Christianity: A degenerate sort of cult (from Shaun Usher)

(From 'Letters of Note' by Shaun Usher.

A degenerate sort of cult:



In the year 112 AD, Pliny the Younger — Roman governor of Bithynia (now northern Turkey) — faced a problem: An obscure Jewish sect called "Christianity" had begun to spread through the region, resulting in numerous complaints from locals and calls for the immediate execution of those who refused to worship the Roman gods. Seeking assistance on how to deal with this "wretched cult," Pliny wrote the following letter — a letter which remains one of the earliest written accounts of Roman conflict with Christians — to Roman Emperor Trajan and asked who to punish, and to what extreme. Trajan's reply also follows.



(Source: The Letters of the Younger Pliny.)

To the Emperor Trajan



It is my custom to refer all my difficulties to you, sir, for no one is better able to resolve my doubts and inform my ignorance.



I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature or the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed. Nor am I at all sure whether any distinction should be made between them on the grounds of age, or if young people and adults should be treated alike; whether a pardon ought to be granted to anyone retracting his beliefs, or if he has once professed Christianity, he shall gain nothing by renouncing it; and whether it is the mere name of Christian which is punishable, even if innocent of crime, or rather the crimes associated with the name.



For the moment this is the line I have taken with all persons brought before me on the charge of being Christians. I have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished.



Now that I have begun to deal with this problem, as so often happens, the charges are becoming more widespread and increasing in variety. An anonymous pamphlet has been circulated which contains the names of a number of accused persons. Among these I felt that I should dismiss any who denied that they were or ever had been Christians when they had repeated after me a formula of invocation to the gods and had made offerings of wine and incense to your statue (which I had ordered to be brought into court for this purpose along with the images of the gods), and furthermore had reviled the name of Christ—none of which things, I understand, any genuine Christian can be induced to do.



Others, whose names were given to me by an informer, first admitted the charge and then denied it; they said that they had ceased to be Christians two or more years previously, and some of them even twenty years ago. They all did reverence to your statue and the images of the gods in the same way as the others, and reviled the name of Christ. They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery and adultery, to commit no breach of trust and not to deny a deposit when called on to restore it. After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an ordinary, harmless kind; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all political societies. This made me decide that it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they call deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths.



I have therefore postponed any further examination and hastened to consult you. The question seems to me worthy of your consideration, especially in view of the number of persons endangered; for a great many individuals of every age and class, both men and women, are being brought to trial, and this is likely to continue. It is not only the towns, but villages and rural districts too which are infected through contact with this wretched cult. I think though that it is still possible for it to be checked and directed to better ends, for there is no doubt that people have begun to throng the temples which had been almost entirely deserted for a long time; the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse are being performed again, and flesh of sacrificial victims is on sale everywhere, though up till recently scarcely anyone could be found to buy it. It is easy to infer from this that a great many people could be reformed if they were given an opportunity to repent.



---------------------------



Trajan's response:



You have followed the right course of procedure, my dear Pliny, for it is impossible to lay down a general rule to a fixed formula. These people must not be hunted out; if they are brought before you and the charge against them is proved, they must be punished, but in the case of anyone who denies that he is a Christian, and makes it clear that he is not by offering prayers to our gods, he is to be pardoned as a result of his repentance however suspect his past conduct may be. But pamphlets circulated anonymously must play no part in any accusation. They create the worst sort of precedent and are quite out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

---

RSS Feed proudly sponsored by TinyLetter, a simple newsletter service for people with something to say.

Para-church ministry: Challenge 1, number of relationships (from Jenny's blog)

Jenny's blog is terrific. No-one would ever accuse her of gilding the ministry lily:

Para-church ministry: Challenge 1, number of relationships:

A bit of background.  I'm married to a church minister, but he doesn't work for a church.  He works for a not-for-profit organisation that supports the ministry of Christian students on a university campus.  He is responsible for a team of about 20 full time staff members and is responsible for ensuring that the funds for this organisation are raised to pay everyone.  He also works closely with the student leadership of the group which at the moment has about 800 students involved.

Here's my first challenge about this type of ministry (nice way of say 'big fat whinge' but anyhoo, off we go).

