more questions have arisen! I think it would be fair to say that perhaps some old questions have been cleared up, and new questions have arisen about such things as the nature of matter itself (see, for example, theories such as that of 'quantum physics')!

Also, as our telescopes have grown stronger and taken us further and further away from our seemingly small solar system, you could say that the same result has occurred; some questions answered – other ones emerge (dark matter, black holes, habitable planetary probability, etc.). Considering how off we've been in the past, I often wonder how off we are now, and what embarrassing dogmatic theories we may hold now that may be either confirmed, challenged or de-bunked by later observation.

Almost There, Just Begun or a Bit of Both?

I'm a bit of a skeptic at heart, you could say. I just want to know why. The way I sometimes hear people talk about different theories of reality often makes me suspicious. Theories (including both evolutionary ones and 'intelligent design' ones) are often defended with statements like, “...well, no theory can really be proven, but science has all but proven this one.” Is this really the case?

Now, I'm not suggesting that scientific observation doesn't get us any closer to 'proving' anything, but I have a question about how close we really and truly are to proving such theories as the origin of the universe or life itself.

The “we've-basically-solved-it” way of speaking reflects this diagram, in which 'science' has thoroughly dealt with the major, large questions of reality, leaving us with only a few minor, small questions left...

In this model, theories (again both evolutionary or 'intelligent design' ones) are said to basically have it all explained, save (perhaps) a few minor details. I want to suggest that our pursuit of better theories of reality may not work like that at all. Again, I am not denying that scientific advancements are indeed advancements, I suggest a truer model may well be the reverse of the one shown above. I don't think we've leaped the big hurdles or explained the big questions at all.

In the same way as history gets foggier the further back you look, with science, the further you look (whether through a telescope of a microscope) into things, the harder the questions get. Actually, the fogginess of history spills into science as well. The things we are perhaps the most scientifically unsure of are the things that happened at the 'beginning' of it all; whether that be along the lines of string theory, big-bang theory, intelligent design theory or whatever. The more foundational the question, the harder the answer. This model would look like this...

This model is able to appreciate the genuine advancements of science, while at the same time not presuming that the only questions left are 'small' ones.

Science has taken us a long way, and no doubt will take us many great and needed places. But as it continues to take us places, let us both appreciate the work it has done and at the same time be aware of how truly difficult the big questions are.

a perfect church

2007-06-25T12:01:00.000+12:00

I think my church just may be perfect...

Seriously!

Well, of course, not 'perfect' in the sense that many mean!

Two things, quickly...

First, the pastors and deacons (who make up the church 'council') recently went on a prayer retreat together. We had times of discussion, corporate prayer, private prayer, walking, talking and singing during the day. Toward the end of the retreat, we all realised what a remarkable thing we had - unity. Not uniformity, but unity. We are all quite different people with quite different personalities and views on various things. But we experienced genuine unity in spite of these things. It was (and is) wonderful.

Second, a lady that has been attending for a while has recently become a member. In her interview with one of the leaders, she made the comment, 'I love this church. It's perfect.'

The leader tried to correct her, but had difficulty.

:)

Now, I'm not saying we don't have flaws, and things we need to change at my church, but we have complete - perfect - unity... in Christ...

What a blessing!

-d-

on 'spiritual gifts' (6-20-07)

2007-06-18T14:55:00.000+12:00

I recently went to a Benny Hinn 'Holy Spirit Miracle Crusade'. (Yes, me.) I could, of course, share many thoughts about that, but I simply wanted to mention a flyer I recieved while waiting in the crowd/throng/line/queue/mob to get in... It was an advert for a local church. It had these words/phrases on it: 'signs & wonders', 'healing', 'anointed', 'miracles', 'fire', 'deliverance'... and my personal favourite... 'the gifts.'

Now, that's a bit of an extreme example, perhaps, compared with other views of 'spirituality', but I think it may reflect what happens when popular ideas/assumptions about 'spirituality' are taken to their eventual end point. Before addressing a few of the Scriptures which are relevant to the topic of 'spiritual gifts', I want to point out a key difference between the ways of thinking in our world and the world of the New Testament.

You see, we live after a period in history known as the 'Enlightenment', from which much of the world has inherited (among other things) a view of the world in which the 'natural' is sharply contrasted against the 'super-natural'.

In this view, things like grass growing, rain falling/evaporating, babies being born, working, eating, sleeping - in other words normal life - are quite simply natural. In the case of 'supernatural' things, these consist of things such as 'miracles', 'divine intervention', 'providence', etc. As the definition of 'supernatural' suggests, the world is bound by 'natural laws', so therefore a 'supernatural' agent/force/event has to break those 'natural laws'. This shows up in all kinds of ways, which I won't go into here to keep this short.

In contrast to todays popular post-Enlightenment view of the world, the 1st century Jewish view of the world (though there are, of course, differences about this and that) was not divided this way. The Jewish God was Lord over all the earth and heaven. Nothing happened or was done apart from His permission, providence and power.

This God was a God who was not detatched or distant from creation (like the deist version of 'god'), but rather, is passionately interested and personally present in it (however, not to the degree that creation itself is itself god', as in pantheistic worldviews). This God was not simply present when 'big' or 'miraculous' things 'happened', but was always present in His world; and in the case of 'miracles' or 'big' things, they were times at which God was present powerfully (and with purpose, I suggest; not simply pulling 'god-stunts').

This, I think, is how miracles are to be understood. Some, in their adverse reaction to what happens in some more 'lively' church contexts have suggested that 'miracles ceased' once the Bible was finished and/or when the last Apostle died. There is no warrant for such a view. No, not even 1 Cor. 13:10...

At any rate, we should be aware of how various views of the world affect our reading of Scripture (by the way, there is not one person who doesn't have any views/experiences/traditions/etc. that affect his/her reading of the Scriptures...) not least when we approach the topic of so-called 'spiritual gifts'.

One tendency in Christian circles is to start with an assumption that something is true, and then read that assumption into various Scriptural passages. We may, as a result, feel as though we have much more biblical support for a position than we actually do have. In my view, there are only 3 passages that could even possibly be about 'gifts', according to the popular understanding: Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4.

Sadly, the 'gifts' in these passages are often 'lumped' together in order to arrive at 'Paul's doctrine of gifts' or something... as if he was at all interested in 'building' a systematic outline of 'things' God may or may not choose to 'give' you, and thought it best to provide this outline in 3 seperate letters and in obscure fashion. Even more sadly, many a weekend-conference has been developed to 'help' people 'discover' what 'gifts' they have and which ones they don't. (I need to say here that my thoughts here are following on from that of Mark Strom.)

These 3 passages have their own contexts, and ought not be 'lumped' together sloppily. The Romans 12 passage instructs on how each 'gift' is to be handled, which is (in context) to be in service of others! The 1 Corinthians 12 passage is (again, in context) seeking to undercut pride in the Corinthian community (the implications of Paul putting 'miracles' and 'helps' in the same 'list' is simply brilliant!), and again, the things listed here are not for the individual, but for the growth and edification of the community. The Ephesians 4 passage (within the context of unity, growth and maturity), is describing, not individual 'gifts', but roles within the body of Christ (again, these roles are for the service of others - to produce unity, growth and maturity).

Not only is each and every 'gift' featured in all these passages (have a look for yourself!) intended for service of others (not so you can have a nice, comfortable, individual private prayer experience or whatever...), I also have yet to see anything in Scripture that demands the common sharp distinction between 'natural abilities' (which you 'get at birth') and 'spiritual gifts' (which you 'get at conversion'). To show how I see things, let me use the 'mind' as an example.

You don't get a mind at conversion. What happens is this: the mind God gave you (and everyone!) at birth gets renewed by the Spirit of Christ. The mind that was formerly hostile to Christ now bows in allegiance. (Baptism may be a good metaphor, in that the mind (in a sense) 'dies' and 'rises anew'.)

This, I suggest, is precisely what happens with our so-called 'natural abilities' (which, in a sense, are not 'natural' at all!). Everything about us (bodies, minds, abilities, etc.) is God-given. The spiritual person sees themselves this way. Our whole, interconnected selves are spiritually tempered renewed and reborn by the Spirit of Christ - not so we can 'enjoy our gift' or be 'spiritually fulfilled', but to form us (heart, soul, mind and strength) into the likeness of Christ.

of the spirit (5-11-07)

2007-05-11T15:05:00.000+12:00

Thoughts and words about the Holy Spirit can go in many different directions. One can try to present their view by way of many different paths, and from many different angles - and I believe many of these paths/angles would be biblical...

To try and promote unity and clarity, I'd like to address a few ideas about spirit/spirituality/the holy spirit/etc., that I think need sharpening... Along the way, I hope the 'personality' of the Spirit will become more obvious...

Dualism must die...
Greek philosophers of old, looked at the world and decided that reality was split in two - the 'unseen', 'spiritual' realm; and the 'seen', 'physical' realm. The 'unseen' realm was perfect, pure and un-changing. The 'seen' realm was corrupt, faulty and change-able. The relationship between the spirit and matter, then was - no surprise - a strained one.

The Jewish perspective saw reality differently. God was in 'heaven'; Humans were on 'earth'; yet God could still 'dwell with' His people and His creation. It wasn't just that spirit could mix with physical, but more that the two 'realms' were always mixing. It wasn't so much a question of if they mixed, but more how they mixed. In other words, the real question was which spirit was mixing in a given physical place/person?

In the Greek view, you assume a huge gap between the 'spiritual' and the 'physical'. So, you have to do all kinds of things (the right prayers, sacrifices, rituals) to make it 'just right' - right enough for the spirit to mix with the physical. That's a general picture, but it gives you the idea.

In the Jewish view, the two realms relate easily. In the Scriptures, there are many 'spirits' mentioned - some on the 'good' side (i.e. a 'spirit of wisdom', etc.), some on the 'evil' side (i.e. a 'spirit of jealousy', etc.). The entire world is 'bubbling' with spiritual potential.

The word 'supernatural' isn't very helpful at times...
You may not have thought of it this way before, but our understanding of the word 'supernatural' is, of course, only as good as our understanding of the word 'natural.' It seems odd - to me, at least - to say that God is the one who establishes the 'laws of nature' and then breaks them from time to time (and that is precisely how the 'supernatural' is defined).

We need to see the world differently, I think. The Scriptures don't give us a 'laws of nature' which God must violate in order to do something 'supernatural'. Instead, they give us a picture of a God who - as the powerful creator of all things - acts within His creation. It's not a question of when He is acting, but rather when He is not acting.

In this light, we need not call miracles 'supernatural', so to speak. Rather than see them as 'supernatural' events that 'happen', I think we should see them as powerful actions of the God who is Lord of Heaven and Earth. Remember, the Scriptures insist that God is always active within His good creation (yes, even after the tragic 'fall' in Genesis 3), and sometimes... just sometimes... He is active in miraculous and powerful ways that surprise and shock us.

Me, Myself and... Everyone else
Literally everything in our Western, affluent culture suggests that life is all about you getting what you want/'need'. It's ALL about the individual. I observe and sense much of the same trends in our all-too-individualistic perspective on spirituality. Much is said about 'me' having a great experience; 'my' spiritual gift; 'my' church; 'my' testimony; 'my' prayer life; etc. I love this quote:

"Despite what you might think from some excitement in the previous generation about new spiritual experiences, God doesn’t give people the Holy Spirit in order to let them enjoy the spiritual equivalent of a day at Disneyland." - Tom Wright, 'Simply Christian'

It's true. It's not about you. More specifically, it is about others. In the Scriptures and in my own (dare I use the word) experience, the Spirit moves powerfully in community; not in isolation from others. One of my favourite examples of this is when the Apostles got together to discuss 'what to do about those gosh darn Gentiles' in Acts 15 (it's often called 'the Jerusalem Council'). They get together; talk things over seriously; share perspectives - and emerge with a unified decision, saying 'It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit...'

When was the last time you heard any pastor/preacher/speaker talk like that? I wish we would hear much more of it. If the Apostles (who wrote the majority of the New Testament) were helped in their spiritual discernment processes by getting together and discussing things, then surely we will be!

But the point, of course, is not comparing us to the Apostles, but realising that the same Holy Spirit that guided them is the same Holy Spirit that will guide us - and I am suggesting that He (the Holy Spirit) can do so better in community than He can do in isolation. Am I limiting Him to meetings? Of course not! God is certainly personal and is able to do reveal Himself to us individually. But I insist that we all need to surround ourselves with other people to help us discern and decide; people who (with the Apostle Paul) can say, '...and I, too, think I have the Holy Spirit...'

Towards a better spiritual ethic...
I think unity and clarity will come when we are able to focus on the main and plain things of the Spirit. We must remember that the Holy Spirit is God. He is not an 'it'. He is not an impersonal 'force'. He is not a drug on which to get 'high' on. He is the Spirit of Jesus. He is the Spirit of God. His first and foremost task is to remake (and continue remaking) us into the likeness (character) of Jesus. All of us. Heart, Soul, Mind and Strength.

Call me crazy, un-biblical, un-spiritual or a stick in the mud, but I think this kind of spirituality has very little to do with what happens during a church service or in a prayer closet, and has almost everything to do with what happens outside those places. It may ruffle your Christian feathers, but I think God is more excited with lives of mercy and justice than moments of celebration...

Let's see all of our lives, all of our priorities, all of our choices, all of our time, all of our money, all of our relationships, all of our possessions, all of our everything - as spiritual. May we see the fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, self-control...) in all these areas and more.

tongues: another look (4-18-07)

2007-04-18T12:50:00.000+12:00

Yes, this article is about the phenomenon known as 'speaking in tongues'...

The subject of 'tongues' is perhaps the most clouded of any biblical topic today.

In hope to honour God, the Scripture and Christian spirituality, I offer my current understanding of this issue.

'Tongues' in the book of Acts - The Gospel in ALL languages
The first 1 chronological occurrance of 'tongues' 2 in Scripture is at Pentecost in Acts 2.

Luke describes it as amazing and perplexing. "So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'Whatever could this mean?' " (2:12) The Apostles, who likely could only speak in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek 'tongues' (languages), were speaking 'the wonderful works of God' (2:11) in the language of MANY different language groups present at Pentecost - Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus... (the list goes on in 2:9-11.)

They weren't speaking gibberish, and they weren't speaking unknown or 'heavenly' languages. The Spirit was miraculously giving them the ability (2:4) to speak 'the wonderful works of God' in many different, human, every-day languages. 3

I'm not sure if we understand how important the Hebrew language was to Jewish people (and still is!). 4 The idea of nation (as in, God's holy nation of Israel) was inseperable from the tongue (language) of that nation. The attitude of most Jews was that the other nations/tongues weren't God's chosen nations/tongues! What was going on at Pentecost was very significant! God was working outside the box! In short, the Gospel was going to go to the filthy, pagan, stinking, non-Hebrew-speaking Gentiles - at least the ones who had faith in Christ.

This was a big deal. Later, in the book of Acts, Peter receives a vision that (among other things) makes it clear that Gentiles were no longer to be shunned. "...You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nations. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (10:28 - and surrounding verses!)

Later on, after Paul is converted to the 'Way' of Christ, Luke records a specific occurance of Gentiles who received the Spirit upon hearing 'the word' (the Gospel). The Jewish people couldn't believe it. "...those of the circumcision who believed (Jewish believers in Christ) were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues (other languages) and magnify God." Acts 10:45-46

That's right. Gentiles recieving the Holy Spirit that 'those of the circumcision' thought was only for them! Gentiles magifying God in their filthy non-Hebrew language!

Again, these converts weren't speaking gibberish or unknown languages. The Apostles (possibly themselves knowing these 'other Gentile languages' - or at least enough of them to discern what was being said...) knew that God was being glorified. 5 Their 'astonishment' wasn't because of the speaking itself (as if it was something weird), but was rather because of their surprise that 'the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also' (which was VERY wierd for a pious Jew!).

I won't take the time to show all the verses in Acts about the 'door of faith' being opened to the Gentiles - there are too many of them! This new movement of God is actually one of the primary themes of the entire Book of Acts. Just read the book of Acts and look for this theme. It's obvious. (and I try not to use that word too often...)

'Tongues' in 1 Corinthians - 'It's not about you. It's about the body.'
If we are to read Pauls first letter to the Corinthians well, we need to understand why he wrote to them in the first place. We get some key clues from within the letter itself. The Corinthians were good examples of the Roman mindset and lifestyle. In the letter, we clearly see that the Corinthians were prideful about many things. For example, when Paul reminds them in 1:5 that their 'knowledge' and 'utterance' were inrichments 'in Him', we can safely assume that they needed to be reminded of that. You get the idea that they had forgotten this - or needed to be informed of it.

Paul doesn't waste any time in getting into rebuking the Corinthians for many things. We see that the Corinthians were quite proud of their 'wisdom', which Paul humbles them on. Paul points to his own 'foolish' preaching when he was with them and suggests that true 'wisdom' is found within this 'foolishness' (chapters 1 & 2). I would love to go on, but this article is about 'tongues'; so on to chapter 12 we must go.

The first mention of 'tongues' in chapter 12 is verse 10, which is within a series of activities that Paul is mentioning. "...to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues..." Two things feature here for me: 1) the word 'kinds' means that there are not just one type of 'tongue' but rather several/many 'kinds' - which would make sense if we see 'tongues' as languages. 2) 'Tongues' is here (and elsewhere) paired with the 'interpretation' of them - which again makes sense if they are foreign/Gentile/human languages.

After this, Paul takes about 15 verses to discuss the need for unity in the 'body' 6 and then the chapter ends with another series of roles/activities, and that not everyone has these roles/activities. The series seems divided into at least two: the 'appointed', numbered ones ("...first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...") and those 'after' that ("...miracles, then gifts of healings, helps administrations, varieties of tongues."). It seems interesting to note that the non-normative activities (miracles and healings) are grouped with the seemingly more normative ones (helps, administrations and the varieties of tongues). 7

Then comes Chapter 13. It begins with a literary pattern that is not mentioned often. Paul moves through various activities, giving a 'big' example followed by a 'lofty' example.

-Though I speak with the tongues of men ...and of angels
-though I have the gift of prophecy ...and understand all mysteries and all knowledge
-though I have all faith ...so that I could remove mountains
-though I bestow all my goods... ...give my body to be burned

I don't know anyone who claims to understand all mysteries and all knowledge; or to have removed mountains; or to have the 'gift' of giving their body to be burned, but strangely, I often hear people describe their 'gift of tongues' as a 'heavenly' or 'angelic' language based on this passage. I'm not sure that's what Paul's point is... The point, of course, is the supremacy of Love.

The only other place 'tongues' is mentioned in chapter 13 is when it is said that they will 'cease'. The next 2 verses seem to suggest that this will happen 'when that which is perfect (complete) has come'. I've heard this passage used to support the view that 'tongues, miracles, healings - and probably anything else non-normative - 'ceased' after the Bible was written, or after the Apostles died. That seems forced to me, to say the least. Verse 12 seems to suggest that the 'perfect' that will come is either Jesus Himself or the New Heaven/Earth (or both?). So I say with no hesitation, whatever 'tongues' are, they most certainly have not 'ceased'.

We have finally reached chapter 14 - THE 'tongues' chapter. 8 As we move through the chapter, keep in mind that the main goal for Paul is for the church to grow and be edified. Everyone agrees that people in this church were speaking in 'tongues' and some (many? all?) didn't understand what was being said.

This chapter is where the conversation about tongues takes many different directions. Words like 'spirit', 'mysteries', 'mind', 'understanding', and 'sign' are taken in wildly different ways. Indeed, it is a daunting task to try and sort through them all.

I offer the following statements from what I see in chapter 14 (with verses noted):

-the 'tongues' here are (as everywhere else) human languages/dialects. (14:10-11)
-Paul strongly suggests (demands?) that 'tongues' be interpreted for edification. (14:5, 13, 26-28)
-The speaker him/herself should try to interpret the 'tongues'. (14:5, 9, 13, 15?, 19?)
-Speaking/praying 'in(by) the Spirit' is simply to speak/pray truthful, godly, spirit-directed statements/prayers. ALL speaking/praying 'in(by) they Spirit is good for YOU (and God certainly understands you!), but Paul reminds the Corinthians that when 'in church (gathering)', they must seek to ensure that the speaking/praying is not only 'in(by) the Spirit', but also is understandable for others to be edified. (14:2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13-17, 19) 9
-The Lord speaks to/through people of all languages (Isaiah 28:11 - quoted in 14:21), which is a 'sign' to unbelievers of God's character, but 'in the church', if everyone spoke with 'tongues' those unbelievers would have quite a different impression! (14:23)

Other things to consider: 1) Corinth was a multi-lingual city, having two sea-ports and being a large center for trading from all over the known world. Speaking and interpreting other languages would have been more than a little helpful! 2) The Greek language was the most widely spoken/written/known language. You were on safe ground using it. If you used another language, you risked not being understood. 3) The Greeks/Romans called the 'uncivilized' people on the edges of their Empire 'barbarians'. They didn't speak Greek.

