Via this blog I found Abso Jesus
He has some great cutting cartoons.
This one was my favourite
Commenting on Anne Rice
3 hours ago
Showing newest posts with label theology. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label theology. Show older posts
The issue of hypnotism is one I don't claim to fully understand nor to think about that often. However, it came up at Ridley the other day and one of the girls there had thought much more about it than most of us. He point of view (via her sister) is that hypnotism is not a bad thing, which was my default position.
That girls sister has posted an interesting post on the subject with some good resources to think more about this issue (see here).
You may not be facing it now, but no doubt in the future you will probably come across it. I'm still not sure what I think, but I'm certainly more open to the idea than I was last week.
On Monday night, Ellisa and I went along. About once a month (I think) our church goes along to The Anchorage with some nice food and puts on a bit of a supper for the men who live there. We hang out with them for a couple of hours playing poker, or watching tv, or just chatting while they eat. It was a very eye opening experience.
I was struck by a few things. Firstly the men in this shelter are not ‘normal’. That is, it wasn’t a bunch of guys who had just had a bit of a bad run, it was a bunch of guys who mostly had mental issues from a past history of drug use and abuse. Most of them had no idea of what reality was, and many of them would change their stories as they were telling them. The idea that such a person should just toughen up and go get a job, as those on the Right of politics may say, just does not meet the reality of these people. They are unemployable, they have ended up in the Men’s shelter for a reason. But then again if it is the Right who propose simplistic go get a job solutions the Left’s typical solutions of education and money would do little as well I think. No amount of money or education is going to help these men.
I think that this could be part of the reason that our society can’t deal with people like these men of The Anchorage. Our great gods of progress and success are money and education and the self. We either spend lots of money to fix our problems or we educate people to fix our problems. Problem is in some cases people are uneducatable and unable to use money well and they are incapable of caring for themselves. If all the guys in the Anchorage were made Millionaires tomorrow then I suggest they might actually be worse off than they already are.
So what do we do? How do we deal with people like this? When Jesus was on earth he said that there will always be poor people (Mat 26:11; Mark 14:7; John 12:8). In Deuteronomy 15:11 it says something similar and tells us what to do about it, “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open-handed toward those of your people who are poor and needy in your land.” I think as Christians then our aim is not to ‘Make Poverty History’, but rather it’s to be generous and open-handed towards the poor and needy in our world. We are to do justice, to love kindness and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8), but I don’t think we need to put our hope in ending world poverty.
Having said that, there will be a time when no one is poor. When no one has to suffer the effects of drug abuse and where everyone will love justice, kindness and walk humbly in the presences of the living God. That time will come after judgement day when Jesus judges this world and recreates a new heaven and new earth. There will be no crying or shame or poverty here. Our hope is in Jesus’ return and our love for him compels us to care for the poor now; to alleviate their situations somewhat but not to hope in it’s eradication on this earth. If you’re moved by poverty then you ought to pray that God would give you boldness to share his good news to everyone you encounter and pray hard that Jesus would return soon! That’s what I’m gonna start doing.
Saw this tweet on Alan Hirsch's twitter the other day.
"If the church had only the four gospels to go by, what would it look like?" ~ Hirsch/Frost, ReJesus
I don't get the question? It would look like an incomplete church with less theological richness and absolutely no way of understanding the only four books it had. How would we understand all the Old Testament quotes, how would we fully realise just who Jesus was and what he had come to do? How would we know that Jesus will come again victorious?
I know it's a thought experiment, but I don't really understand why you'd want to do it?
Maybe someone can explain to me!
I feel like I think, and my experience seems to match this, that my day to day battle is against sin and my own sinfulness rather than against Satan and his schemes. I also feel like this makes good sense of a passage like Romans 7:7ff. But obviously there are passages like 1 Peter 5:8 where we are told the Devil is our enemy/wants to eat us.
Has anyone worked this out or had similar questions?
Are there any good books on the subject?
Ok, so the title of this post is deliberately provocative, but it reflects something that I see out there in the world of Evangelicalism. Something that I've been guilty of, and probably will do in the future, but something that doesn't sit right with me, and something I want to avoid. I speak as someone who considers himself in this camp, so I'm not lobbing a grenade from afar.
As an aside, for those from America who read this blog, my understanding is that in Australia the title Evangelical is a lot more tightly defined and would include people like Mark Driscoll and Tim Keller, and probably Rick Warren and Bill Hybles at a stretch for some (though probably not the people I'm going to talk about in this post), but definitely not Joyce Myer or Joel Osteen. In Australia Hillsong are not Evangelical, they are Pentecostal, but the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is Evangelical.