I offer these further statements with these points in mind:

-A 'tongue'-speaker may indeed mean 'someone who isn't (at least for the moment) speaking Greek' (14:5, 13)
-Paul would have known many languages of the Greek/Roman world. (14:6, 10, 14, 18)
-If Paul prayed in a language other than Greek (which he probably knew best - other than Hebrew, perhaps), his prayer was indeed 'in(by) the Spirit', but praying in Greek was better for others - and even his own understanding of his prayer. (14:6, 11, 14-15)
-The frequency of the idea of 'edification' in chapter 14, and its ending suggest that the main point is for order, learning and instruction. Which probably means that there was dis-order, confusion and arguements present - and pride. (14:1, 12, 20, 31, 33, 37-40)

Today - Miracles, Experiences and Love
Let me be blunt. To suggest that God 'doesn't do miracles' today is not only dependent on shabby Bible interpretation, but is to deny the God of all power His power. Also, let me assert that my 'non-miraculous' reading of 'tongues' (excepting the Acts 2 occurrance) in NO way needs to be seen as 'de-miracle-izing' God.

God is holding the entire universe together, and without his power, not a single blade of grass would grow. The distinction between the so-called 'natural' and 'super-natural' is a post-Enlightmenment distinction, not a Biblical one. God caused and called nature itself into being - including the surprising and miraculous things that seem to defy nature. The Bible gives us no 'laws of nature' for which God must 'break' to do a miracle. He is God, and that... is the end of that.

Also, let me say that I fully believe God can and does give people TODAY miraculous language-speaking-abilities in similar fashion to the Acts 2 occurrance. But again, these are not private, heavenly languages, but languages of humans. Humans whom God wants to hear the Gospel of Christ. He is God. He is able to do anything consistent with His own nature.

I do not, however, believe everything I hear, nor everything I read, nor everything I see on T.V. Experience alone, while not to be ridiculed or devalued, is not the final say. Though God can and does heal physically, people at healing meetings full of adrenaline who can honestly 'feel' healed, all-too-often end up not being.

Sadly, people can 'feel', 'see' and 'hear' things that aren't real. I don't believe in the monster under the bed, but I nearly convinced myself as a kid that he was there. To put it another way, if you think you have to be baptised by immersion to be saved, you're probably going to be baptised by immersion. If you think you have to 'speak in tongues' to be saved or a 'full-on' believer, you're certainly more likely to give it a try.

It has to do with our expectations. Well-meaning and genuine believers in Jesus 10 who see and hear others in their faith community speaking in ecstatic 'gibberish' (I know of no better word to describe what is often seen/heard) are certainly more likely to do it themselves. In some church settings, the teaching is that this is an essential for true conversion - commonly with back-room 'training' sessions where people are 'taught' how. 11

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, much of the modern practise of 'speaking in tongues' seems to me to contradict the primary nature, character and personality of the Holy Spirit. 'Just let it flow', 'say whatever comes to mind', and 'start with a random syllable and get it going' don't fit at all with the pattern of experiences in Scripture.

When the Apostles (and I suggest us as well!) were filled with the Spirit, they spoke the Gospel with boldness. Paul describes the fruit of the Spirit as 'gentleness, patience, self-control', etc. Ultimately, the primary role/function of the Holy Spirit (who, by the way, is the Spirit of Jesus!), is to direct us to Jesus. To glorify Him, to re-make us into His image. To renew our hearts and minds according to the character of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

The Spirit leads us not into our prayer closets (though we depend on Him mightily in prayer), but rather out into the world in loving and humble service of others. This is the kind of Spirituality that the world desperately needs.

As Christians, let us seek to major on the majors. To whisper where the Scripture whisper - and SHOUT where the Scripture shout! This is where we have true, un-shakable unity. In Christ and His death and resurrection. Let us share THIS love with the world.

Endnotes
1. Paul likely wrote the Corinthian Letters before Luke wrote the book of Acts, but I'm referring to the sequence of actual events, not the records/writings of them.
2. Actually, 'tongues' (as different human languages) is first mentioned in the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11, when God 'confounded' their 'tongues' (languages) - causing humanity to spread. It has been well said that Pentecost is the 'un-doing' of Babel. The Gospel (and God!) is not partial to any one language.
3. Which resulted in the representatives from the various places being able to take the Gospel of Christ back to where they lived! In other words, the 'tongues' in Acts 2 was for a reason.
4. Indeed, just the idea of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) was offensive to say the least for many Jews. For them, speaking Greek and reading Greek would inevitably lead to living a Greek lifestyle.
5. The text doesn't separate 'speaking with tongues' and 'magnifying God' as though they were two things. The speaking itself is magnifying God.
6. Actually, the verses before this (12:4-11) also speak of this unity. Read them and look for the words 'same Spirit'. This is the main point of chapter 12.
7. Again, the word 'varieties' demands that this is not referring to a single language (heavenly, etc.)
8. Actually, the chapter downplays the importance of 'tongues', and raises the importance of prophecy - so that the body may be edified. Read chapter 14 and look for the word 'edify', 'edifies' or 'edified'. See the main point?
9. For example, a Parthian person praying 'by the Spirit' in the Parthian tongue (in the midst of the church/gathering), would be 'giving thanks well', but others that didn't know the Parthian tongue would not be able to understand it, be edified by it, or know whether or not to say 'Amen' to it. (14:15-17)
10. Others have demonised moder-day 'tongue'-speakers (or claim they are doing so because of demons). I see absolutely NO reason or gounds to do this. My desire is to have unity in the essentials and seek clarity on the non-essentials.
11. On that note, I find it incredible the amount of detail given in many instructions for speaking in this manner. 99% of it doesn't even bother trying to tie it in with Scripture, and are rather built purely on the recent (less than 150 years) tradition of experience.

of kings and kingdoms (4-7-07)

2007-04-05T17:05:00.000+12:00

The first followers of Jesus said many various things about Jesus.
(this is not a huge statement)

Particularly, they called Jesus 'the King' and 'Lord'.
(these, however, were most certainly huge statements then...)

I'm not going to focus on the Jewish side of things, and what it would have meant for them to call Jesus 'King' or 'Lord' - but I will focus on the Greek/Roman side of things...

The Romans hailed Caesar as Lord and King, and allegiance to him was demanded at basically every turn. Prison, torture or death - or maybe all three! - if you didn't...

The followers of Jesus withheld their allegiance from Caesar.

I wonder how bold they were about this...

Perhaps we'll never know. Did they keep their noses down and only admit it when pressed to it? Did they rub the Romans' noses in it? I don't know...

But what I am convinced of is this:

Their message and Kingdom of Jesus was offensive to the world of Caesar.

The Kingdom of Jesus is up-side down compared to the world of Caesar.

Check this out...

In Acts 17, we see that Paul and Silas preached the message about Jesus to Jews (and Gentile listeners - called 'devout Greeks' or 'God-fearers') in Thessolonica - which was a Roman city. The message was (and still is, by the way!) that Jesus was 'the Christ' (meaning God's annointed - you guessed it - King.). They convinced LOTS of people ('a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women').

The Jews were livid. They gathered what the text calls 'evil men' (I'm guessing like 'hit men' or something?) from the marketplace, and searched for Paul and Silas to have them... well... you know... probably killed - or something. Apparently, they didn't find them, so they grabbed who they were staying with...

They "...dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city (meaning the 'Greek' people in charge of Thessolonica), crying out, 'These (meaning Paul, Silas and the other Apostles) who have turned the world upside down have come here too. Jason has harbored them, and these (meaning 'Jason and some brethren') are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, (and what were they doing that was 'contrary?) saying there is another King - Jesus.' " (Acts 17:6-7 NKJV - my emphasis and distracting notes added)

Paul and Silas didn't stay to try and sort things out...

The message and Kingdom of Jesus denies allegiance to all other would-be Kings, Lords, Caesars, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Dictators and more.

More than that (as if that's not enough!) it also turns the world 'upside down'.

-Does your faith turn YOUR world 'upside down'?

-Are you acting contrary to the decrees of 'Caesar'?

-Are you saying (with your time, money, etc.) that there is 'another King - Jesus'?

May the Kingdom people be about the King's business.
May we feel the tension of living in a world that gives allegiance to various other Kings.
May we encourage and strengthen each other to stick it to the false Kings around us...
...in the name of the real King - Jesus.

pure imagination (3-26-07)

2007-03-25T14:13:00.000+12:00

I try to limit how often I quote individual bible-verses out of context, but this one is quite a hard one to twist into meaning something else...

"Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." - Phillipians 4:8 NASB

Your imagination is under attack.

No, this is not some silly alarmism or 'boy that cried wolf' nonsense. It's true. If you live in a place where billboards, magazines, internet, shopping malls and television are the norm - in other words, if you are a Westerner - you are being influenced. You might as well be aware of it.

What we think about matters.

Now, most of us would agree without hesitation, but I wonder if we give much thought to it.

Whether we realise it or not, many decisions we make are the result of carefully planned attempts to 'capture our imagination'.(1) Advertising works hard to capture our imagination. One of the main ways it does this is to try to get you to identify with the product/service being advertised. Once this is accomplished, when it comes time to make a purchase, you are much more likely to buy their brand, etc.

What I'd like us to notice, however, is that there is a 'macro (large)' reality to the 'micro (small)' example I just gave. For Westerners, there are so many products being offerred to us, so much hi-jacking of our thoughts, that we get de-sensitised to it. I once knew a missionary couple that came back from years of service in a so-called 'developing country' (developing into what, may I ask?), and went to 'Wal-mart' to get groceries. Upon entering the beverage aisle, they were stopped in their tracks. There were so many drink choices in front of them, they quite literally didn't know what to do.

But we're used to it, aren't we?

The 'macro' reality for far too many of us is this: We are enslaved to a the Western standard of living.(2) Like it or not, you are simply expected to 'have' what 'everyone else' has.(3) You are expected to be an average Westerner. Complain, argue or disagree with the system, and you'll get funny looks.

What I'm trying to suggest is simply that we are more influenced than we are ready to admit. I've been fond of saying - as I've heard from many others - that the best way to tell what you value is to look at your time/calendar and your money/spending. Another interesting value-indicator is this: what you talk about with your friends.

A friend recently vented to me how frustrated he was that basically ALL his conversations were about no more than 2 things. Everywhere I go, I over-hear conversations about TV shows, movies, video-games and fashion. Do we not have other things to talk about?

For crying out loud, I'm NOT saying these things are the devil incarnate. I am saying, however (with no hesitation at all), that they occupy too much of our time, money and discussions. They affect our imaginations!

Here's the point. Instead of making some ridiculous list of 'things' that are OK to think about or not, we are told to think about things that are good, pure, praise-worthy, etc. (above verse). We are instructed by Jesus Himself to pray for God's will to be done "on earth as it is in heaven." Unfortunately, we only think about that when we are at our churches.

Our imaginations are being sold to the highest bidder, and programmed to be more and more concerned with getting what we want in life. God's kingdom is about a different mindset than that. Philippians 2:4 (and the verses before and after it) is beautiful - 'Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.'

This will not make you 'famous' or 'successful'. This is not entertaining or fashionable.

But it is God's will (a.k.a. His 'desire' - what He wants.).(4)

So, be aware of the attempts to capture your imagination. It's one of the most valuable things for you to protect.

Blessings,

Dale

1. I dare you to read "Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire" by Brian J Walsh and Sylvia C Keesmaat. It will scare you - in a good way.
2. 'Enslaved' too strong a word? OK, then... Just try to stop living the Western lifestyle and see how easy it is.
3. Though the result is indeed, being clones of everyone else, the language advertisers use is that of 'diversity', 'choice' and 'uniqueness'.
4. Though time forbids me from fully explaining, the best catalyst for staying committed to God's will is community (true community) with others who want to do the same.

feelings on theology (3-18-07)

2007-03-17T10:16:00.000+13:00

Everyone is a theologian.

Theology is simply the 'logic' (thought, ideas, study) of 'theos' (god), and everyone does this. Even atheists, who claim to be quite certain that the idea of god is silly, spend much time, energy and thought trying to demonstrate this - and therefore, I suggest, they engage in theology.

Anyway, some people put theology on a spectrum with something else - like theology on one end and emotions on the other (as if the 'goal' was to stay in the safe 'middle-ground' between the two). This is making less and less sense to me. Are not emotions present in all that we do; and - is not even simple reflection about god at least some form of theology?

Emotions matter. Ideas about god matter. We don't need 50% of each - we need 100% of both.

Having said that, let me be quite clear: I am convinced that emotions (though we need them 100%) cannot be trusted. Sure, feelings are god-given and must not be rejected or disregarded, but were never meant to be relied upon. They are more a 'thermometer' to life than a road-map...

Now, the 'road-map' of theology can also be trusted too much. We can delude ourselves into thinking we have got it all sorted and sussed. If the apostle Paul can say that 'we know in part' (1 Cor. 13) then I think that goes for all of us. But there are certain things (assurance of salvation in Christ alone, the will[desire] of God, etc.) that we can know.

Just as God has given some people more sensitive emotions and feelings, he has given others more critical and thinking minds - and neither is more 'spiritual'! Both must continually strive to use these things for God's glory - because it all matters!

We get this messed up all the time. Some christian communities value feelings/emotions so much that critical thought and discernment goes out the window, while others value theology/'truth' so much that any sign of life or vibrancy is absent.

We must work hard to not be emotion-less or emotional-istic. And we must work hard at theology - because it matters. How we feel and what we think can cause us to do and believe some very interesting (and possibly tragic) things (i.e. - belief that national Israel has to go back into 'the land' and restore the 'temple' before Christ can return can result in indifference to the atrocious militant actions of the nation of Israel against Palestine that seem to clearly go aganst God's will[desire]).

Don't mock people whose emotions are more vibrant than yours. And - don't think for a moment that theology gets in the way of 'real' worship. Instead, love the Lord your God with ALL your heart, soul, mind and strength... together.

heat v. light (2-7-07)

2007-02-05T16:04:00.000+13:00

(WARNING: Some may not agree with me on this one...)

I am no longer excited by music simply because it is wears a 'christian' label, but there are a few bands that I like. I saw one of these bands play recently at a Christian event. They were sounding awesome. And then...

The lead singer began a rant in which he told people to have 'faith' that God was going to 'do' something that night, and that they needed to have 'faith' that it would happen. The crowd was told to get rid of 'cynicism' or anything else that would keep them from having this faith. He then invited them to 'receive' the healing (physical) power of God. Moments later he whispered into the microphone, speaking something that wasn't english (or any other language, I suspect).

Regardless of what you believe concerning physical, miraculous healing or speaking in 'tongues' (in my view, the 'tongues' in Scripture are the 'other languages' of the Gentiles), my concern was not so much that the lead singer had a different view than me, but rather the effect his words could have on others.

It is no secret that the body of Christ is not in agreement on these issues. The crowd he was speaking to would have been largely divided on them. Doing what he did was disrespectful to the plethora of views in the crowd. Not only this, I think it was greatly unhelpful (perhaps even harmful) to new Christians who can be easily persuaded.

I'm sure that people who agree with him were very excited by what he did (given the scattered "woo-hoo's" that I heard), but I was thinking about a different group of people... namely, those that didn't agree. He was quite blatantly de-valuing their belief as not being as good or spiritual as his. Particularly, I felt for the new, un-grounded, insecure Christians who were likely to be left feeling that they must not be very 'spiritual'.

I know this sounds like the very cynacism that the lead singer told the crowd to get rid of, but honestly, my main concern is for these easily mis-led Christians.

There is ground that we all stand on as Christians (the death/burial/resurrection/divinity of Christ to name a few), but these secondary issues need to be dealt with more carefully. All too often, we mis-handle them in at least two main ways.

1) We NEVER talk about them. This is bad, because it prevents us from sharpening each other. It only solidifies us in our own opinion, and allows pride to fester. It is only in respectful debate and dialogue that we will be able to learn from one another and have our beliefs both challenged AND strengthened. True, disrespectful arguments are a waste of time, but much can be gained from healthy debate.

2) We talk about them in in inappropriate contexts. This can be unhelpful in several ways, but the above example was particularly unhelpful because not only was it a context in which people weren't permitted (nor encouraged) to disagree, but they were instead presented with a bully-like attitude if they didn't. The underlying feeling was, 'If you don't agree, then you're just not spiritual.'

Which brings me to my main and final point. We need to be discerning as Christians. Indeed, 'discernment' is seen by others as 'cynicism'. We need to be able to discern between (as one Christian author puts it) between 'heat and light'.

Light is characterised by love. Love is the ultimate expression of Spirituality. Indeed, the Spirit can express Himself in many ways, but He will stay true to His personality as described in Scripture (perhaps the best example of the Personality of the Spirit is seen in Pauls abbreviated list in Galatians 5:22-23).

Discernment is needed to distinguish between that which is light and that which is simply 'heat.' Many things are thought of and/or said to be 'spiritual', but can sometimes be simply lights, smoke, mirrors, emotions or some combination of them. Don't be bullied by people (including me, of course) who insist you must believe what they do (especially if it isn't a basic Christian doctrine).

The light of love is un-mistakable. It is light against the darkness. It is love against hatred. It is justice against injustice. It is peace against fighting. It is protection against attack. It is honesty against dishonesty. It is reconciliation against separation. It is provision against poverty.

covenental confusion (2-1-07)

2007-01-30T17:14:00.000+13:00

A friend and I was checking out the various ministry booths at a Christian music festival this past weekend. We encountered two ministries that were very similar. Both of them were what you could call 'pro-Israel' ministries. Now, I don't think we should be 'anti' Israel, but I do think their understanding of the covenant(s) is reflective of the 'covenental confusion' right through Christianity.

If you are not familiar with the topic, the 'pro-Israel' position emphasises all things Jewish. They do so with good intent and with the appearance of good reasons. After all, Jesus (and most of the early church) was indeed Jewish.

The 'pro-Israel' people will usually teach (or encourage) the observance of various Jewish festivals and rituals (Passover, Sabbath, Days of Unleavened Bread, and much more). They will often point to the various examples of the Jewish-ness of the early church (Synagogue attendance, etc.) and various verses of the New Testament to demonstrate that the early Jewish simply carried on in their Jewish-ness, and to support their suggestions that Christians today need to do these Jewish things as well.

This discussion is vast, (and I'm generalising to keep it short) but I'll try to explain my understanding of it as simply as I can.

Part of the difficulty is that the Bible wasn't written in the same style as, for example, a theological encyclopedia. Since the New Testament is not a Covenant Theology handbook, we often see the details of Covenant as we read in-between-the-lines of what the writers are communicating (having said that, you don't have to read between the lines much in the epistle to the Hebrews!). Another thing to remember: we can see from Acts 15 and Galatians 2 that the Apostles didn't always see eye to eye about everything. Paul disagrees with Barnabas and Peter at various times.

Having said that (and trying to keep this short), let's look at the issue further.

Everyone agrees that Jesus ushered in the New Covenant, but the question is this: How is the New different from the Old? What changes to the lifestyle/belief of believers did it make?

OK. Here's how I see it.

God is a covenental and promise-making God. He doesn't break His covenants or His promises. As for any and all of the promises of God, Paul is emphatically clear (and I make a point not to be this dogmatic very often) that they are 'Yes' in Jesus. In other words, God keeps all His promises, and He keeps them in His way - namely, the Jesus kind of way.

As for the covenant(s), the way I like to say it is this: the 'Old' covenant was 'baptised' and became the 'New' Covenant. Baptism is, of course, a symbol of death and resurrection - of dying and rising. There are too many points of detail, but basically, all of the various aspects of the Old Covenant (the Land, the Temple, the Sacrifice, the Passover, the Sabbath, the Law, etc.) were 'baptised' and raised anew. All of their meaning and significance was now found in not a place, time or event, but a Person - namely, Jesus.

The implications of this were huge. Gentiles could 'come to Jerusalem' by simply 'coming to faith in Christ.' Their circumcision was not of the flesh, but of the heart, and so on...

The Old system was tired, worn and fruitless. God was bringing judgement on Israel. This judgement, however, was going to be like no other. But thankfully, with God, judgement always is one side of the 2-edged sword... the other being blessing. Judgement for fruitless and nationalistic Israel, and Blessing for believing/spiritual Israel.

for we know in part (1-13-07)

2007-01-12T10:51:00.000+13:00

"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will be abolished; whether there are other languages, they will stop themselves; whether there is knowledge, it will (also) be abolished. For we know in part and we prophecy in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end... For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, 12

How true.

A friend of mine and I have been studying biblical eschatology (the study of 'last things') in the past few months and I must say, though it's been worth it, it's been very challenging.

The extremes of belief and interpretation (even among those who love, serve and follow Jesus) are quite far apart! Some expect a universe-ending event to come in our future and point to current events as bringing this event to pass (of course, some have gone as far as predicting the very year in which this 'end' will come... and have been quite wrong!). At the other end, some interpret the 'end' having already happened when the Temple was destroyed in the year AD70 (including 'resurrection', 2nd 'coming' of Jesus, 'new Heaven and new Earth').

This current 'study' of eschatology is just one area of biblical debate I've listened to in my few years as a Christian. Personally, I find such debates to be very helpful and educational. I'm committed to the goal of interpreting the Bible as faithfully as possible (being as aware of my biases as I can be), and such debates are great ways of observing how a particular pattern of interpretation stands up to scrutiny.

As an aside, if a person gets angry or abusive in a debate, it can often be due (as my Dad and I both have observed) to the fact that his/her position (or at least his/her grasp of it) is less than strong.

As another aside, for me, 'debate' is not a dirty word, and I lament that levels of respect and relationship/trust are often not high enough for constructive debate to take place as much as I think it ought to.

Which leads me to my point. If we take on board the truth in the above verse (the truth that we 'know in part') it doesn't mean that we are so ignorant that we shouldn't bother debating with one another, but rather we ought to do so with appropriate humility. This humility can guard against someone thinking for a moment that their knowledge is anything more than 'in part'...

Furthermore, I would desperately like to see more (to coin a phrase) 'interpretive humility' in Christian circles. I am weary of people saying 'this verse clearly says'... or 'it is obvious from this verse'... etc. If it were so 'clear' or 'obvious' then why have so many people seen it in different ways? I'm not talking about pagans or atheists either! I'm talking about people that love the Lord and want to be faithful to Him in all of their lives! We simply need to be less arrogant in the assertion our interpretations.

In my experience, the most dogmatic 'scholars' end up being far less credible than those whose qualifications would justify them being dogmatic, but who still choose not to be.

In closing, there is a certain amount of urgency needed in the pursuit of this humility. When Christians are unable to debate respectfully, they become more and more isolated from one another. This is bad. We end up only talking to those whom we agree with, which simply results in the exchange of a few 'high-fives' and produces absolutely no growth or sharpening.

If iron is to sharpen iron, then both pieces of iron must agree that they merely know in part.

Happy sharpening.

love the world? (12-13-06)

2006-12-12T11:29:00.000+13:00

I love this quote from Bishop Tom Wright...

"The Christian calling is to know the world with a knowledge that approximates to love. And the point about love - the epistemology which love generates - is that love both affirms the other-ness of the object (objectivity) while remaining in deep, rich and close subjective (subjectivity) relationship to it. Love transcends the objective-subjective divide."

Indeed. Love - true love - is a beautiful marriage of objectivity and subjectivity. It is not merely objective. That kind of 'love' would be distant, detatched, indifferent and irrelevant. Also, it it not merely subjective, either. That kind of 'love' would be spine-less, scared, watered-down and weak.

Objectivity can't handle interactions with things that are not like 'it'. Objectivity remains detatched and protects its own 'other-ness', lest it become 'corrupted' from interaction with the alien 'other'. Because it remains detatched, it will never make a difference. It either escapes altogether, or watches from a distance.

Likewise, subjectivity will never make a difference. It is so interactive with the 'other' that it takes on the very nature of the 'other' and is therefore no longer itself, and therefore no longer able to influence or change. It is either enveloped-into or itself invelops the other.

God is often described in some of these ways. On one hand, God's holiness and un-changing nature certainly seems in-corruptable and 'objective.' But is God so 'objective' that He remains detatched, dis-interested and removed from reality? Most certainly not! The Scriptures testify to God dwelling among and being active in His creation - supremely so in Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, God's gentle care and sacrificial love seems to point to a more 'subjective' quality of God. But is that to say that God is a push-over or that He compromises His own nature? No way! The Scriptures are clear that God is not mocked, He does not change and there is none like Him!

Not only do we mis-understand the nature of God in these ways, we also can mis-represent Him in these same ways. We can seek to be so pure and undefiled above all else (not 'of' the world, but unfortunately also not 'in' it!) that we have little or no effect on it. Purity and holiness is vital and important, but that purity and holiness needs to be seen by the impure and un-holy world we live in. This means we cannot retreat into our 'Christian' corner of the world.

Also, we can seek to be so 'relevant' in the world ('in' the world, but also unfortunately 'of' it), that we end up being just like it, and therefore have little or no effect on it once again. We must speak in the world's language and meet them where they are at, but all the while taking care that we are imitating Christ, not the world. How can we expect the world to care about our hope when we dream, plan, spend and consume just like the rest of the world?

I think of two verses that could be seen as contradictory, but aren't - especially in this light. The first is the 'objective' 1 John 2:15; "Do not love the world, nor the things of this world." The second is the 'subjective' John 3:16; "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." It's not either/or. It's both.

May we love God as God loves the world. In objectivity, may we see the 'other-ness' of the 'world' not as a threat to escape from, but as a field to work in. In subjectivity, may we seek interaction with the world not in order to imitate it, but in order to influence it.

the heavenly reality (12-9-06)

2006-12-08T14:12:00.000+13:00

"Heaven." What a mis-understood word this is!

For some, 'heaven' is simply a warm, fuzzy, good, old-fashioned or positive feeling they get when things happen to be going their way. Many others define 'heaven' in ways that are not unlike the Greek/Roman idea of the 'after-life' - in which your ghostly 'soul' floats away on a cloud.

Not only am I nervous about several overly definitive Christian definitions of 'heaven', (as if we could know exactly what it is like!) I'm also nervous that we may often mix one or both of the above ideas with the ideas we get from the Bible.

The promise of eternal life for God's people is clear, but the Bible was not written to give us a encyclopedic definition of it. Rather than that, we are given pictures, glimpses and/or images of what it is. The biblical 'heaven' is more lasting than a fleeting 'shot in the arm' of cheerful glee, and infinitely more real than your soul flying around in a dis-embodied realm of clouds.

Heaven is the place where God is. It is not sitting at the far corner of the universe, but rather, a completely different dimension altogether. What seems to separate heaven and earth is not light-years of distance in space (or whatever), but rather the current condition of earth and it's inhabitants. Even still, God's dimension 'breaks out' onto ours in various ways. Heaven breaking out onto earth, is like God's space 'overlapping' with ours. Dwelling with His people in the tabernacle, behind the veil in the Temple and now in our 'hearts' by His Spirit are all examples of this.

Now, God's space wasn't intended to merely overlap with ours. God's intention was to 'share' His 'space' with His image-bearing creatures - us (think Garden of Eden). Human rebellion and degradation has distorted the image of God, and has left us (along with the entire universe) in dire need of restoration of that image.

This is where it get's exciting...

Christ came (Himself a perfect expression of heaven and earth - God and man) and fulfilled what it meant to be the Image of God. His death defeated the power of evil, and His resurrected body is the 'first-fruits' of God's restored order of being! God's New Creation has begun! The reality of heaven has burst onto the scene, and it looks, feels and sounds like Jesus!

Indeed, the Christian hope of Heaven is not having spots of ecstatic bliss, and not soul-soaring in the sky. It is sharing God's life in a New Heaven and New Earth that has been resurrected, re-made, re-built and restored to God's intention.

That day is sure to come, but we don't have to sit on our bums and wait for it to come. Jesus begs us to pray that Day (even just a grain of it!) into Today. "Your Kingdom come. Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." Every good deed we do in Jesus name and in the power of the Spirit (and only by His Spirit, thank you very much) is a fresh work of New Creation that is not in vain (1 Cor. 15 - end of chapter).

fighting over the god of abraham? (11-28-06)

2006-11-27T09:38:00.000+13:00

U2 rocked Mt. Albert Stadium this past Friday.

In addition to providing exhilarating entertainment and much more, Bono - to the surprise of none - beat his drum of anti-poverty and world peace. Noble indeed. At one point, Bono donned a white bandana with the word 'Coexist' in black letters. The Crescent moon of Islam, the Jewish Star of David, and the Christian Cross in place of the 'C', 'X' and 'T'.

The idea is obvious and wonderful: These three world religions ought to be able to exist together without murdering each other. From the horrific Crusades involving all three, to the Nazi extermination of Jews (and others) in the name of Christ, to the more recent acts of terrorism by Muslim fundamentalists, the world has seen more than enough violence in the name of religion. To advocate peace is undeniably a good and desperately needed cause.

During this part of the concert, Bono pointed out that Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim Abraham as a father-figure and are happy to call themselves 'Sons of Abraham'. One phrase he used to drive this home was "Jesus. Jew. Mohammed. It's true."

The reaction from some of the Christian community has been quite interesting. Some see Bono as equating the three faiths, and others defend him as merely trying to advocate peace and using their common ground with Abraham to do so. At any rate, the following question has resurfaced in many conversations: Do Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

I'd like to answer the question with another: Do Christians, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses worship the same Jesus? Whether we like it or not, the answer to these questions is both Yes and No.

On one hand, we can point to the basic, general things the faiths have in common. Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the same principles of monotheism (all 3 believe in One God), election (all 3 believe that God chooses a people to be His own) and eschatology (all 3 believe in a future hope of eternal life with God).

On the other hand, we can point to the many more ways in which they are different. The number of different beliefs is too many to list here, so I'll just focus on the one that is not only the biggest, but the most important - Jesus.

Jews believe Jesus was a good prophet and teacher, but far from Messiah, and anything but Lord of the Universe. Muslims believe that Jesus was 'a messiah' that will return to earth again, but don't see him as 'the Messiah' and certainly not as God incarnate.

The Christian faith centers on Jesus. He is the One Lord; of the One people of God; who have the One glorious hope of resurrection.

One of the great things about serving Jesus is that he doesn't ever ask us to kill in the name of religion. Though there are differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity which will always separate us spiritually, we should have no problem coexisting with them physically.

I'll close by quoting the end of a discussion Jesus had with the Pharisees of his time.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:56-58

jesus means this much (11-21-06)

2006-11-20T10:22:00.000+13:00

What does Jesus 'mean' to you?

Most responses would not be too likely to stray too far from the very familiar bible verse, John 3:16. We don't often recognise Jesus as being much more than someone who died for 'me.' To be absolutely certain, Jesus most assuredly did die for 'me', but I think it it vital that we push through this individualism and realise that He is also so much more than that! Not only is He Lord of my heart, He is also Lord of the entire universe.

The Gospel-writers wanted to direct their audience to the true Jesus. The Jesus that the Holy Spirit had been (and still was) opening and renewing their minds to see more clearly. Not just a one-sided, prop-up Jesus, to give the intellectual nod to, and/or give a nice, warm and fuzzy hug. Instead they wanted them to see a full-fledged, exasperating Jesus, to worship, adore and serve - indeed, to die for.

This, I think, is why the Gospel-writers didn't simply provide us with a handful of happy texts telling us only that God loves us (or a list of texts about how to discover the secret Jesus, as in the later-written Gnostic text, the Gospel of Thomas). Instead, they wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Instead of giving a list of things to believe about Jesus, or whatever, they wrote stories - indeed, true stories. These stories - in very different, yet complimentary ways - have much more to say about Jesus than simply that he died for 'me.'

Instead, the Gospel-writers drew upon the rich story of their people (Israel), and presented Jesus as the centre, the theme, the end, the solution, the climax - even the very point! - of this story. In other words, for the Gospel-writers, all who Jesus was/is and all that He accomplished had eclipsed and surpassed the meaning of the entire story of Israel!

For example, everything that the Temple had ever meant or stood for, was trumped by Jesus. The author of Matthew records Jesus declaring that He was 'greater than the temple.' (12:6) John's Gospel tells it more explicitly, "Jesus... said to them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up...' ...but He was speaking of the temple of His body. Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this..." (2:19-22)

The New Testament way of speaking about this 'trumping of meaning' is called 'fulfilling.' This is one area in which I think we may need to re-evaluate our thinking. I think the writers of the New Testament saw Jesus as 'ful-filling' the meaning of not just a few 'proof' verses here and there, but the Old Testament as a whole! I think He means that much!

Take Isaiah's Suffering Servant imagery in chapter 53, for example. We often reduce the entire passage down to a few verses, but the image of the Suffering Servant is not just in a few verses in this chapter. It is a broader, much larger image (beginning in ch. 42), thought by many to represent the entire nation of Israel itself, or a specific leader at the time. With our limited perspective, we may not know what each and every verse meant at the time, but I suspect the writer knew. I've heard people say that Jesus must have been un-attractive based on the verse that says, 'there is no beauty that we should desire Him'. I don't think that's the point. I think the point is this: The Gospel writers saw Jesus as 'trumping' the meaning of the Suffering Servant. Every single scrap of meaning that the Servant imagery had, is even more fully realised in Jesus. He is the personification of Suffering, and the personification of Service. Indeed, the word became flesh!

What I'm suggesting is that Jesus doesn't merely 'fulfill' a verse here and there, but rather He embodies the entire story of Israel. Every holy place (temple, Jerusalem, etc.), every role (prophet, priest, king), every event (passover, sabbath, etc.) and every other symbol (covenant, manna, law) finds its substance in Him! He is the Tabernacle, the Sacrfice, the High Priest, the Passover, the Sabbath, the Law, the Covenant, the King, the Prophet, the Warrior, the Slave, the Lamb, the Messiah, the True Israelite, the Son of Man, and so on... (The writer of Hebrews moves from symbol to symbol in similar fashion, yet in meticulous detail.)

May we see Jesus for all that He is. May we see Him as so much more (and no less!) than our personal, individual Jesus. May we see Him as some-One to live and die for.

eating from the wrong tree (11-17-06)

2006-11-17T10:34:00.000+13:00

Though many Christians would like to try - and sometimes do try, I don't think we will ever be able to solve all the world's morality problems. I'm thinking we might as well get used to it.

But in spite of this, we just love to try and 'battle' against the world's morality. Now, I'm not advocating moral relativism - where right and wrong are determined by what you had for breakfast. I most certainly believe in true good and true evil. What I am suggesting, however, is that rather than it being our job to sort this out, we are to trust God to do so. When we try to sort out the good/evil thing, we are trying to so something that only God can do.

This mistake is actually at the heart of the Garden of Eden story. Adam and Eve were given absolute freedom in the garden to eat from any tree they liked, and were forbidden to eat from just one tree. Genesis 2:16-17, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." Good and evil were held secure by God - no assistance or meddling needed.

Well, tending the garden and eating from any of the other trees just wasn't enough. They apparently wanted to help God with good and evil as well. The key verse is Genesis 3:6, "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and was a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of it's fruit and ate." The results of this are in Gen. 3:22, "...the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil...' "

All talk of apples and snakes aside, let's see what the story is getting at - she ate from the tree that she thought would make her wise! All of the other trees in the garden were 'good for food' and 'pleasing to the eye' (Gen. 2:9), but this tree had more. This isn't simply about eating an apple when you were meant to stick to oranges and figs! Neither is it talking about Eve simply wanting more wisdom to make better life choices. This is much more serious. This is the inversion of the creator/creation relationship! This is about Adam and Eve trying to take God's place!

I wonder if we eat from the same 'tree' today. Do we try to tackle morality (good/evil) in our own hands? Who are we to do that!? Please don't hear me saying that morality doesn't matter. It matters so much that it takes God to sort it out! Yes, the 'garden' needs tending (Gen. 2:15), but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that God needs our help sorting out good/evil. The more we focus on sorting out the world's morality problems, the more we show we don't trust God to do it.

May we eat freely from all of the life God has given us.

the gospel announcement 10-28-06

2006-10-28T13:14:00.000+13:00

If you know anything about the word 'gospel', you probably know that it means 'Good News.' You may also know that it is the word ('euangelion') that a Roman herald would use in making the announcement that there was a new Emperor in the Empire. I love the way that Tom Wright points out that these Roman heralds were not offering an invitation, but rather making an announcement.

As Wright says, these heralds didn't ride into town and say, "In case you are interested in offering your devotion to someone, you may wish to try Caesar, who has recently become the Emperor of Rome. He would be delighted if you should wish to follow him." Instead, it would have been more like this, "We bring you the good news ('gospel') of Rome that Caesar Augustus is now our beloved Emperor, and demands your allegiance and taxes! On your knees!" In short, these heralds were declaring that Caesar was Lord!

The idea of 'good news' was certainly not just a Roman thing, however. The Jewish prophet Isaiah had spoken centuries ago about 'good tidings' for the poor, etc. (ch. 52 & 61 and other places). In fact, when Isaiah was translated into Greek (in the Septuagint), they used the same word ('euangelion') in these places! Indeed, the word 'gospel' had a very different usage when the New Testament was written!

Believing the 'Gospel' in the first century came complete with side-effects, and it wasn't simply that you belonged to a club that you didn't before. If it was the Gospel of Caesar, the side-effect was that you would swear allegiance to him as Lord - lived out by paying taxes and obedience to the Roman system. Whether you were an orator, civic benefactor, patron, client, land-owner, peasant or slave, obedience meant knowing your place and not rocking the boat.

With the coming of Jesus, the word Gospel took on new meaning - as did the side-efffects that went with believing it. For Jews, believing the Gospel of Jesus meant that the 'good news' of Isaiah had never been announced like it had been with Jesus. In the Roman world, however, believing the Gospel of Jesus was hazardous for your health! Believing that Jesus was Lord meant believing that Caesar was not! It meant believing that the 'good news' of Jesus made the 'good news' of Rome look like a cheap scam. It meant no longer living according to a system which really only served an elite few at the top, but rather living according to the character of a Lord, who is nothing at all like Caesar.

What in the world does this mean for us today? Possibly more than we care to know. I think it means that the Gospel of Jesus has little to do with an invitation that I accept (as if it were about me), and everything to do with an announcement that is true. Jesus really IS Lord. My life needs to give voice to that, and simply saying so won't do. Simply associating with others that say so (or not associating with those that don't) won't do either. Our spending habits, dreams ('american' or otherwise), time, money, standard of living, and much more - they all must bow the knee to the fact that Jesus is Lord. Announcing this is our calling. It will definitely require our words, but equally (or more) so, it will require our lives.

building for God's Kingdom

2006-10-16T11:45:00.000+13:00

I won't embarrass myself, but just know that I could share many stories of times I've done things 'for' someone and found myself eventually having to apologise and say, "Sorry, I was just trying to help!" However well-intentioned our actions may be, they can be un-helpful or even harmful. Even sincere people can be sincerely wrong.

From age 11-18, I spent my summers working for my Dad in construction. I learned a lot about building in those summers, but I also learned about working with a team. When you're building a house, you have to understand and appreciate the overall process in everything you do. You may have an idea that seems helpful by itself, but in the whole scheme of things can end up being unhelpful. It could make more work for someone else, cause confusion, or a host of other things. For example, I may see that some boards on the roof need cutting. By itself, this is fine for me to do. However, if someone else is already making preparations to do it, then one of us is going to be wasting time. Also, cutting boards on the roof creates saw-dust, which can cause people to lose their footing on the roof. What's more, there could be a reason that the boards haven't been cut yet - maybe on this specific house there is another design feature in mind.

Another example; I may notice that a stack of boards are on the other side of the job-site from where they are going to be used. I could save someone a lot of time walking back and forth by moving them closer. There could be several things I'm not considering, though. Maybe the area I would move them to is about to be used for something else. Perhaps moving the boards at all would just confuse the person who was going to be using them, etc.

As you can see, there's a lot that can go wrong on a job site. Intentions may be good and effort may be expended, but sometimes with distorted results. You could think it was wonderful that you cut a lot of boards, but maybe they were supposed to be cut later or differently. You may feel proud that you solved an apparent board location problem, but maybe that was the best place for them in the long run. Perhaps you can think of similar examples for other environments.

On a job site, these problems can be easy to deal with. In fact, the longer a team works together, the easier they are to deal with. You learn to ask questions and think before you just 'do' something. You learn how to see the big picture. You learn to work together.

In church life, however, the things we do are often close to or at the heart of our very identities. The tasks that we perform are marks of our spirituality and if the tasks that I'm doing are thought by others to be contradictory to the big picture, then we feel that our very spirituality has been attacked.

In the same way that simply 'doing stuff' on a job-site is not always the right thing, in the church also, simply doing things just because we can doesn't mean that we always should in view of the big picture. Could it be that sometimes we may be just 'moving spiritual boards' around the job-site when we need to be cutting them according to the plan and installing them where they go, etc.?

In the world of construction, corrections have to be made. The workers have to accept it, grow, learn, move on - and most importantly - get to building the right way! At least in some ways, it is no different in the church. We've got a job to do. Let's keep the big picture in mind. Let's communicate with one another. Let's not take advice too personally. Let's grow. Let's sharpen each other, making us sharper tools in God's hands. Let's get on with building for God's Kingdom.

ByDefault in your Inbox!

2006-10-13T16:04:00.000+13:00

Hey guys!

Put your email address in the 'subscribe' box on the right!

Then, complete the 'word verification' in the new window that opens...

Then, FeedBlitz will send you an email with a link to click in order to confirm your subscription!

Thanks!

-d-

poor christianity

2006-10-04T12:15:00.000+13:00

"And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John... perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of the fellowship, that we should go to the (uncircumcised) Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Jews). They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do."
- Paul in Galatians 2:9-10 NKJV

Wow. Welcoming those filthy, stinking, sinning, dirty Gentiles into the people of God, and such inconvenient, impractical and idealistic priority given to serving the poor?