Anyway, I was reading a blog post on a well known Evangelical Australian's blog and in it he was keen to rule out basically anyone who didn't fit his tightly defined categories of theology and church practice, as being not evangelical and by implication, probably not Christian, at least not as Christian as he and his church was. Now this sounds all too much like the Pharisees to me. You see, the Pharisees were so keen to keep God's law as it was perfectly written that they interpreted their Bible and set a bunch of laws that must be followed and then proceeded to rule people in and out of God's kingdom by virtue of whether or not they could match their interpretation of the law. We all no what happens in the end, they ruled out Jesus and killed him.
Now, I don't think Evangelicals (I'd like to think I'm one of them) are in anyway in danger of ruling out Jesus in their theology and in fact I happen to agree with much of it. The thing is though I see a great danger in the way some of us are heading in ending up like the Pharisees. We have our interpretation of the Bible figured out and then we rule people in and out of God's kingdom by virtue of their theology and then maybe their church practice (i.e. raising hands, singing passionately, crying in church, having a ministry time, playing music at the same time as someone talks, whatever). These are the things I would love to see more of in Evangelical churches, so maybe I'm really a closet Charismatic - thankfully I still think they are Christians! It's ok to disagree on style, but it's dangerous to make it a theological issue.
It's good to argue for more exegetical preaching in churches, less fluff, more talk of God's saving us from hell (Although as I've been having some interesting conversations at college about the different aspects of the Gospel which might need to be emphasised depending on the culture we are faced with). But we must not forget that there are other people who would not identify as Evangelicals, who may have some wonky theology in places, but who love the Lord deeply with all their heart and who love their neighbours as themselves. Who know and trust in Jesus alone for their salvation. I'm not sure we should be ruling these people as immature believers or at worst fake Christians simply because they sing different songs to us or have a different way or organising themselves or get preaching that doesn't really cut the mustard (although isn't heretical). In fact perhaps occasionally they may even have more theological insight than we do?
So I'm not saying it's bad to stand up for the truth. I'm not saying there isn't wrong theology and right theology. I'm saying there are Christians who are Evangelical and there are Christians who aren't and I don't believe if they major on Jesus and his saving work that we should write them off for secondary things.
So I'm not saying it's bad to stand up for the truth. I'm not saying there isn't wrong theology and right theology. I'm saying there are Christians who are Evangelical and there are Christians who aren't and I don't believe if they major on Jesus and his saving work that we should write them off for secondary things.
Over on Tim Chester’s blog he has a great post here about how the way we spend our time and money reflects that we actually think of church as a show or an event rather than a community or a family.
Tim also has a new book on porn due out soon. Be sure to check it out and get your hands on it as no doubt it will be fantastic!
Do you think you primarily think of church as an event or a family?
I see this most often with Christians arguing amongst themselves about theology. But also between Christians and Atheists who both make assumptions about the other that probably aren't true.
So if you do this, please stop.
So I've had this thought recently, and I thought I'd put it on my blog.
I'm a Christian because of what Jesus has done on the cross. I believe that is fact and I believe that because of what Jesus has done I am made right with God and now have the Holy Spirit growing and changing me to become more like Jesus through all the circumstances my life might throw at me.
I'm not a Christian because I see God's hand at work in powerful miracles of healing and special knowledge. I do believe that miracles and things like that happen. I know a boy involved in some of the youth stuff I do who speaks with truthfulness and sincerity about the miracles God has done in his sick little brothers life to make him well again. I don't doubt them one bit. And I am strengthened and encouraged by these awesome works of God. But I'm not a Christian because of miracles. My faith isn't dependent on God acting in miraculous ways. I'm quite comfortable with the idea God might allow much hardship in my life in order to make me more like Jesus.
So yeah, what I'm basically saying is that if our faith is not in the cross of Jesus Christ, but in the power of God to do miracles now, I'm not sure we'll be people who can go the distance on the narrow windy tough road that can be the Christian life.
I forgot to read that one in the Bible. I also forgot to read about how when things got tough breaking the law was ok. However, Rev Jones from the UK thinks it's a clear principle from the Bible that allows people to steal.
The married father-of-two insisted his unusual advice did not break the Bible commandment "Thou shalt not steal" - because God's love for the poor outweighs his love for the rich.
"My advice does not contradict the Bible's eighth commandment because God's love for the poor and despised outweighs the property rights of the rich," he continued.
"Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift. The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are.
Maybe if he'd left it at an observation that some people are forced to shoplifting because of our greed he would have been alright. But he should have qualified that by saying there is no good reason to shoplift and that if you are one of those poor people the church will help. Or something.
See the whole story here
Ok, so this is not a comment on the views of those in favour or not in favour of women being ordained to preach and minister the sacraments, but rather a comment at a frustration I have with the way the argument is structured. (I have problems with both sides at different times)
My questions is this... Some people see a major injustice with teaching that a women is in someway supposed to submit to a man (usually her husband or pastor). They ask questions like, "Are women fully human?" What they mean is that if you hold the view that a women should submit to men and restrict them from some roles then they are somehow not fully human because that means they don't have the same opportunities as a man.