While we can't reduce Christianity to these two characteristics, they remain at the very heart of the types of attitude and action that should characterise Christians.

Welcoming Gentiles Today
It's hard to imagine just how wrong it would have felt to many faithful Jews at that time even to entertain the idea that Gentiles could be justified by God simply by faith - no Jewish-ness ('works of the law' - Gal. 2:16) required. The accomplishment of Jesus had not only surpassed every hope of the Jews, but had also come with a sharp word of prophet-like judgement to them as well. All nations were supposed to be blessed in Abraham and by Abrahams decendants. Instead, they had taken on some of the characteristics of the various empires that had continually been oppressing them. As N.T. Wright brilliantly puts it, God's rescuers needed rescuing themselves. The invitation to Gentiles had always been open throughout Israel's history, but for the most part, it was an invitation that wasn't getting delivered.

The language of the New Testament is vibrantly coloured by the tension of Gentile-Jew relations, but the language of our world isn't. Perhaps this can keep us from noticing how often we can take up the same attitude towards people who do not share our faith in Jesus. Our self-rightousness is often disgusting. In the same way that Paul talks about Gentiles 'doing the things contained in the law' (Romans 2:14), many people today are doing great things for the world with no faith in Jesus at all. True, God's people are identified only as the ones that have faith, but this doesn't give us the right to make it harder for people that don't look like us to come to this faith. Not only will we have to be more willing to allow them join us in our work, but we may have to humble ourselves and join them in their work.

Remembering The Poor Today
The leading apostles gave the 'Gentile side' of the ministry to Paul and the one thing that was of utmost importance to both of them was care for the poor. One does not have to read the Bible for very long to see how God is angered when His people don't care for the poor. Multiple prophecy-warnings by prophets in the Old Testament, Jesus in the Gospel narratives, and the New Testament all confirm this concern of God that is to be our concern as well.

What keeps us from 'remembering' the poor? Allow me to suggest that our minds are on other things. If you live in a Western nation in the 21st century, that means that you are bombarded with advertising images and slogans that are determined to keep your mind on whatever it is they are trying to sell you. We need to re-capture the eager-ness of Paul and his fellow Apostles (or more importantly, the eager-ness of Jesus our Lord) to care for the poor. Comfort, convenience, home-improvement, investment (let alone drowning in debt), fashion and the like should all take a back seat to our eager-ness to remember the poor. There are countless ways to serve the needs of less-priveleged people around the world. We must make it our priority.

come, part mental eyes!

2006-10-02T10:26:00.000+13:00

The phrases 'christian life', 'spiritual life', 'family life', 'work life', 'prayer life', 'devotional life' and many others are very common. What I'm talking about is our tendency to divide up our lives into bits that don't blend together or overflow into one another. It's when the various 'parts' of your life have little or no effect on the other 'parts.'

I'd like to (big surprise) focus on the Jesus 'part' of our lives. Why? Because I believe that the person of Jesus, with all of the depths of meaning that He embodies, ought to have no small effect on our lives. We should not be able to encounter Him as He truly is and not be shaped, challenged and moulded! How is it that He so often doesn't have this effect on us?

Among the many things that keep Jesus from having His full effect on us, I wonder if a significant barrier to us being re-worked by Him may be our tendency to (perhaps unintentionally) divide our lives into bits. Here are a few ways that I think we do this...

Spiritual v. un-spiritual
While most of us would agree with the statement that our whole lives are meant to be 'spiritual', we still attach a greater spirituality to some parts of our lives than we do to other parts. Activities such as church services, conferences, bible-study and the like are seen to constitute our 'spiritual life' while ones like eating, working or driving are 'just life.'

I think this is deeply problematic. Our entire lives are meant to be 'spiritual.' We don't hop and skip from one spiritual moment to another, instead we are to be continually being filled with God's Spirit and continually overflowing in service, life and love to God, others and the world. And this continual spirituality isn't necessarily always dramatic or emotional. I think that some of the most spiritual people in the world live gloriously unspectacular and wondrously normal lives. Our whole lives are spiritual.

Postively positive
Most of us have heard Matt Redman's song 'Blessed Be Your Name' by now, so we're familiar with the reminder from the story of Job. Praise God in the good and the bad. We agree with this mentally. Fine. That's great. But why do we still tend to attach greater spirituality to the 'happy' moments? Something great happens and someone says, "God is great!" After an exciting worship-singing time someone reports, "God showed up!" I'm thinking that God is always good, and that He hasn't gone anywhere.

Knowing God with heart, soul, mind and strength means more than just agreeing with theological statements. It has less to do with being the most exited person in a church service and more to do with how you live outside the church service.

God is in this place?
Every Sunday morning, we often hear someone thank God for 'being with us' or hear a prayer that God would 'meet us here.' I understand the concept of God 'drawing near', but when we attach a greater spirituality to our church building on Sunday morning, we've taken this too far. I've heard people pray before church services for 'hearts to be changed as people enter the building.' This a good example of seeing the church building as too important. It's not that the church building doesn't matter at all, it's just that it ought not to matter any more than the rest of God's creation.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the time was coming and had already come that worshipping God wasn't about being in the right place (Samaria or Jerusalem - see John 4), but about knowing who we worship - God. Spirit and Truth know no boundaries. And in case you're wondering, the church building is NOT the modern day equivalent of the Temple in Jerusalem. Our bodies are. That, my friends, ought to make us stop and think.

Our lives aren't the sum of a bunch of parts, but is meant to be entirely spiritual. Paul says that our lives are 'hidden with Christ in God.' May we live every moment in Him. May Jesus our Lord be truly Lord of 'all' in our entire lives. May He reign in us totally and wholly.

jesus, the rebel prophet

2006-09-25T10:01:00.000+12:00

The prophet of all prophets, Jesus, had a message that was... well... to say the least... un-comfortable for many of his day. Exactly as James would describe God later, Jesus 'opposed the proud' and gave 'grace to the humble.'

Jesus was well aware that prophets weren't usually 'popular' people. His own home crowd rejected him and when he called them on it (Luke 4:24), they tried to kill Him (4:28-29)! Also, He wept over Jerusalem, recalling how they had killed prophets and stoned others sent to them (Luke 13:33-34).

Religious people had Jesus killed.

He blatantly discounted their ideas, rejected their assumptions and rebuked their practises. Even their evangelism! "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." Now you don't hear that verse at many evangelism meetings, do you?!?

What made Jesus such a rebel?

I think He made such great rebel because He was the ultimate expression of what a prophet was - and prophets stirred up messes. Prophets (Jeremiah, Elijah, Joel, Hosea, Malachi, Ezekiel, Micah, and John the Baptist - who Jesus said was the greatest) told the people of God to get their act together and be the people they are supposed to be.

Let's take the 'evangelism' passage for a great example. Almost all of the 8 'woes' in Luke 23 are followed by 'hypocrite' or actor, or fake (what would we do to someone who called us fake?). Read the whole passage. Jesus nails them for: not doing what they have others do; showing off; treating gold and sacrifices as more important than the temple or altar; and much more.

Verse 23 provides a nice summary of what His problem was with them. "...you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin (herbs), and have neglected the weightier matters of the law (the law of Moses, or Mosaic Law): justice and mercy and faith." They had focused on the commandment of tithing so much that they didn't even want to forget their spices! - but they missed the themes of justice, mercy and faith that run right through the law! Then, using the 'cup-washing' analogy, Jesus goes on to say that if you concentrate on these important things first (cleaning the inside of the cup), then the other things will fall into place naturally (the outside will be clean).

What connections can we make for us today from this passage?

Perhaps the prophet Jesus would have a few harsh words for some of us. How would we take them?

Perhaps there are things we do that equate to washing the outside of the cup...
Perhaps we sometimes need to hear harsh words...
Perhaps listening to rebels can be a good idea...

what we don't want to know

2006-09-17T19:50:00.000+12:00

You really must go and see the movie that my wife and I (and others) saw recently.

It's called 'An Inconvenient Truth.' It chronicles Al Gore's message about global warming that he's been sharing for more than a decade. To say it is a must see would be a grave under-statement. The theatrical trailer can be viewed at http://www.climatecrisis.net

Now, many of you may be thinking, "Oh yeah. Global warming. Yeah, some scientists say that this is a problem, others don't. I'll wait till it's really an obvious problem before I get too worried..."

I used to think this way.

I don't now.

Gore has done his homework. And more importantly, he has talked to a lot of people that have done their homework. This is his life passion. But even this isn't the reason that you should go see the movie.

You should go see the movie because you need to see what Western culture and life-style does to the planet. God's planet. The Creator's planet. The planet God has left in our hands. This is not a side-issue in God's economy. There are no side-issues.

I am from a region in the United States (which - as many of us know - contributes the most towards the demise of the Earth) called the 'buckle of the Bible belt.' Christianity has been so established in this area, that these Christians enjoy many privileges that other Christians have never known and probably never will (and probably won't be any worse off...). I know what it's like to live a comfortable 'Christian life'. You don't have to go into a normal bookstore to get your favourite Christian books, because you can go to a Christian bookstore and avoid having to be exposed to books that don't allign with your world-view. Heck, in some places, you can go to a Christian bookstore that alligns more comfortably with your denomination. What's more, many Christians see this as a demonstration of God's favour on them.

In addition to enjoying the benefits of the established nature of Christianity in the U.S., American Christians (mostly) live identical lifestyles of comfort, convenience, busy-ness and everything else stero-typical of what it means to be an American. Most Christians would assume that the American Dream is fully harmonious with God's Dream. While I cannot - and willl not - include all American Christians in this description, it fits the strong majority quite well.

Why the rant about American Christians?' Well, I used to be one, and as a participant of such a culture (or sub-culture, actually...), I cared less about the world around me and mostly about my safe, comfortable Christian-hood. A warning about global-warming wouldn't have phased me much, and I probably would have just shrugged and said, 'Well, Jesus is about to come back, so what does it matter?' After all, Al Gore is a Democrat (which 98% of American Christians consider to be obviously not God's political party), and so therefore he obviously can't be a Christian and why would we care what a non-Christian has to say? I know, it's a little cynical, but it's not far from the truth...

My point? Care of the earth is an issue at which Christians should be at the fore-front. No, I'm not saying abandon issues such as abortion, family values or other ones. I'm just suggesting that we need not treat this as if it were something that is un-important.

Nuff said...

Go see the movie.

the spiritual world

2006-09-04T09:41:00.000+12:00

Do a 'google-search' on the word 'spiritual' and you'll find thousands and thousands of results. There seem to be as many views on 'spirituality' as there are types of music. All of the endless talking and writing about spirituality seems to stay close to a few types of questions...

-What is spirituality?
-How do I practise it?
-What does it 'look' like?
-Whose version of it works the best?
-Is there a 'best version' at all?
-Am I spiritual enough?
etc.

Well. Of course, I cannot possibly address every idea about spirituality. I haven't even heard every idea out there - and I seriously doubt anyone has. I can't even address every idea about spirituality that supposedly comes from the Christian community! The topic is so vast and it contains so many contradictory ideas, it can be quite exhausting even thinking about it for long!

What a tough deal. Huh? I firmly believe that ALL humans are spiritual beings, and I think most people would agree (but again, it depends on your definition of 'spiritual'). We all seem to have this deep sense of this thing we call 'sprirituality', but there are so many views out there (even within Christendom), that trying to find the best (true, correct, right?) one can wear us out quickly.

I want to encourage health in this area. For those seeking a better 'spiritual health' that are growing (or have grown) tired of the search, I want to encourage them to not give up. Our lives matter just that much.

Instead of delving into this bottom-less pit of ideas, I thought I would share a 'set of glasses' with you. I discovered them from reading a book by N.T. Wright called "Simply Christian" (which, by the way, many are seeing as the new "Mere Christianity"). These 'glasses' provide a framework with which to evaluate various ideas about spirituality and the world. My hope is that they will fuel your search with enthusiasm.

Right about now, some readers might be thinking, "But we have the Bible. No search is necessary. Just read what it says," to which I would respond, "OK. Then how can there be so many different - even contradictory - ideas about spirituality which all claim to be 'biblical'? While I believe that the Bible does have the answers, I'm nervous about such a simplistic pat-answer to this very important question.

The spheres of 'spirituality' and 'religion' are overlapping to say the least. Ask just about anyone what spirituality is, and they will eventually say something about tapping into a 'greater' reality, God, god, being, existence, mindset, Mindset or whatever. Using 3 'options', these 'glasses' provide a way of viewing the universe we live in and how 'god' fits into the picture.

Option 1
The first option is to see the entire universe as being - in it's very nature or essence - god. This is known as the pantheist view (pan = everything, theos = god). As N.T. Wright points out, the unavoidable difficulty with this view is that it is hard to account for the obvious evil that we see so clearly around us. If everything in itself is divine, and evil is so apparent, then the divine must contain evil, right? This tension is seen in such symbols as the yin-yang, used in Confucianism and Taoism. Unfortunately, we are left with a corrupt deity in this view.

Option 2
This option views god's realm as being detached and/or dis-interested with our realm. The idea is that because the divine must be pure, and our world is so obviously corrupted, stained and flawed, the divine simply cannot have anything to do with this existence. This god may have created the world, but now must have more important things to do, because our world certainly is being ignored. Perhaps this god may come down and do something scary every once and a while, but for the most part, is distracted by 'heavenly' business. Many versions of this view have been articulated, but perhaps the most well known person to do so was Plato. His view has become known as dualism, in which this world is merely a flawed copy of the ideal world. (Though we may not realise it, many so-called Christian ideas and Bible verse interpretations are tainted with this understanding of the universe.) The problem with this view is that while we admit that our world is most certainly flawed, we still behold it's beauty and majesty. We find mountains, hills, fields, flowers, lakes, rivers, waterfalls, sunsets, full-moons, and ocean waves to be deeply moving. Indeed, the Bible gives repeated testimony to the greatness of God's good creation.

Option 3
Option 1 cannot solve the question of evil, and leaves us with a deity that is in some way - at least in part - corrupt. Option 2 cannot explain the richness and glory of the universe, and leaves us confused about how to get the attention and favour of it's distant god. Continuing with N.T. Wrights 'glasses', our third option is to see two dimensions - Heaven and Earth - which 'overlap' and 'interlock' in various ways. The divine interacts with and relates to this world. This highlights the personal nature of this God. This God is somehow able to act in our very own space and time while at the same time remaining sovereign over it. This God is able to promise His people that He will 'dwell among them'.

Perhaps this is already sparking some thinking and re-thinking about some things. Perhaps you're wondering about some versions of spirituality. Which option do they fit most comfortably in?

Option 1 spirituality can seem to not have any real substance or meaning. If everything is god, then I don't need to 'tap into' anything, but instead I must try to make the idea work in my brain that the ground, the air, the water, my computer, my car and myself are all god. How does that help me live? I have no idea.

Option 2 spirituality can leave us confused about how to relate to the god. If this god is so distant, I probably have to use the right techniques, prayers, rituals or words to get its attention. If this existence is just a flawed copy of the idea existence, then it certainly can't matter very much, and what real difference do my actions make? If they matter at all, it must be so I can secure for myself a better after-life, right? Again, many 'Christian' ideas are polluted with such thinking.

Option 3 provides us with an existence that is dripping with spirituality. Not a spirituality of self-realisation that seeks to understand our god-ness (option 1), and not a confused grasp in the dark at a face-less 'something out there' which I can try to manipulate into working for me (option 2), but rather, an existence that: calls me into relationship with a Creator God who wants me to be His image, reveals the character of the Creator to guide me to a lifestyle of this image, and gives me a role to play in the Creator's unfolding story of redemption.

We don't have to live in a mediocre, bland fake-ness that suggests everything is fine and divine (option 1). We don't have to 'hold our breath' between 'spiritual moments' as if they only come every once in a while - perhaps miraculously (option 2). We instead are given the task of passing on the gift of Grace which we have received freely from the Creator, using not just the right collection of 'spiritual experiences' to do this, but rather, we realise that our whole life is a spiritual experience and journey in which we grow in relationship to the Spirit of the Creator, who 'dwells with us' and orients us to new life. A life rich with meaning, direction and purpose. A life that is part of the Creator's story. A life of strength in weakness. A life of weeping with those who weep. A life modeled after the life of Jesus.

missing church

2006-08-21T11:42:00.000+12:00

What does the phrase 'missing church' mean to you?

Poor attendance? Vacation? Sickness? Sleeping in?

Perhaps we're all aware of the pressure to 'make it on Sunday.' Various methods are employed to encourage people to show up. In some situations, if you don't show up for a few weeks, you'll get a phone call from someone who - usually after a bit of small talk - will mention that they 'haven't seen you' for a while.

Before I say any more, let me be very clear about how I feel about Sunday morning. I believe that the followers of Jesus after Pentecost gradually adopted Sunday as a time to meet together. It seems that they called Sunday 'the Lord's day.' I agree with the writer of Hebrews that we shouldn't forsake the' assembling of ourselves together.' (Heb. 10:25) I am enthusiastically in support of Sunday meetings so that we can - as the writer of Hebrews instructs precisely before the above passage - 'stir up love and good works' and also remember and celebrate our Lord's resurrection. I aim to always meet on this day and in this way.

While I don't mind people being encouraged to make meeting on Sunday a priority, I am nervous about the way this is often done. I fear that in our genuine (but possibly unhelpful?) attempts at 'getting people along,' we may be in danger of missing the point. For example, I wonder if we can mistakenly assume that a person's regularity of attendance is an indicator of their walk with God. If they show up regularly, then things must be fine, and if they've missed a few weeks, they might be struggling with their faith. I've heard such comments many times. All the time, I'm wondering, "Yeah, but what about the people that are regular attendees that might be struggling?"

Sunday Best?
For many, Sunday morning is a great time of catching up with friends, celebrating God in song and receiving useful Bible teaching. But let's not forget how others can see it. A routine trip to a building, making their way to their seat (if they are greeted, it is impersonal and brief), singing songs that make them feel guilty for not being 'happy all the day', sitting through a monologue that doesn't relate to where they are at but still manages to leave them feeling discouraged about their relationship with God, briefly hanging around afterward in case someone may talk to them or invite them to lunch or something else, and heading to their car wondering how they will motivate themselves to go through the same routine next week. And that is an example of how a Christian may feel. What about someone who doesn't have a relationship with God?

I'm not suggesting we do away with Sunday mornings. I am suggesting that we work hard to make them as relevant to reality as possible, and that we realise that what we 'do' on Sunday morning will never be able to meet all of our needs as the 'church.'

It seems to me that failing to understand why we meet, combined with a misunderstanding of what 'church' is, creates a dangerous situation. Not a small, harmless one, but one that can either contribute to someone being hurt, or someones hurts not being known or cared for. Let me offer some thoughts about these two ingredients.

'What' Is The Church?
This is the wrong question to start with. It's not a question of 'what' the church is, but 'who' the church is! 'Church' is not the building you go to to meet with other Christians, a street address, or a block of time on Sunday. The Church consists of people who recognise Jesus as Lord. This understanding is not new, but we still ask each other the same confused types of questions that reflect the mistaken view of Church, such as "how was 'church' this morning" or "where do you go to 'church' at?" or "what is your 'church' like?" Instead, we should ask, "Who do you church with?" I think it would be a great excercise for us to not call Sunday 'church.' I'm not saying make Sunday less important! I'm just suggesting that it might be helpful in reminding us that 'church' is not some 'thing' that we do on Sunday mornings, but rather it is people who follow Jesus every day of their lives - and people who happen to meet together on Sunday.

Why Do We Meet?
This is a great question, and deserves a great answer. More and more I'm seeing that there is not really any biblical doctrine or instructions for what we are supposed to 'do' when we meet. The commands that are given in the New Testament are the kind that we can follow any time, any where. So what do we 'do' when we meet? Well, I think Hebrews 10:24-25 provide a nice summary statement.

"And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching."

This, of course, is just one passage in the New Testament. As you can see, the time, place and style of the meeting is not the point here. It is exhorting each other to love and good works that is called for. We need each other. We really do. If we are to live lives that are counter-cultural, we are going to need help. We're going to need more than a few songs, a sermon and a cup of coffee.

That is why we must never stop meeting together! That is why our songs must be real, and reflect that life (yes, even the Christian version) is not a smiles-only club. That is why teaching must be more than a Sunday sermon, and must be interpersonal, challenging and sharpening. That is why our relationships must go beyond 'catching up at church' and develop to the point where we not only allow others to sharpen us, but we actually look for it. That is why 'church' is not a place or a time, but a people. That is why so many Christians are 'missing church', but still attend a building and service each week.

May we truly be committed to Christ and to each other.

May we stop expecting all our needs to be met on Sunday.

May we see the difference between the Sunday meeting and church.

May we exhort one another to love and good works.

May we develop our relationships to where we can give and recieve such instruction from each other.

May we stop 'doing' and 'going to' church, and start 'being' the Church.

biblical patience - quickly!

2006-08-07T13:40:00.000+12:00

I want to get the most out of the Scriptures, don't you?

The obvious, glaring question is HOW do we do this? How might we read, understand, meditate on, grasp, learn and grow in the right way?

The Bible - as we have it (which in our time is not at all in universal form or content - but that's a whole diffferent topic altogether) - was completed (roughly speaking) by the turn of the 2nd century. Since then - and increasingly in the last 50 years or so - people have employed many, many techniques and methods for engaging the text. Much of this is wonderful, I think. Unfortunately, we we humans seem to be quite prone to misusing, distorting and destroying anything good (sex, food/drink, authority, relationships, money, etc.). I wish this didn't apply to Bible study as well, but I'm afraid that it can happen and does. Whether it's chanting or reading portions of Scripture while 'listening' for special messages from God, breathing slowly, finding the right posture, or whatever, these concerns don't have much (or anything at all) to do with rightly engaging the Scripture.

Now, I don't have time - nor would I think it my responsibility or within my ability - to systematically identify and de-bunk every technique that you or I might think needs identifying and de-bunking. I will, however, pass on a few helpful (and I believe essential) principles I've picked up from others that we must keep in mind if we wish to read our Scriptures for all they're worth - which I believe to be infinitely more than we may realise.

First Things First?
The first thing is of first importance. More and more, I hear the same question being asked over and over again. The problem isn't this questions itself, but the importance and immediate priority it is given. It is the question of 'what does it mean to ME?' Given our increasingly individualised culture in western nations, I'm not surprised by this. Now, let me be clear. I believe that 'it' has quite a lot to say to 'me' and you. The problem comes when this is our first and primary question we ask of the text.

Our initial task in reading the Scriptures is to attempt to perceive what the author is saying to the audience, and how they might have received it. By this, I mean (taking the New Testament epistle of Paul to Philemon as an example) what is the Apostle Paul saying to Philemon. Sure, 'I' can learn a great deal from what Paul is saying to Philemon, but Paul is not writing to Dale in New Zealand in the 21st century. Our question is what did (in this case) Paul mean? Tom Wright has called this seeking to 'think Paul's thoughts after him.' Paul was not thinking about me.

Our Place in The Story
With this in mind, we dig deeper. But not too deep too quickly. The Bible is full of potentially confusing commands, exhortations and instructions. This is why, secondly, we need to familiarise - and re-familiarise - ourselves with the entire unfolding narrative of Scripture. Tom Wright again has been very helpful for me in this regard. He has popularised a 4-act analogy regarding the story of God's interaction with the world. Within this analogy, we live between the Apostles and chapters 21 & 22 of Revelation, and find ourselves with roles to play in God's fourth act. Our task is not to repeat the first three acts, but to discover how are roles are to be 'acted out' so as to 'fit' with what has come before and to point toward what is coming - namely God's ultimate renewal of Heaven and Earth.

If we don't know how the story begins, develops, expands and ultimately ends, we are all the more likely to 'act' in a way that is inconsistent with it. Mark Strom has described this as the need to be 'patient' with the Scriptures, lest we distort them in our application (i.e. by taking something in the Scriptures and doing it when we ought not to, not doing it when we ought to or doing it in the wrong way than was intended). The old-new covenant distinction is perhaps one of the most common points of confusion that I know of regarding application for us today - again, another topic altogether.

Mark has articulated his 'big-small-big' method for reading which I find very helpful. First, we read the passage with the 'big story' in mind. Second, we observe details in the passage, looking for the flow and looking outward to the expanded context. Finally, we summarise the small picture and locate it's place in the big picture, clarifying the impact of the gospel and living what we find. I think the key difference is that in this model, the personal application for 'me' is found only in the 'big story' and only after we consider the implications of the Gospel.

...'For We Know In Part'...
This 'patience' means that we may have to go through periods of time where we don't have every text nailed down - as if any of us do anyway! We shouldn't be surprised when we read a passage looking for answers and instead get more questions! This happens to me all the time. I find myself flicking all over the Scriptures and looking up various things that pertain (at least that I think pertain!) to where I've begun. Naturally, I've both learned and un-learned a few things this way!

However, if this is the only way we learn or un-learn from the Scriptures, then we are in great danger. Thirdly, and lastly, I want to share the principle of community. The Bible is a community book. Originally written in community. Originally read in community. Originally worked out in community. Studying the Bible privately is a privilege that we enjoy like few other of the many generations that have come before us (hand copies only until the printing press!). We should enjoy this privilege, but not gorge ourselves on it. We need others around us (and around the world, both living and deceased) to sharpen whatever clever ideas we think we might get from our private study. Of course, with the internet, you can always find someone to agree with you (on that note, you can also quite easily find someone who disagrees, but it's much more comforting to only read people who agree with us!) but don't let that stop you from benefiting from the study of others.

***************************

Original writer, original audience - knowing the Story and our place in it - and engaging the Scriptures while being guided by communitiy. I think these principles will serve us well as we attempt to read Scripture for all it's worth - at its worth is great! It will take patience, but like a good meal is much more satisfying than fast food - in more ways than one - so is reading the Scriptures as they were intended.

the bible, the whole bible and nothing but the bible

2006-08-01T15:43:00.000+12:00

I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's absolutely no book in the world like the Bible.

The Bible reveals the great story of God's creation and how He interacts with it. The Bible showcases an incredibly diverse number or groups and individuals, and shows how they responded to the interaction of God. Most importantly, however, the Bible tells us about the Word - that is, the Word made flesh - Jesus. We get to see Him in full flavour, in surround sound, in real history and in unmatched splendor.

Unfortunately, the Bible is also incredibly misunderstood. All one has to do is briefly explore the massive number of Bible-related internet websites (which all claim to be 'biblical' in their own unique, special ways) to see just how radically different people take various passages and themes from the same book. They can't all be right can they? I mean, at least not when they say contradicting things about the exact same topic, right?

Before I say any more, let me say that I am becoming increasingly more aware of the fact that I'm on a journey in my understanding of the Bible. Realise it or not, we all are. This makes some people uncomfortable. Some grow nervous with such talk, because they feel it is leaning towards uncertainty and instability concerning the the Bible. I understand why they might feel this way, but it seems to me that while the Bible will no doubt remain intact itself, our understanding of it's content and message is quite another thing and will always (I might even say must always) be flexible. Do we really believe that the message is living? I do, and while I don't think for a minute that God changes, I still insist that the idea that we simply don't understand Him or His ways is a thoroughly 'biblical' one (1 Corinthians 1 & 13 and Isaiah 40 & 64 are good chapters to read if you ever think you've got God cornered.)

Now that I've said that, I want to pass along some advice that I've taken on board regarding reading the Bible.

First, let me introduce you to a term. It's a term called pre-texting (of course, some of you will be quite familiar with both the term and examples of it's use). In a basic sense, pre-texting happens when someone quotes a verse (or part of a verse) to support a point or belief they are trying to explain. The problem isn't quoting the verses themselves, it's when the verses are used in a way other than they were intended to be. Here's a common example of a mis-use of a verse (text). I once talked to a street 'preacher' who was telling anyone who would listen that true Christians don't sin. He was quoting from 1 John 3:6, which says, "Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him." Seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it? Well, a verse that comes before that one (1 John 1:8) seems to cloud the issue - "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." So if I admit that I sin, I don't know Him, and if I say I have no sin, then I'm a liar? Well, it's a good thing there are more verses in 1 John than these two.

1 John is widely believed to be written in response to an early (late 1st or early 2nd century) group of false teachers (in this case, Gnostics) that believed that Jesus didn't have a real flesh and blood body, and that He wasn't eternal or 'from the beginning.' They basically ignored physical sin, because to them all that really 'mattered' was not the realm of matter, but the realm of ideas, or the spiritual realm (look up 'dualism' and then thank Plato for many such misunderstandings of our universe - many of which still cloud our thinking, and yes can distort our interpretations of Scripture). It seems that 1 John seems to be strongly warning against taking seriously the idea that sin wasn't serious. See how the text comes alive when you read chapter 1 (especially the first 3 verses) with this understanding!

As you can see, the problem is not quoting the Bible, but quoting it out of it's proper context. First, we must know the immediate context (surrounding verses), then the context of the section of the book (If you didn't notice, I intentionally referred to entire chapters above - not just to verses. In a sense, that is still pre-texting, but in a safer way.), then the book itself, etc. Even this is not enough. We need to be mindful of both the textual context and the historical context. That means sometimes we have to study history to better understand the Bible. That also means that we don't always have the right interpretation of the Bible even when it may feel like we do. This is not bad news, or an attempt to scare or discourage you from studying the Bible, but rather quite the opposite. Join with us on the journey! It's exciting! Grow! Think! Learn! Ask questions! Dig for the answers! Own your beliefs! Don't just recite what you learn from others!

At last, here's the simple advice I'll pass on. Read the Bible in large chunks. As respected biblical scholar and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright has said, “Get a sense of the sweep of the narrative. God gave us this book not as bite-sized little chunks, but as a large thing to open and broaden and develop our minds.” I couldn't agree more. Perhaps embracing this ethic of reading larger portions can help us to quote the Bible more faithfully, and not with cheap pre-texting games, where 'my verse is better than your verse'. I also think we possibly underestimate the value of reading the Bible in community, where our interpretations don't go recklessly unchecked, but are able to be sharpened and strengthened by those around us. This, in essense, was what happened (and still happens) when Jews gathered in Synogogues to study. May we in the Church develop and embrace a similar ethic?

We have the opportunity of a lifetime, and it will take a lifetime. We have the thrilling task and calling to join God in His story. We need to know our place in it. As we familiarise ourselves with history and His-story within it, we link arms with each other as we grow in understanding and we also link arms with the long line of Saints before us who thought, prayed, studied, served, taught, sacrificed and struggled to live their part in the Story. It's our turn.

trust God - trust me...

2006-06-26T09:45:00.000+12:00

"Hither Thee unto my hearkening toward Thee, Oh Heavenly Blessed One of Old. Thou hads't bountifully lavished Thy unmerited favour upon me!"

"Yo God! What's up mate? You are so cool! You totally rule, Dude, and that is just sweet like candy Bro!"

I used to think of these examples as the extremes of how a person might approach God in prayer. Sure, they are perhaps extremes with regard to word choice and levels of formality, but more and more, I'm seeing that these two styles of prayer have more in common than I thought.

Before I go there, let me just affirm where both of these types of prayer come from. The formal type often comes from individuals with a strong (and quite proper) conviction to address God with reverence. They may perhaps (again - rightly and biblically) have images of God as King on His throne, and therefore take on the posture of 'kneeling' not only in physical posture, but in their word choice as well. Rather than making the mistake (sin?) of praying something that is 'un'-humble or 'un'-biblical, they aim for ultra-humility and ultra-biblical-ness.

The casual type perhaps comes from individuals who desire to break free from what they feel to be impersonal and overly eloquent methods of prayer. Their convictions take different form in that they, perhaps, feel quite strongly (and not without biblical support) that we are invited to a personal, fatherly way. (the word 'Abba' in Scripture would quite literally mean something like 'Daddy') Rather than make the mistake of not meaning what they say, they opt for a more personal expression of their heart to God.

I think both types have strengths and potential dangers. While I think reverence for God in prayer is deeply important and more and more overlooked, I find it hard to imagine how some of the lofty sermon-esque prayers can be totally free of at least a hint of spiritual pride - having prayed all too often this way myself. There seems to be a subtle arrogance in the 'Amen' to these prayers, as though we might feel quite pleased with ourselves with the eloquent prayer we have just offered. Conversely, while I appreciate the personal and relational informality some bring to their prayers, I am deeply concerned that we may risk losing the vital essence of God's majesty and sheer holiness.

But none of this is my point, really...

There is another dimension that I wonder if we often forget altogether...

"Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
- Abraham in Genesis 18:25 (check out the whole story)

"O God, why have You cast us off forever? Why does Your anger smoke against the sheep of Your pasture? ...O God, how long will the adversary reproach? Will the enemy blaspheme Your name forever? ...Do not forget the life of Your poor forever. Have respect to the covenant;"
- Psalm 74:1,2,10,19,20

"Do not keep silent, O God! Do not hold Your peace, and do not be still, O God!"
- Psalm 83:1

Are we afraid to question God? Do we (for some reason) think that God doesn't want to be questioned? Make no mistake; we are not to ever take God's place, but does this mean that doubts and questions are unhealthy?

Perhaps our desire to maintain a healthy respect and reverence for God may be part of the reason we are slow to embrace our doubts and/or questions, but I wonder if there is another underlying reason. Though it may sound weird to say it, might it be that we don't trust God enough? When was the last time you 'respectfully vented' to God like the Psalmists did? If you can't remember, then I recommend reconsidering your understanding of God. Is your God unable to handle your 'big' problems, doubts or concerns?

I don't think God is in the slightest way afraid of these. Why should we hide them from Him? (as if we really can anyway!) In the same way that God knows our needs before we ask for them in prayer, He also knows how we feel - whether we tell Him or not. But He still wants us to ask for things and to be real with Him about how we feel! We don't need to 'protect' God from who we are. He wants you. He doesn't want 'not' you. We must be honest with Him. Don't trust me, trust Him - He can handle it.

To take things a little further, I wonder if this shows up in our relationships with those around us? If we can't be honest to God, then might we also struggle to be completely honest and real with others? Maybe the reasons we struggle to be honest with each other are the same reasons we avoid honesty with God. We may be trying so hard to respect each other, we may forget to trust each other.

My best friends in life have been the ones who have trusted me enough to do at least these two things: 1.) admit who they really are (how they're really doing, etc.) to me; and 2.) challenge me when they think I need it. To me, it shows that our relationship is not so fragile that they feel the need to walk on egg-shells around me. If someone has a problem with me, I'd rather know it than wonder if they do or what it is, etc. I think that God feels the same way with us - except He doesn't have to wonder - he already knows!

I've heard someone say that by not telling someone when you have a problem with them, you are actually disrespecting them. If effect, you are saying that they can't handle it. True, some people deal with conflict better than others, but dishonesty is not an option if we are to develop better relationships with each other. I'm convinced that the same goes for our relationship with God.

Perhaps no verse summarizes this better than Hebrews 4:16 - "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in our time of need." (I think the idea of the words 'boldly' and 'throne' being in the same sentence should be more striking than we often appreciate.)

I believe I can approach God with such 'boldness' and honesty precisely because I believe He is who He says He is! Let us be people characterised by trust. So much that our trust is evidenced in our honesty toward God and each other.

buying identity

2006-06-13T23:38:00.000+12:00

New Zealand is becoming more like America every minute.

And it's not a good thing.

Yet another Temple for Capitalism (a.k.a. shopping mall) has just recently had it's grand opening not far from my flat. So many people were flocking to this Marketing Mecca that traffic was jammed all opening-day long.

Lately I've been thinking more and more about how my standard of living (and all of the decisions I make to keep it in place) affects the world around me. It's not been a pleasant exercise for me. I've had to realise that many of the choices I make (most are daily) have very negative consequences. This has caused me to think more and more about many things. Take-away beverage (coffee, coke, etc.) cups, plastic shopping bags, plastic water bottles, rediculously in-efficient and wasteful product packaging, disposable goods and other such things don't just disappear when we throw them away.

Allow me to share with you some of the terminology that pushes this type of consumerism along. An article (advertisement?) in the Tamaki and Districts Times, celebrated (venerated?) stage one of the opening of the new Consumerist Worship Centre in Mt. Wellington known as Sylvia Park Shopping Centre. Here is an excerpt.

'Ultimately, Sylvia Park Shopping Centre will feature over 180 specialty stores, indoor/outdoor foodcourt, The Warehouse Extra, Foodtown and Pak n' Save, a top-line specialty fashion precinct that is set to offer consumers an unprecedented range of fashion labels from a single location, cafes, restaurants and a state of the art theatre and entertainment complex... ...Angus McNaughton says that the retail offering at Sylvia Park is the strongest and most diverse of any centre in New Zealand... ...there will be brands and stores making their debut appearance on the New Zealand market to provide shoppers at Sylvia Park with the most comprehensive fashion choices available.'

Another article features the 'new specialised retail store' Howards Storage World with this opening:

'...families strive to cope with increasing collections of electronic gadgets, toys for weekend warriors and wardrobes overflowing with clothing, shoes and accessories.'

Hmmm... Anyone see a pattern here?

The connection between our 'comprehensive fashion choices' and our 'wardrobes overflowing with clothing' is both humorous and deeply unsettling. Also unsettling are the use of the words 'strongest' and 'diverse' in a sentence about a retail centre that promotes anything but strength or diversity. True strength might help us to realise that we don't actually need any more clothes. It might begin to reveal just how obediently we are dancing to the beat of the fashion drum (which waits till sales have peaked and then changes pace to generate another peak). True diversity has nothing to do with people letting clothing manufacturers tell them what looks good and why they should dress just like everyone else.

I know we may think 'it's just business' and that it's harmless, but I think we really need to be aware of the impact that this has on our identities.

Our identities?

Yes. Our identities.

You see, if they can get us to agree with them that we are simply 'shoppers' or 'consumers' then they have succeeded in altering how we view ourselves - and our identity consists of how we view ourselves. We are not concerned with staying 'in fashion' until we are told that we need to 'make room in your wardrobe for the new season.' We are quite content with what we have until we are reminded by countless billboards, store-fronts and countless other forms of advertising that we are about to be left in the dust if we don't keep up with the times. The more I begin to see advertising and marketing for what it really is, the less I'm buying it (literally). We pray 'lead us not into temptation' but happily gaze at magazines that tell us how we ought to dress (and also 'educate' us as to how we might have 'healthier' sex lives) and walk around malls ready to give money to companies who remind us that we can't do without what they have to offer.

I'm no longer seeing these issues as spiritually neutral. I want to live my life thinking about serving others, not myself. I want my imagination to be captured by the call of the Gospel on my life, not held captive by the call of Globalist agendas. I want my identity to be informed and solidified by the Gospel of Christ, not by anything else.

May we support and encourage one another in our true identity which we could never buy, but that was bought for us with Blood so priceless it could never be sold.

love to wrestle - wrestle to love

2006-05-31T13:12:00.000+12:00

People love to wrestle.

They just do. Sure, it doesn't always involve mud, sumos or fake punches (W.W.F.), but people like to engage one another. Games like arm-wrestling, mercy and tug-of-war show that we like to test our strength against that of an opponent.

Things like talk-shows (with their intentionally explosive topics), newspaper opinion columns, web-site battles, negative book reviews and many more examples show that such wrestling often takes place on the battlefield of ideas. Some, when they hear or read an idea that they disagree with, they are compelled to corrective action, as if driven by an unseen force that motivates them to set the wrong to the right. Even people who don't like to argue will engage in some passionate sharing from time to time. This testing, trading and exchanging of ideas seems to be ingrained into our very humanity.

I think this 'wrestling' is a healthy, beneficial and necessary practice for Christians to embrace. But in our 21st century, western, comfortable church communities, there's a problem...

We're horrible at it.

We avoid conflict. We avoid uncomfortable subjects. We avoid wrestling. We let things grow and fester until an issue that would have been merely uncomfortable becomes one that is seen as hopelessly unbearable. Often, issues that need resolving are never dealt with, and if/when we finally do deal with it, our relationships are often never the same or so severed that they seem beyond repair.

I'm convinced that communities that wrestle are much more likely to be communities that can foster lasting unity. Somehow, we seem to all expect unity to happen though avoidance, sugar-coating and/or positivism. I don't see how it can happen that way.

Unity must be grown, maintained and fought for. Certainly this is evident in the Scriptures. Whether it was Moses disciplining the Israelites, one of the many Hebrew prophets calling the people of God back to true worship, Jesus rebuking the disciples and Pharisees, or Paul exhorting the new covenant communities back to their identity in Christ, the struggle for unity is evident.

I find the Apostle Paul to be a shining example in how he protects the unity of the various communities he addresses. First, we can recognise that Paul was probably not writing to these churches because he had nothing better to do, but because there were existing issues that compelled him to write. Second, we can observe how he responded to the various issues that he was confronted with. In Romans 14, he doesn't take sides, but points both the 'strong' and the 'weak' back to an ethic of sacrifice on the behalf of the other (v.14-21 in particular). Consistently, however, Paul becomes incensed any and every time an additional burden is placed on the churches - particularly the Gentile converts (Gal. 5:1-12 and Phil. 3:1-3). Paul didn't even hesitate to name names and even challenges his co-Apostles (Gal. 2:11, 13; 2 Tim. 4:14)!

Whether we like it or not, it seems we - all of us, not just pastors, elders or other church leaders - have a responsibility to know our faith and protect the unity of it. To submit to this calling is to be willing to both give and receive correction - to sharpen and be sharpened - to bounce ideas off each other - to allow others to think differently - to challenge and be challenged - indeed, to wrestle.

This powerful, unique, simple and foundational unity is worth the effort it takes to protect it. How we go about this is paramount. Our protection of unity must not be characterised by control. Unity is not unity if it is forced. This means we must allow people to discuss, question and explore ideas other than our own (which are often actually the ideas of others that we've embraced or been taught).