So my questions is this. Why is it that our opportunities are the things that make us fully human? Is there a list somewhere of all the opportunities someone should have in order to be fully human? Does a person need to be able to walk or talk or hear or have access to a computer, or read, or be educated in order to be fully human? What makes us fully human? Is fully human even a real category? As opposed to those half human half horse men I sometimes see...
My point is this, I'm not sure the argument is or should be about someone's ability to be fully human, because I think that our humanity is not about what we can or can't do, but about who we are and our relationship to God. I really think if you take the fully human question to it's logical conclusion you would have to say disabled people are not fully human because they don't have the capacity to teach or lead others? Or that the poor child in Africa is not fully human because her poverty denies her certain opportunities. I am uncomfortable with that.
Does this make sense? Why am I wrong? Or right?
I cannot even understand how someone would arrive at the idea that the KJV is the only Bible that God approves of? It makes no sense. The Bible wasn't written in English therefore it must always be translated. 500 year old English sucks for 12 year old kids and most 25-50 year old adults, so why not update the translation from the original languages as many have done? They even admit in the video that they think other Bibles are ok in other languages... One word: stupid. I'll be keen to see if the book burning BBQ grew their church to 15 members or more!
Came across this free e-book by Tim Challies today called Sexual Detox (HT to Mikey). There is one for single and one for married guys.
I highly recommend it and just finished reading it. Only took me about an hour to read.
It had some pretty good things to say about sex and it's purposes and our need to focus on God and his plan and purposes for sex. As someone who sadly is coming into my upcoming marriage with sexual baggage I found it both a challenging and encouraging read. I'm thankful for God's grace to us and I pray that He will help my past not mess up my future too much!
I think the last paragraph sums up the book nicely:
The fact is, God does not give young men free passes when it comes to sin; he does not allow you to run wild for a time and just “get away with it.” Sin carries with it consequences whether you sin at eighteen or eighty. Turn from your sin today. Pursue freedom. Pursue Christ.
One thing really caught my eye when reading this book though, It relates to the quote below. Especially if you are married I'd like to know your thoughts! It seems quite a radical way of thinking about sex to me!
Even if you have no desire to have sex, have sex for your spouse’s sake. Even if neither you nor your spouse have a desire to have sex, have sex for God’s sake out of obedience to him.Discuss...
So recently it was announced that churches could continue to 'discriminate' and only hire people who hold the same religious convictions as they do to work for them.
This is surely mostly a big debate about nothing. The reason it is heated is because churches and their associated organisations wont hire gay people and the law says this is ok. Melbourne's flagship paper, The Age, has been pretty biased against the church on this one (what's new?). Here are all of the recent articles, I could find, that they've published on the issue. I've categorised them into Anti-church and Pro-Church by which I mean Anti the right for a church organisation to discrimate on the basis of faith or pro that position:
Anti-church: A Betrayal of Faith: The Bishop of Gippsland writes one of the worst articles I've ever seen from a Bishop. Totally hopeless and he'd be doing everyone a favour if he resigned and never spoke in public again.
Hulls lack of courage leaves discrimination entrenched: Editorial piece slamming the churches position.
Government bows to religious right: news article which is totally biased
Church can reject gays, single mums: news article which is... also totally biased. It includes this lovely quote from Rodney Croome (a Tasmanian gay activist), "the right to employment and education is more important than pandering to religious prejudice."
Hang on Rodney, the church isn't saying gay people can't have jobs or get educated. Just that they won't employ them. Surely when the gay lobby hire someone they ask if they believe in the cause?? If I went for a job to work with them and said, by the way I don't agree with you I wouldn't be hired. I'm then discriminated against because of my religious views. Why is it fair for you to do it but not the church?
Balancing religion and rights, the case against discrimination: More of the same from The Age opinion pages.
Pro-church:
Why the Bishop is wrong on faith and rights: A response to that hopeless Bishop's article I mentioned earlier.
Freedom of religion is also a basic right: This article begins with, "Telling a church or a mosque it can't employ people who share its ethos is a bit like telling the Labor Party it must employ Liberals." Hurrah!
Plus there were also some Letters to the editor with 1 pro and 2 anti.
(NOTE: These were all I found when searching theage.com.au with the word discrimination so I might have missed one or two but I think it's a pretty complete list)
Anyway apart from a clearly biased paper. Here are some of my other thoughts:
First of all, churches are still allowed to preach the Gospel and so I can't see why a gay person would want to work for an organisation that says you're lifestyle is opposed to God's plan for the way humans should relate to each other. So that's why I can't really understand why they are so upset about this. It's like I said earlier about me working for the gay lobby. I don't want to and they would never employ me because of my religious beliefs. I'm happy to be discriminated against in that case where we clash ideologically.