One misconception I perceive is that we confuse unity with uniformity. Neither Jesus, nor Paul seem interested in everyone being the same in every way (Mark 9:40; Romans 14:5; 1 Cor. 6:12, 7:6-9), however, both are uncompromisingly steadfast concerning the truth of the Gospel (Matt. 10:32-39; 1 Cor. 15:16-17; Eph. 4:4-6).

For the Church, there are many hard and difficult conversations to be had. Many long-standing and long-questioned doctrines and/or traditions are being reviewed (although some of these doctrines and/or traditions may not be as long-standing as we think). Voices that have been silenced and controlled by church leaders throughout the centuries are finding ways of being heard. The Internet alone has provided instant messaging, chat-rooms, web-logs and post-threads where people can find long-desired wrestling partners, and ask the questions they were either never allowed to ask, or were given short, insufficient, simplistic, careless answers to. This is both liberating and scary.

As we head deeper into the 21st century, many challenges await us. With these challenges comes the need for discernment. A balance between the evil of forcing or assimilating people to accept our ideas (are we not falliable?) and the greater evil of teaching that all ideas are equal. It is my suspicion that the more we force ideas on people, the more they will wriggle out from under our the control we think we have of them. However, the more we let them test and embrace ideas on their own, the more they will commit to (and share) those ideas.

While the future may look bleak, perhaps we should remember that we are not the first generation that has faced such challenges. False teachers, 'super-apostles' and 'other gospels' were no stranger to Paul and the Apostles, and they seem to have not gone away since.

Jacob (Israel), wrestled with God (Genesis 35:10), and the people that took his name (Israel) also took on his example. In my Judaism class, the rabbi shared how Jewish communities were and still are marked by their culture of 'wrestling' with God and each other over their Scriptures, yeilding a beautiful culture of learning and growth.

Finally, I suggest that a culture of wrestling will help us to keep small problems small, help us to maintain a sharpening, strengthening and growing ethic in our communities and help us deal with the challenges that the future has for the Church.

So wrestle well, and wrestle with love.

give suffering a hug

2006-05-15T10:08:00.000+12:00

Check out this selection of verses from the Bible...

"Though He (God) slay me, yet will I trust Him." (Job 13:15a)
"I have been afflicted and ready to die from my youth; I suffer Your terrors; I am distraught." (Psalm 88:15)
"My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tonfue clings to my jaws; You have brought me to the dust of death." (Psalm 22:15)

(that all of these verses happened to be the 15th in their chapter was not planned!)

God 'slaying' Job? Suffering God's terrors? God bringing David to the 'dust of death?' Why the selection of such negative verses?

OK, I admit it. I've got an agenda. I'm trying to feature these kinds of passages in the Bible to make a point. What point is that?

I've been observing more and more a theme that seems to run right through the entire biblical narrative. I've observed that the people of God are marked by the way they embrace and/or accept suffering. Yep. Suffering.

The people of God before Christ suffered under Egyptian control, in the wilderness for 40 years, on the battlefield, during the ongoing and up-and-down cycle of replacement of Judges, as their kingdom was divided, under the oppression of the Babylonians and in the shadow of the Roman Empire (even though they were 'home' in Jerusalem). The church also suffered. The apostles and many others suffered beatings, oppression, imprisonment and eventually death for the cause of the advancement of the Gospel. I agree with many others who are convinced that the best thing for both the health and growth of the church is persecution. Indeed, one of the worst things to happen to the church might have been when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire in the 4th century.

I am convinced that the suffering of the people of God is an important characteristic for us to understand and consider in light of our surroundings. Do we embrace suffering like those that have gone before us? Do we (in our comfortable, western, affluent environment) really have the slightest idea what real suffering is?

Guess where the church is growing? Where it is suffering. Guess where the church is arguing about how to do church services, which are the best programmes and what are the right leadership structures? Where it is comfortable. I don't think that is a coincidence.

In the midst of battle, you don't need to know the rank, status and position of the person who is watching your back, you just want to know that someone - anyone - is watching your back! As a critically ill patient in a hospital, you don't care about the color of the wallpaper or the style of the physicians garments, you just want to know that someone will give you the medical attention you desperately need! Tough times certainly have a way of helping us (maybe forcing us?) to have better priorities!

It's interesting how we pick and choose our favourite Bible verses, and how those verses differ from the verses of those in 'developing' countries. As Rich Mullins said, "They underline different parts of their Bibles. We're all excited about being born again, and they are excited about selling their possessions and giving to the poor." Maybe instead of assuming we have all the right church-ways, we should ask them about church?

Here's a startling statistic from Don Fleming's booklet Catching The Fire, "By 1960 the number of Christians in the non-Western world had reached 32% and by 1970 was about 36%. But throught the seventies and since, the growth has been extraordinary. By 1980 the figure had grown to 50%, by 1990 it was 66% and by 2000 it had reached 75%... Today, possibly 80% of all evangelical believers are in the non-Western world. The sad reality is that most Christians in the West are either unaware of it or have difficulty accepting it."

Later on, he goes on to discuss how instead of us sending our books, programmes and church-ideas over to them, we should take out our pen and paper and take note of why it's working over there! "Christians in the West are still buying books, but many of these books have only a tenuous connection with the Bible... What's more, this dubious material from the West is being pumped into some of the poorer countries, because the Western producers can afford to send it free, knowing that poor people tend to take anything they can get for nothing. The Western church should be learning from the church in the developing world, but instead, it is spreading the West's disease."

Coming back to the topic of suffering, Don writes about what he calls our Western exectation of a pain-free life. "We do not know how to deal with suffering - not just illness, but death, war, persecution and poverty - much less how to embrace it in the name of Christ. We know what the Bible teaches about accepting hardship and sharing Christ's suffering, but in reality most of us secretly feel we have a right to a pain-free life... After the devastating floods of Mozambique in 1999, the response of one local Christian was, 'We don't blame God; we trust Him.' "

I can't agree more. Our faith seems to only affect what CD's we buy and which church services we go to. Our comfort and laziness have, as Don suggests, made us "the world's greatest complainers."

Where is the Job-like attitude that is reflected in the opening verse, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust Him."? Why do we read the Bible looking for verses about ME? History is His story, and it's primarily not about us! We are not commanded to be successful, efficient or organised. We are commanded to be obedient. Certainly we will grow (and be successful as a by-product) as we reach people - and certainly we don't need to waste resources (time, money and people) - and certainly dis-order and/or chaos is warned against (1 Cor. 14). But it's easy to see these things outside the proper perspective, and let them become our goals rather than by-products of our goal.

At any rate, my growing conviction is that it is not the growing, obedient and flourishing church in the developing world that needs our critique or advice, but actually it is the assumptions and traditions of our own comfortable, convenience-infused and selfish churches that need to be fiercely challenged. May we have the integrity to take an honest and humble look at ourselves and even more so may we have the courage to make changes where needed. Corporately and Individually.

creating an honest-ward ethos

2006-05-05T14:29:00.000+12:00

'Dougherty' was a nice guy.

Aside from chatting about sponsoring a particular charity, our conversation turned to many random things. Campbell clans of Scotland, Life in New Zealand (he was from Ireland), and... human sexuality. He told me about a friend of his that had a pastor who gave him some opinions about sex that were so devoid of coherence that I won't bother repeating them here. Though I perceived we didn't see eye-to-eye on human sexuality, I was pleased that our conversation remained peaceful. Talking about human sexuality is controversial enough, but my, how the sparks can fly when you discuss this topic from a faith perspective!

Unfortunately, meaningful dialogue about this issue is nearly impossible. I say it is unfortunate, because I think our understanding, respect, appreciation, and use of sexuality is one of the most important things for us to be talking about. I see a few things that make these needed conversations more difficult:

-Sexuality is often one of the most emotionally charged topics, and therefore one of the most avoided.
-The chasm between opposing viewpoints is not getting any smaller.
-Little or no desire to see the other individuals' or groups' perspective is apparent.

Christians are much to blame for this lack of dialogue. Even when motivated by genuine concern, our message can often be received as one of hatred, indifference, self-righteousness, exclusion and arrogance. Indeed, as someone has well said, 'We are all too often known for what we're against, than what we're for.' We appear to be quite concerned with pointing out flaws in others and not as concerned with being open to such correction from those around us (take a moment to look up the very familiar Matthew 7:1-5 and compare with the less familiar Isaiah 65:5).

If I am to be truly loving, I cannot approve of all behaviour. I do, however, have a growing conviction that so often the way we deal with 'mis-behaviour' can actually create a culture which causes people to hide from each other, rather than a culture of honesty, transparency and healing. Another way to say it is to assert that whilst our wounds can't be dealt with if we ignore them or pretend that we are 'wound-less', we also must remember that a 'wound-hunting' ethic fosters a 'wound-hiding' ethos. In my friendships with others, I am committed to building an ethos of transparency and honesty. If I truly care about my friends, I must not sugar-coat their problems (or put band-aids on their gushing wounds). They must be discussed openly and frankly. This will never happen if my relationships are characterised by formality, pretense and positivism.

I will probably never see Dougherty again, but I hope our conversation can be one step among many in the direction of creating a more honest dialogue between the Church and the world. With God's help, we can - one person at a time - change the world's perception of the Church. We can repair the broken and shattered image of grace that is meant to accompany the term 'Christian.' We can restore the withered message of love that is meant to be embodied in our lives. We can mend the torn fabric of truth that puts on flesh and loves, heals, comforts, cares-for, mends and restores people. We can be the hands and feet of Jesus - again.

wanted: 'messy' relationships

2006-04-29T14:47:00.000+12:00

I have a friend who has all but left the church...

The agenda of the churches has has been associated with has left him wanting...

Please read his cry for help written months ago...

life never stops...even if you do. People change, I change....the cycle of death and life doesn't just pertain to the physical....but also to relationships and friendship and even your own personal being...It's just strange I guess......I feel as though I'm outside of it all.....I just watch it all go by like telephone poles outside a car window...... gone as quickly as they come.... I've met some amazing people lately.... real genuine people that I'd love to get to know.... but somehow I am unable to cross the barrrier that seperates my life from theirs.....to break into their circles, their worlds....I live in a glass box.....people come and watch for a moment, for I am a novelty a new thing to enjoy, but the excitement soon fades and they walk away with those they love and I, I am unable to follow, bound by invisible contrainsts.... I'm sure all of you who are reading this think I'm crazy or could use some help, and perhaps I do....I admit that my life is a mess, and I know that I have made that mess myself.... I admit that I am not living up to my potential, that i could be so much more than I let myself be... But there is something invisible that holds me, something I cannot see...... I need help, perhaps that is the whole reason i write this... I need to know what true Christian love is again.... to know that there are people who won't just leave a comment that says "I know how you feel, I'm praying for you" which is a well and good....but the help I need is messy help, the kind of help that frodo gave to sam, and sam gave to frodo.... a single person or a group of people who realize the broken state that they are in....that do not sugar coat life and pretend to be better than they are.... I need real people.... I need to look behind the mask and not be repulsed by the ugliness within because I know that they see the ugliness in me since my mask lies shattered on the ground. I need to hold someone as they cry, and be held as my world collapses around me.... Please don't tell me, "well that's what Jesus is for..." Because all of you have the potential to be His arms....to be His voice....to be His eyes that weep along with me as we all walk through this thing called life. The answer does not lay within myself....trust me I've looked.... the answer lies in people.... all giving, all taking... all needing eachother... all knowing that we are all the same.... This is a bearing of my heart to all of you.... It is not me asking for answers.... It is just me wanting to see the real you.... and knowing that we'll all make it....broken, weary, worn down, crying and laughing at the same time at the sheer ridiculousness of the pain that we all have felt, but always knowing that there is someone there to pick us up when we fall, or to lay down in the mud right next to us willingly and just crying with us....... I suppose there is more....but this is enough for now....

from a naked heart,
(name removed to protect identity)

Before you try to prescribe the magic cure for my friend, please hear the honesty in his plea.

We certainly do need each other.

Do you know that? Let it sink in. Let it go deeper than just intellectually agreeing with the statement. Dare to think of things you participate in that actually hurt the nature of your relationships. Be honest with yourself. Take some time to do that now...

(really... stop what you're doing... think about it...)

Loving each other is not systematic. It is not regular, controllable or convenient (or as Derek Webb says, it is not efficient.) It is hopelessly random, uncomfortably personal, terribly schedule-wrecking and more importantly, it must be REAL. There are people in your life that need you. The opposite is also true. There are people in your life that don't need 'not' you.

Be real for someone.

getting intimate in the garden

2006-04-03T15:41:00.000+12:00

There's more to the Garden of Eden story than just apples, trees and snakes.

Adam and Eve had the most precious thing in existence: unhindered, unbroken and fully realised intimacy and union with God! What more could a human ask for? On top of that, they had a complete and totally healthy relationship between them!

Think of it. The First and Greatest Commandment AND the 'second' one. Done. But they wanted more. They bought the lie that they could be like God. This brought many consequences, but the one I'd like to highlight here has to do with the loss of intimacy.

Remember what Adam and Eve did right after sinning? Well, not only did they gain an ever-increased concern for their nakedness (resulting in the birth of the clothing industry), but they also did something that (at first) seems rediculous...

They hid from God. Isn't that just hilarious? I mean, why would you ever think that you could hide from God? And by the way, didn't they know they were naked all along? What's with the random fig-leaf fashion statement? What in the Garden of Eden is going on?

Question. What is the opposite of unbridled intimacy and joy in relationship with God and each other? Hiding. Adam and Eve 'hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God.' (Gen. 3:8) Why did they do this? Adam explains for us a few verses later: he was afraid. Sin had put a barrier of fear between him and God. The secure bond of love and intimacy was shattered into the fearful isolation of guilt and shame.

We still experience these shattering effects today. Sin continues to make intimacy unbearable. Some of the hardest things to produce in humans are honesty, vulnerability and transparency. Recently I admitted to some friends that I like to keep people at arms length, so they don't see my faults. I prefer having a lot of acquantences rather than having a few really close, honest friends. After all, if I let someone get too close to me, they might love me enough to challenge, correct or sharpen me.

I must not allow this to happen.
I must protect myself from this every happening in my life.
I must keep my relationships shallow.
I must hide.
I must make myself a suit of fig-leaves.

Allow me to assert that in Christ we have no reason whatsoever to hide! The shattering effect of sin has been undone by the Cross of Christ! No guilt! No shame! No fear!

If only we would dare to believe that we are really, totally, wonderfully, perfectly and completely cleansed of our sins (past, present AND future) by the blood of Christ! If only we would dare to be intimate with each other! If only we would be real, honest, vulnerable and transparent!

Intimacy is not neat, organised or systematic. It's relational.
It's not expedient, efficient or entertaining. It's rough ground.
But most of all, intimacy means not hiding.

In Christ, we can have the confidence to know just a little of the freedom that Adam and Eve knew before they sinned;

"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." - Genesis 2:25

changing our thinking about change

2006-03-13T12:17:00.000+13:00

Change.

It has happened.
It is happening.
It will happen.

Spiritually, It has happened...
If your faith is genuinely in Christ, you are not what you once were. There are many passages in the Bible that talk about this. Jesus had a conversation with Nicodemus about being 'born' a second time. (John 3) Jude writes about 'the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.' (Jude :3) Peter writes to Christians about not forgetting that they have been purged from their old sins. (2 Peter 1:9) John agrees by writing that Christians 'have passed from death to life.' (1 John 3:14) A particularly well-known verse is from Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17. 'Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.'
This transformation is complete in the lives of believers. It is as secure, steadfast, unchanging and solid as God's nature. You can count on it! The tough thing is that it's a spiritual change. We can find hard to trust what God says about us when our circumstances are staring us in the face! That's why we need to remind ourselves and each other so often!

Mentally, it is happening...
With our spiritual transformation behind us, we are then called to grow in our understanding of who we are in Christ. Peter told the early believers to 'grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' (2 Peter 3:4) Another popular verse about this was again written by Paul to the Roman Christians to 'be transformed by the renewing of your mind.' (Romans 12:2) The tense of this command is continual. A literal translation might be more like 'be being transformed' or 'be continually transformed.' The entire Bible is filled to the brim with passages talking about growing in our understanding of God's love and grace.
This is not about just getting more head-knowledge. When you get a chance, read 1 Corinthians 1&2. Paul has some pretty strong words there about relying on knowledge. What God wants is not for us to know lots of things, but rather to know Him! Head knowledge causes our minds to puff up, but heart understanding helps us to grow up!

Physically, it will happen...
We look backwards at our spiritual change, commit ourselves to the current process of mental adjustment, and we also wait and hope for the change which is yet to come, which is physical. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 about the bodily transformation that awaits all believers. Our bodies will be free from disease, pain, or weakness and unhindered by the effects of aging. Paul may well have had this in mind when he said that to live was Christ and to die was gain!

Let us remember our spiritual transformation with gratitude, grow in our mental grasp of that transformation, and yearn for the day of the final physical transformation!

choosing temptation?

2006-02-27T14:16:00.000+13:00

The sign read...

Shirts. $15.

It's safe to say that I'm not obsessed with fashion, but to say that I couldn't care less about how I look wouldn't exactly be true either!

At any rate, I like a good deal as I was walking past this particular clothing store, I almost popped in. I didn't, though. I turned up my nose (in anti-materialism smugness) and strided past. I was quite proud of myself for not visiting the store... until my thoughts took me further.

Sure, I had chosen not to enter the store for some quite good reasons. One of those being that I have enough shirts that are wear-able, so I didn't really need another one. But as I thought about my actions further, it became clear to me that the most motivating reason for my recent 'financial carefulness' was none other than the fact that I had realised my need to save money for my upcoming wedding, honeymoon and receptions!

It turned out that my choice wasn't driven by the pious, super-spiritual, anti-commercial motivation that had made me feel like I was so much better than everyone else...

This got me thinking about temptation.

A popular church leader has rightly said that we can't say we are faithful unless we've ever been tempted to be unfaithful. We can't say that we have integrity unless we've ever had the opportunity to lie and resisted. We've no right to call ourselves patient unless we've gone through stressful circumstances, etc.

Don't worry. I'm not saying that we should go looking for temptation.

I am saying, however, that temptation is a part of God's plan.

Yep.

God Himself promises never to tempt us (see James 1:13), and we always have a way to 'escape' when we are tempted - which sometimes means not allowing or 'fleeing' from even the opportunity to be tempted (see 1 Corinthians 10:13). However, He most certainly allows and uses temptation in our lives (see the entire book of Job). Actually, we are all tempted. So was Jesus (though He didn't give in... see Hebrews 4:15)

I've been reminded that it's really just prideful of me to be so proud of my little miniature 'victories.' Would I be so satisfied with my wardrobe if I had plenty of money in the checking account?
I've also been reminded that when we are careless with our choices (where we go, what we do, when we do it, what we view, who we spend time with, etc.), we shouldn't be amazed that we often find ourselves giving in to temptation!!!

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." - 1 Corinthians 10:12 (emphasis mine)

good will toward us

2005-11-28T15:35:00.000+13:00

At the time of Christ’s birth, the angels said to the shepherds, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!” (Luke 2:14) Isn’t that an amazing idea that God extended His good will in our direction? He did so in the very act of Christ taking on our flesh and dwelling among us (John 1:14). It’s the act of incarnation. Christ gave up the comfort and prestige of heaven and willingly chose to live a life filled with discomfort and mockery. Our Lord went through times of loneliness, being misunderstood, physical exhaustion, hunger, agony, pain and yes, death.

Christ knew from eternity what would come with His incarnation. This Christmas, perhaps we can recognize our calling to be like Christ in this way. We are called to go into the world in the same way Christ did. All too often Christians instead choose to live cozy lives of faithful church service attendance, Bible studies, and friendships with other believers. We are quite comfortable to speak to each other in Christian-ese and continually listen to our favourite style of worship music.

Of course, I’m not trying to devalue the utter importance of Christian fellowship. Quite the contrary. I’m just saying that our calling includes so much more than fellowship. We must go into the world. We must learn the language of the world. To do this we must risk being… uncomfortable. It means we don't force people to listen to our stories until we've listened to theirs. The willingness to do this doesn’t come naturally, but super-naturally. May we have the courage of Christ in us to motivate us to sacrifice our comfort, reputations, productivity, lifestyle or anything else that is keeping us from fully answering our calling to be incarnational.

humble pie inc.

2005-11-22T09:19:00.000+13:00

It's interesting how various Bible verses have their 'day in the sun.' A very popular verse recently has been 2 Chronicles 7:14. This verse has made it's way into many articles, books and songs. It goes like this:

"If my people, called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

I've heard lots of talk about what this verse says about prayer, seeking God's face, and turning from sin, but I've not heard a lot about humility. If you look at the verse, humility is listed first.

What is the opposite of humility? Pride. I believe that pride comes from having confidence or assurance in anything other than Christ. Boasting is prideful. Paul said that he would not boast in anything except in the Lord. Paul's confidence and assurance was not in himself, but in God. This exemplifies the kind of humility alluded to in our featured verse.

Humility means more than boasting only in the Lord. It also means that we must not ignore the way things really are. By this, I mean that we must admit when things are not as they should be. After all, is there really ever a time when we have it all together? Is there ever a time when we don't need God? Is there ever a time when we can truly depend on ourselves?

In Christian circles, we learn all too quickly how to speak Christian-ese. We are taught to always be happy, positive and enthusiastic. Happiness comes and goes. Joy, however, lasts through even the tough times. Joy admits it when things just aren't going well, and Joy isn't shaken because Joy comes from confidence and assurance in Christ.

God uses tough times and allows 'negative' circumstances in our lives to cause us to be more dependent on Him! It was at times like this Paul said that when he was weak, then he was very strong! Weakness in yourself = strength in the Lord! Humility about yourself = boasting in the Lord!

According to the featured verse, we can pray, seek God and try to turn from sin, but unless we are humble, it doesn't matter.

"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." - James 4:10

love and firewood

2005-11-07T15:58:00.000+13:00

Attention couples!!!

We're quite educated in the ways of showing affection, aren't we? Two flawless bodies on a billboard with arms and legs intertwined in new, creative ways... just shocking enough to make you want to buy the clothes they are half-wearing... two people on a park bench rubbing each other up and down as if they were freezing to death... Should we be listening to these suggestions though? Why or why not? Affection is harmless enough, right?

Don't worry, I'm not going to waste any time trying to discourage any certain forms of affection. I do, however, want to think for a moment about the contrast between physicality and commitment.

The physical stuff is visible, concrete and undeniable. The ideas behind them are invisible, abstract and often cloudy. Also, the two can sometimes be totally separate. Consider people in modeling or acting. The physicality is there, but I doubt there is any commitment or relationship. Conversely, in some marriages gone cold, there may be a certain level of commitment, but no passion or intimacy.

So how in the world can we build strongly committed relationships with healthy physicality? How can such a balance be started and maintained? Is it possible?

I think the answer lies in a helpful analogy I've learned from Tommy Nelson in his study on The Song of Solomon.

He relates physical passion to gasoline, and rightly points out that a relationship built on that alone may have large flames for a little while, but has nothing left afterwards. He talks about the need for the 'firewood' of commitment and character.

I think it's interesting to note as well that the more firewood you have, the longer the fire lasts! Are we sometimes guilty of impatiently gathering a few small twigs, drowning them with gasoline and feeling frustrated that the fire doesn't last? Possibly?

God is more than aware of the pain and hurting that comes with failed relationships. He doesn't want us to go through the pain! He wants to give us His best!

I'm not a fan of all the charts, graphs or rules that people try to create for successful relationships, but I will say this: For the sake of your heart, keep the gasoline in the can until you've gathered the firewood of commitment and character. Then you can enjoy the warmth and security of a committed relationship.

excuse me, do you have the time?

2005-10-31T13:01:00.000+13:00

Recent world disasters (tsunamis, earthquakes, plagues, terrorism, war, hurricanes, etc.) have many people wondering about the 'end of the world' and whether or not we are close to it. I think it's good to talk about these things and have an answer for anyone that asks. Lots of Christians disagree about the timing and details, but I think there are a few things that we all can agree on that are really important.

1. Jesus is indeed coming back. (Acts 1:11, 1 Cor. 11:26, 1 Tim. 6:14-15, Tit. 2:13, Heb. 9:28)
Jesus was and is real. He really walked, talked, healed, ate, drank, spat, slept, prayed and much more on this very planet. He really was crucified, buried and resurrected. He really is coming again.

2. Nobody but the Father knows when it will happen. (Mt. 24:36, Acts 1:7)
This one should silence a lot of people, but unfortunately hasn't. The point is to be ready, not to obsess over when it will happen.

3. It will come 'like a thief in the night.' - (Mt. 24:43-44, 1 Thes. 5:24, 2 Pet. 3:10, Rev. 3:3/16:15)
This means it will be a surprise, or happen very suddenly. Again, the emphasis is on being ready, not on trying to figure out when it will happen.

We're not the first people to wonder when the End is coming. Matter of fact, you could easily say that every generation since Christ ascended to heaven has expected Him to come back in their day. Various people over history have even had the nerve to try and predict the exact date or year of His return! They've been wrong, and more importantly, they've missed the point.

We were never expected to figure out when it will happen. We ARE expected to be ready. A popular Christian leader has well said, "We must BE READY as if His coming could happen at any moment, and MAKE READY as if His coming is a long way off."

I think the Enemy likes us to be distracted by the what, when or where. Therefore, we must remember to be more concerned with the who (Christ and others!) and the how (love!).

Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour...” - Matthew 25:13

still hangin' on

2005-10-25T09:34:00.000+13:00

"I'm hangin' on... you're all that's left to hold on to." - Bono in Red Hill Mining Town

Yesterday I had two conversations about relationships. You know, the romantic kind. Aren't they exciting? I mean, isn't the thrill of discovering that someone else is thinking about you just priceless? It's a little more than obvious that the human race is consumed with obtaining this feeling. I just saw an ad for yet another online dating company, mate1: intimate dating. What a joke! Intimate? Online?

Both of my conversations yesterday touched on the undeniable pain and misery of 'breaking up.' We talked about how all of your hopes and dreams come crashing down in mere seconds when this happens.

The common thread in my two discussions yesterday was this: both people I talked to shared with me the belief that we should never put our 'hopes and dreams' in anyone other than Jesus. All three of us were speaking from much experience as well. The thing about humans is that it's not a question of if they will let you down, it's a matter of when!

In a song called "Wedding Dress," Christian songwriter Derek Webb refers to 'lovers less wild' that draw us away from Jesus, the One who loved us (as another of his songs points out) 'to death.' He is the One who died for sinners. He is the One who won't take back His love. He is the One who will never cheat on you. He is the One who will patiently put up with your junk.

May you be able to say to Jesus, "I'm hangin' on... You're all that's left to hold on to."

-Dale

now that's relaxing

2005-10-17T10:13:00.000+13:00

"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
- Jesus in Matthew 11 (emphasis mine, and maybe Jesus, too)

For some people, this passage is refreshing, freeing and memorable. Others simply give it an affirming nod and move on. Others (if they're honest) might admit they're not sure what Jesus is getting at with all this talk about rest. Rest from WHAT? What does it mean to labor and be heavy laden?

Practically, we know that Jesus was referring to what Judaism had become. The Pharisees had placed too much emphasis on rituals and outward things. Jesus had a radically different way of life in mind. Still some of us may find it hard to see how this relates to us today. After all, only about 1% of the world's population is even Jewish.

There is a Pharisee inside all of us.

The Pharisee mindset has to do with proving your worth to God by doing good things. And not just doing them, but doing them better than others! Unfortunately, the Pharisee mindset often drives many really positive acts of ministry and Christian organisations. This 'philosophy of works' can slip into the minds of the most genuine Christians.

We must never mistake 'works' for 'fruit.' Fruit is a natural by-product of a relationship with Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. God Himself inspires, directs and empowers our actions. And these 'fruit-actions' never have anything to do with us getting the credit. 'Work-actions,' however, can be and are done without a relationship with Christ and have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit at all. As much as we may try to claim God's 'sponsorship' of our efforts, we really want the credit to go to us. We want to be known as 'spiritual' or 'a good, serving Christian.'

Fruit and Works, Relationship and Religion, Devotion and Duty. They often look the same to us, but to God, one is worthless and the other priceless.

-Dale

the gospel blimp: a review

2005-10-10T10:22:00.000+13:00

I've just finished a book called, "The Gospel Blimp, by Joseph Bayly." It was published in 1960, but it's amazingly relevant to Christians today.

The story begins with a group of typical, white, middle-class, protestant Americans having a get-together in one of their back yards. The discussion turns to evangelism, and after some time, an idea is floated that would change their lives for the next few years: a Gospel Blimp. The proposed Blimp would be visible to the whole city and would carry a simple Christian message. They look across the fence and notice the neighbors smoking and drinking beer as usual. This all-too-familiar sight provides the necessary motivation and soon all agree to commit to making the Blimp everything it needs to be to evangelise their city. They especially pray that the next door neighbors would be the first to be saved through the blimp.

Over the next few years, the group sees International Gospel Blimps, Incorporated (I.G.B.I) grow and develop far further than they ever expected it to grow, finding support from many Christians. Prayer meetings, publicity personnell, PA systems, lighted signs, the works. The I.G.B.I. committee experiences ups and downs, family trouble, interior conflict and resolution, sacrifice, success, tradgedy and a host of other twists and turns. Possibly the worst of these is that the couple with the next door neighbors eventually leave the committee altogether. That doesn't hinder the commitment of the rest of the committee. They press on.

Eventually, the story closes when the couple that had left invites the committee over to their house again for a BBQ. Also invited to the BBQ were the next-door neighbors. Only they had become Christians. The various committee members are eager to hear the long-awaited story of how God used the Blimp to touch their hearts and draw them to faith. The committee is shocked when the neighbors said that God hadn't used the Blimp to save them. They instead had been deeply moved by their neighbors recently increased involvement in their lives. Their love and care for them through some tough times had been a huge witness to the love of Christ. Toward the end of the BBQ, one of the committee members thinks he will take this golden opportunity to invite the new Christian husband to the Blimp hangar the next morning to help others with their work on the Blimp. The neighbor has to decline because he has plans with a couple of his neighbors to go bowling.

I recommend reading this book in it's entirety, because I think it vividly portrays how many sincere, genuine Christians can be a bit misguided in their efforts. An essential ingredient for Christian witness has always been and will always be love. Selfless love. Even if you have to miss a few Gospel Blimp prayer meetings, or not be involved altogether.

-Dale

let's see some I.D. please

2005-10-04T13:42:00.000+13:00

One of the most bizzare notions in the entire universe is also one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. It's the idea of a new identity.

The over-abundance of self-help books, 'inspirational' seminars and 'inner-peace' tapes/CD's only begin to show our human obsession with life change. We want it. We crave it. We need it. We know something is wrong inside of us, and we will try anything to make it better.

Unlike the comforting, feel-good, wholeness, positive message of these mediums, the message of the Cross is offensive. The Cross doesn't hide our weakness, but painfully exposes it. The Cross doesn't try to fix our broken lives, but ends them! In the book, Grace Walk, Steve McVey rightly points out that we don't get our lives changed, but get them ex-changed!

At times we forget that the Empty Tomb and the wonderful promises of newness of life come only after the Cross and it's shame. Humanity would love to have the power of the Empty Tomb, but is too proud to humble itself to bow to the Cross. Take a fresh look at the following verses:

Jesus in Luke 14:27, "The man who will not take up his cross and follow in my footsteps cannot be my disciple." - (Phillips)

Jesus in Mark 8:35, "Whoever wants to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it." - (New American Standard)

The Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me; and the life which I now live in the body I live through faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself up to death on my behalf" - (Weymouth)

Paul in 2 Timothy 2:11, "This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him." - (New King James)

This dying is not a once in a lifetime occurance, either! For God's life and power to flow through us, we must take Jesus' advice in this last verse:

Luke 9:23, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." - (King James Version)

yokes, disciples and dust

2005-09-26T10:04:00.000+12:00

Note: I've shamelessly 'borrowed' some of these concepts. You can find them yourself if you research Judaism. Also, Rob Bell covers them quite well in his book, "Velvet Elvis" and his Nooma DVD entitled "Dust."

Studying the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament, or the books of Moses) is an integral part of Jewish life. In Jesus' day, Jewish boys would begin Torah study around the age of six (bet sefer), and would memorize it entirely! Around age ten, while the majority of the boys would begin learning their fathers' trade, the best of these Torah students went on to study other Jewish writings and memorize the rest of the Old Testament (bet talmud)! That's right, even Psalms and Proberbs! Finally, in their early teens, the best of the best of these would apply to a rabbi's disciple (bet midrash). They didn't just want to know what the rabbi knew, they wanted to DO what the rabbi DID. If a rabbi thought the student could 'do what he did' (known as a 'yoke'), he would 'call' the student to be his disciple by saying, "Come and follow me." The student would then leave family, friends and his whole life to follow the Rabbi and take his 'yoke.' Each Rabbi's 'yoke' was shaped and influenced by the interpretations of the Scriptures that the Rabbi had, so some 'yokes' were more strict or 'heavy' than others. Following the Rabbi wherever he went inspired the Jewish blessing, "May you be covered in the dust of your Rabbi."

Jesus was a radical rabbi...

When other rabbi's looked for the cream of the crop, Jesus called fishermen and tax collectors! That's right, He called those who didn't even make it past learning the Torah! He also said that His yoke was easy, and His burden was light!

These radical actions and words of Jesus highlight His turning away from burdensome, strict, ordered processes of learning and teaching. Jesus' emphasis was on relationships. He must have believed that if His disciples loved Him, then they would be like Him!

Perhaps this sheds new light on the Great Commandment to love the Lord your God, and the Great Commission of Jesus to go and make disciples of all nations. He wants us to share a way of life with eachother and the world that He said was easy and light. He wants that way of life to flow from a relationship with Him.

Are you involved in a discipleship relationship?

May you see the importance of your relationship with Christ above all others.
May you realize the calling of Christ to disciple-making.
May you understand that this means disciple-being as well.
May you be covered in the dust of your Rabbi.

god's toolbox

2005-09-20T10:00:00.000+12:00

"Behold, I am sending you out like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as cunning as serpents and as innocent as doves . . . When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say. You will be given, at that moment, what you are to say. For it will not be you, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." (Matthew 10:16,19)

God has a big toolbox. Contrary to popular Christian tradition, his tools are people. The verse above says that He is sending 'you.' We commonly refer to organisations, programmes or church meetings as tools. Sure, God can and does use these, but He still chooses to create these through people. The people are His tools. We are His hands and feet.

Even though most every Christian realises this, we still often tend to rely on human inventions rather than on God and His Spirit working through us. Allow the following illustration:

Concerning evangelism, we have a mindset that says we are to lure our non-christian acquainences to various church services or 'gospel meetings' so that they can encounter the gospel, be confronted with the message of Jesus and hopefully place their faith and trust in Him.

This IS a valid method of evangelism, but it is ONLY ONE method! Thankfully, God has a LOT more ways to reach people than just gospel 'meetings.' And to be completely honest, there is somewhat of a large contrast between this method of evangelism and Jesus' method, which is not gospel meetings, but gospel lifestyles.

Jesus tells US to GO. He wants US to share the Gospel with the world and teach them about Christ. We cannot and MUST not rely on 'the preacher' to tell our non-Christians about Jesus. 1 Peter 3:15 says,

"But in your hearts, set apart Christ as Lord, and always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within you whenever someone asks, with gentleness and respect."

Like it or not, if you are not prepared to share the Gospel with your friends, you are in disobedience to Christ.

And by the way, we MUST share the Gospel with much more than only WORDS. As a popular author has said, we must share the tesimony of our LIFE and LOVE, and earn the right to share the testimony of our LIPS.

Will we make ourselves ready to be used by God, or will we continue to stay buried in the bottom of the toolbox?

Dale

asking the wrong questions

2005-09-12T12:23:00.000+12:00

"Love someone. Any way you choose to love them is fine, but you need to do it at the right time, with the right flowers and at the right restaurant."

Stop and think. What is wrong with this command? Read it again carefully if you need to.

It tells me when to love, with what to love and even where to love, but what other details might you need? How about who and how? Do the what, where and when really matter if you have the who and how figured out? I don't think they matter one bit.

Isn't it refreshing that God's New Covenant commandments to us don't even bother with the what, where and when? Let's look at the Two Commandments of Jesus Christ.

1. Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Do you see anything in these that have to do with what it looks like to do this, or where or when to do this? Of course not. It appears that God isn't as concerned with what, where or when we love Him, but instead is concerned that we indeed are loving Him and how we love Him.

Another example about this from Jesus is His discussion with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well in Samaria about the differences between Jews and Samaritans. She reminded Jesus that Jews believed that the Temple in Jerusalem was the TRUE place for worship, but that the Samaritans were actually the right ones, because the real TRUE place for worship was the mountain in Samaria. The reply of Jesus is paramount. He told her that the time was coming and had already come when she would not worship God on the Samaritan mountain or in Jerusalem. (What!?!) He then tells her that True worship is not where, but in Spirit and in Truth (how).

Who do we love? The LORD first, and then our neighbor.
How do we love them? With everything that we have. Every affection, moment, possession, thought, feeling and effort.
Where and when do we do this? What do we do with with? It just does NOT matter.

Don't let anyone make you feel guilty for not attending the latest, hippest Christian conference.
Don't let anyone pressure you attend an event.
Don't listen to those that tell you you MUST read this book or do this bible study.
Don't believe the idea that certain rituals of prayer, bible-study or worship are any better than others.
Don't let anyone control you but God.

but it looks like love

2005-09-05T14:55:00.000+12:00

What does it look like to love God and my neighbor?

I know, I know. You might be getting a bit numb to the topic of love. Maybe you have love figured out. If so, stop reading right now. This article won't apply to you. If you're like the rest of us, you can probably admit you have a thing or two to learn about True love.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were clear, precise, practical examples of what True love is? Then we could stop guessing and just do it, right? Some of us long to be told just what to DO in order to demonstrate True love. Would that help? I'm not convinced that it would.

You see, what looks like love isn't always the real deal. Truth is, we ALL know what love LOOKS like, even if we don't know what love IS. Just think of all the donations to charities all over the world that would never be made unless someone was looking. There just has to be something in it for us. It's not flattering, but it's the truth. The world runs on selfishness. And what's really scary is when selfishness is disquised as humility or generosity.

So I won't waste any time telling you to talk to your neighbor even if they aren't like you; I won't try to tell you where the line is between affection and disrespect for your boy/girlfriend's body; and as much as you might like me to, I won't try to tell you how to learn to love people you don't like or that don't like you. That is behavior modification, and it doesn't work. Sure, it might make things look a little bit better, but at the end of the day, no change results.

What I WILL do, is point you once again to the best example of love that we have. The one act of Grace that echoes through all eternity, silencing all other acts of love. The sacrifice that out-does all of our petty performances of trying to love others. The death of Christ.

"In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He l oved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." - 1 John 4:10-11

May God's love be perfected in us... period.

-Dale

crashing

2005-08-29T11:02:00.000+12:00

Last night, I saw the movie "Crash" with a group.

It basically told several inter-weaving stories of people dealing poorly with people. The themes included rage, impatience, vengance, racism, power-trips and more. We weren't left with a very hopeful solution for humanity, but I could appreciate the realism with which the topics were addressed. Kinda nice to know that we are nothing like the people in this movie, huh?

Not really. Truth is, those same emotions are in all of us. Yeah, you. We're all guilty of some serious over-reaction to various annoying things.

The sub-heading for the movie was something like this: "When you're moving at the speed of life, you're bound to collide."
That is actually quite profound. Why does this happen?

Perhaps we really ARE shockingly disconnected from one another.
Perhaps we really ARE disqustingly comfortable.
Perhaps we really ARE lethargic to do anything to change this.
Perhaps we really ARE terribly self-centered.

As long as we insist that the problem is with someone ELSE, we are going to continue to be frustrated.
As long as we insist on placing high expectations on others, they will continue NOT to meet them.
As long as we insist on finding fault with others, we will continue to NOT see (or rationalise or lessen) our own faults.

Slow down, think, be honest with yourself. Why are you so frustrated with him/her? Why are you allowing their opinion of you to control you? Etc., etc.

"Cease from anger, and forsake wrath; Do not fret - it only causes harm." - Psalm 37:8

-Dale

are you sure you want love?

2005-08-15T11:00:00.000+12:00

We need to ask ourselves this question again.

Is it really love we are seeking? Have we forgotten again what real love is? Just about anyone will admit to the universal desire to love and be loved in return, but we are seriously going to hurt and be hurt if we fail to not only realise what true love is, but act accordingly.

Our picture of love is very incomplete. We have images of companionship, smiles, hugs, kisses and a host of other wonderful things. What we love to forget is that alongside those nice images, there need to be a few more. Sometimes love is stern, grim and menacing. Sometimes silence, rebuke and conflict is a more than necessary part of love.

The difference between love and true love is that true love is rooted in Truth. It must be. It has to be.

We are all guilty of what I like to call ‘keeping people at arms length.’ We like companionship, smiles and hugs, but when someone gets close enough to us to see faults, we take a few steps back. Often times, the people that care the most are the ones that care enough to say a few things we don’t want to hear. THAT is why seeking comfort is so harmful to growth! We stay a safe distance from those that will ‘sharpen’ us, and spend oodles of less meaningful time with others who we simply ‘get on’ with.

“Mockers don’t love those who rebuke them, so they stay away from the wise.” – Proverbs 15:12

So let me ask you one more time…

Are you SURE you want love?

-dale

a comfortable amount of discomfort

2005-08-09T12:02:00.000+12:00

In the Christian life, one mistake we can make would be to think that we have no further need to grow. How ridiculous is that? Thankfully, I don't know many people who think that. However, a much easier mistake to make is to fail to recognise how growth happens or fail to allow growth to happen in my life.