Secondly, Jim Wallis makes an interesting point in a recent article on this subject of discrimination. He talks about the difference between providing services and receiving them. He says you should be able to select people who agree with your organisational beliefs but then not discriminate against who receives your services, that is a church based group that finds people jobs should still find gay people jobs but shouldn't be forced to hire someone who totally disagrees with their position. (The first "Pro-Church" article I list argues along similar lines to this!)
I think my view would be similar to Jim Wallis and co.
In my recent reading for an assignment on Luke 4:14-30 I came across this quote over at Desiring God. I couldn't use it, but man it was cool.
We recalled Urbana 1967. Warren Webster was asked in front of 15,000 students, What if your daughter decided to marry a Pakistani while you are ministering there? His answer still rings in our ears today, as I hope this message will in yours: Better a poor Christian Pakistani than a rich, white, unbelieving American banker. In other words, Christ, not color is the issue. Jesus is the end of ethnocentrism.
The Fractured Saints blog featured this great post about how when we narrow our focus we can miss the fullness of and truth of The Gospel.
See it here
Ages ago I wrote this post about Christians trying to avoid death at all costs. In it, I was asked to expand further on what I mean by the idea of "going to Heaven". This will in no way be a detailed theological knock down post that I could submit for my Phd on the subject, but rather a collection of my thoughts of where I'm up to in my own mind in regards to having a Biblical Christian view of the what happens when we die. It'd be great to give me your thoughts on the subject
My influences... No doubt some of what I think is influenced by a sermon series at HTD last year on Heaven and Hell (click here and then scroll down until you find the 2008 Heaven and Hell Series). Also quite a few years ago a read a book called The Nature of Hell which I found very interesting but didn't understand that much. I'd love to try and find a copy of it again to re-read.
So what do I believe? I think that I've worked out this much so far... Christians live awaiting Jesus' return when we will come to judge all people past and present. Those who have put their trust in Jesus will be saved and if they have died, they will be resurrected like Jesus was. God will then make a new earth (perhaps remake this one?) where we will live in a full and unbroken relationship with God. Here there will be no more sin and therefore no more suffering or pain or anything crap that this world has to offer. If you have chosen to ignore Jesus and therefore have continued to shun God, then you spend eternity separated from God in Hell.
That's where I'm at so far...
I started reading Tim Chester's book, You Can Change: God's transforming power for our sinful behaviour & negative emotions recently.
I'm really looking forward to working through it after reading Chapter 1. Check out these quotes:
"We often excuse our actions by saying, 'I'm only human'. There' nothing 'only' about being human: we're truly human as we reflect God's glory."Read this book!
"Jesus is the glory of the Father. He makes God known in the world. He is God in human form. He shows us what it means to be the image of God and to reflect God's glory... The earthly life of Jesus reflected the glory of God in the goodness of his actions, the beauty of his attitudes and the purity of his thoughts"
"Jesus is the perfect person, the true image of God, the glory of the Father. And God's agenda for change is for us to become more like Jesus."
"The secret of gospel change is being convinced that Jesus is the good life and the fountain of all joy. Any alternative we might choose would be the let-down."
"The great news is that Jesus is not only my example, but also my Redeemer. 'If anyone is in Chris, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! (2 Cor 5:17). When you become a Christian, something amazing happens: there's a new creation!"
"What does it mean for us to be a new creation? It means we're re-created in the image of God. It means we're given new life so we can grow like Christ. And being like Christ means being like God, reflecting God's glory as God's image."
Seth Godin says:
"All the evidence I've seen shows that positive thinking and confidence improves performance. In anything"
Experience shows this for me particularly in sport. When I do something good on the sports field, then I get better. When I stuff up, I play badly.
Here's my question. If it's true does that mean God wired us that way? And if he did, are Christians good at it? Or do we fall into negative thinking? I'm particularly thinking in terms of sin and our state before God. For example, why is it that in Romans 3:21-26. Every evangelical Christian picks up verse 23 and memorises it, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". When the verses immediately preceding and following that verse are actually all about how we are made righteous and justified through faith in Jesus. Yes we are sinful and we deserve death, but it seems to me that Paul is actually encouraging us in our justified and righteous state before God through Jesus. Perhaps that kind of reading of the Bible, might lead to Christians thinking of themselves more positively and therefore they'd rise to the challenge of living for Jesus.
The TNIV is being dumped and a new NIV will come out.
I was a TNIV fan. We use it in our Youth Ministry. It's very readable! I also like gender inclusive language where appropriate. It's one less potential barrier to a young girl reading the bible.
I came across this interview with Douglas Moo (who's commentaries are awesome) on the subject of the new NIV.
About Me