If we don't understand how growth happens, we are likely to either falsely percieve growth that isn't really there, or falsely believe that it can't or won't happen. Still yet, even if we do understand how growth happens, we are likely to resist the process.

We want growth to happen, sure enough, but we can't get past the biggest obstacle: o ur desire for comfort.

Growth requires discomfort. That fact is unavoidable. It's as true as the reality that water flows downhill.

If we are ever going to grow as Christians, it means that we are going to have to give up level upon level of comfort in our lives. Read this next sentence carefully.

If you want to be more loving, you will HAVE to learn to put up with un-lovable people.

(Might wanna read that one again.)

Truth triumphs over feelings. We can't rely on feelings. Frankly, I don't FEEL like loving people that aren't like I want them to be. But when my mind is renewed with the TRUTH that I am no better than they are, I am enabled to love them, whether I FEEL like it or not.

May we recklessly love one another in a true, self-less, Christlike way.

Grace and Love,
Dale

painting with no canvas

2005-08-01T13:10:00.000+12:00

Evangelism, evangelism and more evangelism.

This is the desperate cry of many churches around the world (or at least in the wealthy, comfortable, 'established' parts of the world). We are losing members fast, and we want to get them back. So, we launch ourselves into much activity to bring about the desired result. Books are written, strategies are implemented. Seminars are given. At least two groups arise out of the activity.

1. Individuals who are oblivious to the lack of 'evangelism health' and are not moved to action.
2. Individuals who are obsessed with need for evangelism, and feel the need to force the others to action.

Evangelism is a commandment of Jesus, but to emphasize the Great Commission while forgetting the 1st and 2nd Commandments is a grave error. The purpose of the Church is not merely to evangelise, but firstly to bring honour and glory to God. It's not the first Good Idea, it's the first and Greatest Commandment! That means it cannot be excluded! If we are just trying to do all right things without doing them out of devotion to Him, then we are just contestants in a rather large morality contest.

An over emphasis on Evangelism often reveals a mis-placed priority on the number of people in our churches. Do we want to reach people because we love our Master or because we love the idea of being "spiritually successful?" Let's consider this analogy:

If we're building a house, the order of progression goes something like: foundation, floor, walls, roof, wall-board, many other things, and finally... paint. If we use this analogy to represent evangelism, let me say that I think we are standing around during the entire project holding a brush and a paint can. We're not really interested in the 'foundations' and 'floors' and 'walls' of the Gospel, love and self-lessness. This is lazy evangelism. The fact is, you might have to actually CARE about the person you are trying to reach. If you do care about them, you might start doing some radical things like... oh, I don't know... making time for them, investing in their lives, meeting their needs and the like.

"I am the vine, you are the branches. Apart from me, you can do nothing." - Jesus

-Dale

fools and rules

2005-07-18T15:38:00.000+12:00

Last week, we talked about how important thoughts are.

This week I want to continue that theme as we look at a passage in Galatians. Our thinking about sin and righteousness just plain matters. In the first century, Paul, who was a Jew among Jews (Gal. 1:13-14), was radically transformed into the Apostle that we know so well for reaching Gentiles (non-Jews) with the Gospel. When he converted, he eventually joined the rest of the Apostles. In Galatians, Paul recalls a 'disagreement' he had with Peter (yes, Peter.) and a few of the other Apostles. (And you thought disputes in church were a recent thing?) Paul literally got in Peter's face about being a hypocrite. When Peter was at Antioch, he had no problem eating with Gentiles until some folks arrived that said that believers had to be circumcised. Peter was afraid that he would be seen eating with these uncircumcised Gentiles, so he stopped eating with them!

Paul openly rebuked him, asking him why he should expect Gentiles to live as Jews, when he (a Jewish believer) lived as a Gentile? Paul then reminded Peter that justification (being made right with God) was not from keeping the Law (Old Testament requirements), but by faith in Christ!

Now, I could rant and rave about how churches have all kinds of traditions that they force people to participate in, but I'd rather address a deeper question...

What is your salvation based on?

Some of the early Jewish-Christian believers of the 1st century struggled to welcome Gentiles into the church. After all, they were the good, moral, circumcised, Sabbath-keeping ones. They were appalled by these Gentiles walking around like they own the place. After all, these 'other' people didn't keep the Sabbath, they weren't circumcised, they ate pork and other non-kosher food... they just weren't like them! How could these people be believers?

The Apostle Paul consistently reminds us that we are not saved by what we do, but by the grace of God. That's it! It's true! Done deal! You don't have to jump through all the right hoops or measure up to any standards.

"I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes from the law, then Christ died in vain." - Galatians 2:21

May we recognise where our life comes from, and extend grace even to those who don't dress, talk, smell, look or act like we do.

Trusting in His Grace,
-Dale

help! i'm not acting right!

2005-07-11T10:22:00.000+12:00

Thoughts, Feelings, Actions

Here's a theologically loaded statement:
Right beliefs (ortho-doxy) create right feelings and lead to right actions (ortho-praxy).

As Christ-ians, our life (and thereby, our life-STYLE as well) is all about Christ. This is true isn't it? Whatever we think, feel or do ought to be thought, felt or done in regard to Christ. Pretty amazing to think that Christ wants to renew our thinking, give us joy, and (as if that's not enough) DO great things through us.

Thoughts
It starts with our thinking or our beliefs, doesn't it? They are of utmost importance. When we actually believe that the God of the universe would not just merely be interested in us, but also would be willing to die for us, that has an effect on us!

Feelings
Once we are thinking straight, and it starts to sink in that Christ paid a debt that we would never have been able to pay, I'm just guessing that our feelings should take perhaps a small positive turn! That is what joy is all about! Would a prisoner that had been freed from a death-sentence show no emotion? Well, whether you realise it or not, or just have forgotten, If you are a Christian, you were a prisoner, and you have been set free from your death sentence!

Actions
This is where it gets interesting. We tend to be terribly distracted when our actions (or someone else's) are either lacking or not of the right "kind." If we're not careful, we can slip into a pattern of thinking that our actions shape and form our beliefs. It's the other way around. Our REAL thoughts and beliefs are seen in the way we act. It's a tricky distinction that can easily be missed. Put plainly, you can't serve your way into having Christian beliefs. You can, however, believe your way into serving in a Christian way. As church-type-people, we often act like the former statement is true. We care less about what people believe or how they feel, and instead just try to find ways to get all of the Christian jobs done! We must not do this.

If you are experiencing a 'dry spell' in your Christian life, check your beliefs and feelings. One of the many great things about the Christian life is that we are not simply converted and then put on a shelf, we are grown, tested, tried, bruised, etc. These bumps are to cause us to remember Who we are intended to rely upon. The dry spells aren't there to get us to try harder, but to help us realise our inability to please God with our flesh, and remember Who our strength is. One of the greatest passages in the Bible about God's will for living the Christian life is the beginning of the 12th chapter of Romans. Among other things, it says to "be transformed (continually) by the renewing of your mind."

Thoughts are important.

Blessings,

Dale

i love you because...

2005-07-04T11:24:00.000+12:00

Find True Love Now...
What's More Fun Than Love?
Live. Love. Learn.

Perhaps you've seen the following tag-lines for one of the latest online dating services, called True. The success of such services says something about the way we think about love.

We seem to want it really bad.
We seem to hope we "find" it someday.
Also, we seem to be extremely afraid of getting hurt by it.

Thoughts matter. The Bible says, "as a man thinks, so is he." (Proverbs 23:7) Our thoughts determine our actions. So, what is wrong with our thinking about love? It's not just about romantic love, either. May I make a few suggestions that will hopefully apply to all of us?

We are all familiar with how abused the word love is, right? I love ice cream... I love God... I love my brother... etc. It appears that we often think that love is simply what it means to like something so much that your affection for the thing moves outside the realm of 'like' and into the green pasture of 'love.' While this is partially true, I think we're missing one of the most essential aspects of love.

Unconditionality.

As humans, we are just selfish. This is the easiest truth to demonstrate. We love ice cream because it does something for our taste buds, or we might love email, because it makes it easier for US to stay in touch. When we apply this logic to inter-personal relationships, we end up 'loving' people because they do something we like, make us feel a certain way, etc. As long as they maintain this appealing quality, we continue to 'love' them.

Stop thinking like that. (Romans 12:2)

If we continue to love one another like that, we are destined for failure. The minute someone lets us down or doesn't meet our expectations, we withdraw from what we thought was love. Imagine if God loved us like that! We would have NO hope. Perhaps that's what Paul was getting at when in 1 Corinthians 13 he talks about this long-suffering, not self-seeking, patient kind of love. Perhaps that's what Jesus was getting at when he challenged the disciples to love their enemies, for "if you only love those that love you, what reward is there in that?" After all, Christ died for us "while we were yet sinners."

You might be starting to realise just how HARD it is to love people that are... well... HARD to love.

Next week, we'll look at what Galatians 5 has to say about HOW to love like that.

In His Grace,

Dale

no offense...but you're worthless

2005-06-28T11:16:00.000+12:00

It's just not what you read in the newest self-help books.

It's completely contrary to every trend in society. We adjust grading methods to make students feel better about themselves. We say that everyone is special and don't stop to consider that by saying that, we make no one special. (this is well illustrated in the brilliant movie-cartoon: The Incredibles) Why do we do this? What's the deal?

So many of the belief-systems in the world struggle to deal with the condition of humanity. I think this is very interesting. The fact that humans are bent on selfishness is quite possibly the easiest truth to demonstrate! We all hide our wrong and promote our good. Yes, even in churches! We look for the fastest lane in traffic, and the shortest line at the grocery store. We're always looking out for our own best interests!

I love Christianity for many reasons, one of which is it's realness. Jesus wasn't out to flatter humanity. His disposition with humankind is very succinctly described by His half-brother James, who wrote that God "opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

One of Jesus' most striking message to humanity was that we aren't good enough. He raised the 'bar' of morality so high that nobody would be able to say they were good. That is why Jesus was always barking at the Pharisees! He called them white-washed tombs, and made no 'bones' (pardon the pun) about how he felt about their self-righteousness! In sharp contrast, He forgives and welcomes sinners who are repentant and aware of their moral bankruptcy. The Apostle Paul echoes Jesus' message in passages like the third chapter of Romans, where he quotes various passages in the Psalms: "There is none righteous, no, not one... none who seeks after God... they have together become unprofitable (see title of this article)... etc., etc.

As Christians, our confidence is NEVER in ourselves. Not in the past, not now, and not in the future. We were never good enough, we are still not good enough and we will never be good enough! The technical-theological definition of grace is undeserved favour. Take a good guess why it is undeserved. Because we can't earn it, and we don't earn it!

Why are so many Christians BORED with the Christian life? I think we have forgotten just how BIG a deal God's grace is!

May we live in the awe of God's grace to the point where we see for ourselves just how 'amazing' it really is.

In Him,

Dale

through the week

2005-06-20T11:13:00.000+12:00

Greetings,

So how was your church on Sunday?

This phrase illustrates how grossly incorrect we use the word 'church.' We use the word as if it means a place and a time (most commonly the church 'building' on Sunday morning). Some of you will be familiar with the greek term behind our english word church which is 'ecclesia.' The literal meaning of this word is 'those called out' or 'called out ones.' So in the book of Romans for instance, the apostle Paul was not writing to 'the building in which Christians meet' at Rome, but to 'those called out' at Rome. Many of you will know that many early churches in the first century met in homes. For centuries, however, the majority of Christians have met in buildings. Lately, you will have noticed that the trend of 'home groups' has been popular all over the world.

Can I just say that I don't really believe it matters WHERE or WHEN the church meets? Can I also say that even though we must meet corporately together, the Church is not (or at least should not be) defined by what happens when 'it' meets? We tend to compartmentalize our lives in to sacred or secular sectors, and this ought not be so.

In Acts 2, the earliest christians met daily in the temple because that was a central place of community for their Jewish culture. Reading these kinds of passages, you quickly get the idea that there was never a time or place when the early Church was not being the Church. We ought to follow their example. Didn't Jesus himself say that WHENEVER two or more are gathered in His name, that He would be there with them? So why do we argue about where and when to meet?

In modern days, Christians are very concerned by how our services run, and what percentages of people are in small groups, etc. We find safety and comfort in such noble things as mission trips, bible studies and meetings. I'm interested in joining God in being a part of a culture of Christians that are letting Christ live in them to the point that it makes sense that they bear His name. Not a once or twice a week irrelevant gathering of warm bodies, but an ongoing, constant culture of self-sacrificing, serving, slaves of Christ. May we begin that culture in our own hearts.

In His Grace,

Dale

tough going

2005-06-13T11:07:00.000+12:00

Alright,

Let me share what I'm learning about how God shapes us.

People approach the Christian life with different mindsets. Some literally think that God's sole purpose for their existence is that they can be happy, fulfilled, financially independent, popular, etc. True, the Christian life
comes complete with times of happiness and fulfillment. And yes, God will allow many Christians to live quite public and comfortable lives. He even sometimes uses that for His glory. But none of these are His sole purpose. He wants us to KNOW Him.

Our relationship with Him is a relationship that is not just initiated by faith but also grown and/or shaped by faith. And yes, I think the whole idea of faith has been prostituted in the church. Faith is dragged through the mud as some kind of force that you grab a hold of and harness and if you can manipulate it, you can have huge blessings. That idea is a gross mis-interpretation of biblical faith. Perhaps the best synonym I can think of for faith is the word trust. We don't manipulate God to do something for us, but we trust that even if we don't get all of our greeds, He will still provide our needs.

So how are we shaped by faith? God allows really frustrating things to
happen to us. Yep. If God wants you to be more loving, He doesn't create the most likely environment for love, but instead will allow the most frustrating person you've ever met to cross your path. To build patience, He'll allow you to switch from lane to lane on the motorway only to find that each lane you force yourself into becomes the slow lane! He's not
interested in our comfort, but our character!

"Hey church! When you fall into different trials, see the joy in it, and know that God is testing your faith and wants to build patience!" James 1:2-3 (Dale's loose paraphrase)

ByDefault is all about knowing God to the point of being compelled to love others. A mis-understanding of God's work in our lives can be a real barrier to knowing Him more. Right beliefs lead to Right feelings, which lead to Right actions.

In His Grace,

Dale

not the Doctor

2005-06-06T21:43:00.000+12:00

Howdy,

Last week we addressed how poor usage of time can and will keep our churches and lives from being 'hospitals.' Hopefully, we all took a much needed look at just how busy we are.

This week, let me share some more thoughts, taking the hospital analogy just a bit further...

How DARE we act like WE are the doctor!!! What am I talking about? Am I contradicting myself? Let me explain...

We are NOT the doctor. Nope. Not in the 'hospital' of the Church. We can be assistants, nurses, janitors, and even patients, but we must never call ourselves the doctor. The Great Physician, Jesus, is the One who mends broken hearts, heals wounds and saves souls. We are His apprentices, and yes, sometimes His patients.

As apprentices, we need to KNOW the Physician more and more. As we do, we will get better and better at the work He wants to do through us. We must not try to improve on His methods or timing, but trust that He knows what He is doing. Are you trying to be the Doctor in someone's life? Are you trying to 'fix' them? Or are you leaving room for God to grow that person, using His methods and in His time?

As patients, we need to TRUST the Physician. He allows us to get hurt but has a purpose for it and wants to use it to grow you. Later in life, you can be there for someone going through what you're going through now! Are you upset that God is letting you go through a certain situation? He is NOT there to keep every bad thing from happening to you (though many Christians act, believe and pray this way). He IS there to be TRUSTED. Let the Physician work. Are you resisting the authority of the Doctor? Are you trying to 'fix' yourself? Hello? YOU CAN'T!

He will allow you to struggle and struggle to 'fix' yourself and succeed for a while and then fail. You know the cycle? Up, down, up, down. You have to take your hands off the wound for the Physician to get in there and heal it. Yes, taking your hands off of it might mean others will see it, but it's the only way for REAL healing.

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." -Jesus

In His Grace,

Dale

what all did you do today?

2005-05-30T15:07:00.000+12:00

Alright,

Last week we looked at an anaolgy between churches and hospitals. Makes sense enough, right? Well, there is one thing that will KILL our ability to turn our churches into 'hospitals of grace'...

Being busy.

Want to know one force that NOBODY has ever been able to stop or even slow down??? The force of time. It just keeps on going. That's why it is so precious!!! Many, many attempts are made at helping us 'make the most' of our time. The race is on to see how much 'stuff' we can get done in theleast amount of time.

Much more could be said, but suffice it to say that our busy lives are killing us. We are tired, worn out and lethargic. This has a lethal effect on our ministry. We show up for 'church' once and twice a week, and wonderwhy it often seems so meaningless, so irrelevant, so.... dead.

We need to make more time for church in our lives. No, not more of what we do on Sunday mornings or Wednesday nights (or whenever), but time for the growing of relationships. Ironically, the church 'building' isn't usually the best place for 'church-building'. (that sentence might deserve a re-read)

Please, I beg you, take a look at your schedule. Write it all out if you need to. Cut out the bad stuff, cut out some good stuff, then leave time open for the best stuff. STOP patting people (or yourself) on the back for being busy! It's cancer to individuals and the church!!! And we're all prone to get it!!!

"for my yoke is EASY, and my burden is LIGHT" - Jesus

Love and Grace,

Dale

excuse me, nurse?

2005-05-23T11:09:00.000+12:00

Howdy,

This week, I want to focus on 'realness' in our Christian lives. Let's be honest, most of the time, Christianity is a dog-and-pony show where the 'most spiritual' award goes to the one with the least sin, and the biggest smile on Sunday morning. Is that the goal? Is that even reality? Is that what Jesus had in mind for the church? I think not.

We need to be open and honest with eachother. I look at a church (not the building or the time spent in the building, but people) as a HOSPITAL. Hospitals are full of people that are hurting. Hospitals are places where people go to have their wounds healed. Can you imagine how rediculous it would be if an injured person went to a hospital and the doctors and nurses were apalled and disgusted by the wounds they had?

"I'm sorry, miss, but we don't allow bleeding here, can you please cover that wound? It's making many of the others uncomfortable."

Is this not what we do in our churches? Sure, we give much lip service to the idea of being a place of healing, but secretly, we wish for good, clean, sin-less, happy, european, comfortable church members that are more 'like us.' I desire to be the kind of Christian that people know they can come to when they are hurting.

This week, ask the Holy Spirit two questions...
1. Am I the kind of person people can confess sins to? Can people be 'real' with me?
2. Am I confessing my sins (specific) to anyone? Am I being 'real' with others?

May our lives and our churches be hopitals of mercy and clinics of grace...

In His Grace,

Dale

fully automatic

2005-05-23T11:08:00.000+12:00

Alright folks,

I understand how busy each of you are, and want to respect your time, so each week I'll keep it simple...after all, these truths aren't really hard to understand, otherwise I would be wasting my time trying to understand them myself.

The concept of ByDefault is not mine. I think it's God's, so that's that. I have learned (and continue to) much from several people about these truths, but again, they don't belong to me or anyone else. They're from the Bible, a book that I haven't always thought to be very relevant, but have seen how alive it really is.

ByDefault will address a problem that I believe is of the utmost importance. That problem is that we are not real. We have relplaced the gospel and spiritual life of true, biblical Christianity with an aesthetic, non-spiritual game-show that we ALL play. In other words, Christianity sometimes is reduced to a morality contest. While morality is a good thing, and a natural by-product of the Christian life, it is NOT at the center of our faith. Christ is. We forget/minimalise how sinful we are, and forget/minimalise how great our Saviour is. This week, think about how refreshing it was to know that you can come to God empty-handed, without 'cleaning up', and be forgiven by what GOD has done, not what YOU have done.

Christianity is not D-O (what I can do), but D-O-N-E (what Christ has done)!!!

In His Grace,

Dale

hmmm...bydefault...

2005-05-23T11:06:00.000+12:00

Howdy,

I'm starting a weekly email called ByDefault...

I almost had my email groups set-up before my laptop was stolen, and I'm just now getting them ready. I want to use ByDefault as a chance to encourage all of you in your personal dependence on Christ. Some of you might not have had my email before, so here ya go...

It would be great to hear from you all. I'd love to know what is going on in your lives! Some of you I already have had the chance to get to know really well, but I'd love to get to know others more as well. I want to do anything I can to encourage you, so here's my 'foot in the door.'

Why call it ByDefault? Well, my desire for my life, is that I would have a dependent relationship with Jesus, and be keenly aware that I can't (and shouldn't) do anything without Him. Then, as I live in that attitude of surrender, by default (automatically) I would experience His life being lived through me!

"I am the vine, you are the branches...without Me, you can do nothing." - Jesus

I look forward to hearing from you!

Dale Campbell
Youth Pastor
Ngaire Avenue Bible Chapel
3 Ngaire Ave., Epsom
Auckland, New Zealand, 1003
9.523.3346
021.407.205
dale@nabc.org.nz