I am on the introverted end of the spectrum but we have A LOT of different groups of people in our life that we are involved in.  The ministry is large and busy and totally people orientated.  We have our family (which is large and busy and people-orientated!).  We also go to our local church (which is thankfully not too large, but is also people-orientated).  We have two schools full of relationships that our kids attend that we're keen to be involved with (it will be three schools next year).  I have a job that is people-focussed.

Consequently we find it really hard to get up the energy to go to extra things like parties or social events.

Consequently I am regularly paralysed by guilt by how bad I am at keeping up with all the different people in our life.  I permanently carry a feeling of being a disappointing friend to many.

If I gave up working I could potentially do more, but contributing financially to our family does help make staying in this type of ministry more viable for the long-term.

And if I did stop working I could potentially do more in the ministry but I don't feel that I would actually be very good at it.  Not putting myself down.  I'm 40.  I've tried.   Just because I'm married to someone who is, doesn't automatically make me great at it.  And I'm pretty confident that I would drive Rowan totally mad with my helpful 'suggestions' ;)

I find this so tricky.  I'm still waiting for someone to give me the magic solution that will make me feel at peace about this issue.

A bad excuse

What sort of an excuse is this?

Hill's defence team said that he had been collecting such images for a number of years, and told a hearing at Derby Magistrates' Court that their client deeply regretted committing the offence, and was previously a "man of good character".

from here. Not a particularly good one, I would have thought, and my only current interest in it is that I've seen it offered in 2 different places in the space of 2 days, with reference to similar crimes.

Why Pushing Right is Harder than Pushing Left (from Andrew Wilson)

A fine message from Andrew Wilson for theological educators and Bible teachers who love to try out new ideas (the whole lot is his not mine.):


Why Pushing Right is Harder than Pushing Left:
Theologically speaking, pushing right is much harder than pushing left. I do both, depending on the context, and pushing right is definitely more difficult. When I'm trying to nudge people to their left on an issue - trying to persuade five point Calvinists to become four pointers or less, commending pacifism, defending theistic evolution, or championing charismatic gifts for today - I feel radical, creative, daring, exciting, and somewhat impish. But when I'm trying to nudge people to their right about something - inerrancy, hell, gender roles, sexual ethics, biblical authority, Reformed soteriology - I feel conservative, stern, unpopular, staid, and even somewhat apologetic. It's a very nebulous contrast, and I'd forgive you for wondering what on earth I was talking about, but at the same time I suspect there may be others out there who have felt the same thing. But why?
It’s true institutionally, and not just personally. When, forty years ago, churches like the one I belong to started to emerge, they were pushing left with gusto, and they were loving it. Lifeless hymn sandwiches? Let’s get some experience of God in our meetings! Legalistic lists of things we can and can’t do in church? We’re under grace now! Tradition? Yah, boo, sucks! (Or words to that effect.) And despite all the mockery and all the marginalisation they experienced, there was a sense of being part of something fresh, and revolutionary, which made it all worthwhile, and brought whoops of delight from the church (“we may be ridiculed for being happy clappy - but we’d rather be happy clappy than humpy grumpy!”)

 

These days, though, the boot is often on the other foot. The things that make me, and my church, the subject of ridicule now are not areas in which I’m pushing left, but areas in which I’m pushing right. The things I believe are the same as the things my Dad believed a generation ago, but the church landscape has changed, making me a reactionary rather than a revolutionary. Charismatic gifts are mainstream (at least in the UK); people across the spectrum fall over themselves to talk about how grace-filled they are; churches which preserve tradition at the expense of experience are dying slowly. So the things that make me and my church stand out are now the areas where we’re conservative: a high view of the gathered church, biblical authority, an orthodox view of hell, Reformed soteriology, complementarianism, and things like that. And for some reason, pushing right on these things doesn’t feel anything like as exhilarating as pushing left on the other things. It doesn’t draw the same whoops from the crowd, nor the same admiration for being courageous. (In fact, when I get called courageous at all, it’s usually for pushing left on something that most people approve of, even though this requires much less real courage than pushing right. It may just be me, but I think it requires far more bravery to say the things Al Mohler says than the things Brian McLaren says, even though the latter is far more likely to be admired for his courage.)

 

So I was wondering: why is that? I recognise sin in my own heart in this area; the temptation is to push left on something for the sake of it, just to feel creative and new and quirky and impish again, even if the real need is for someone to stand up and hold a line. But why does the spectrum work that way (if it does)? What factors make going left cooler than going right? Why is there so much more swagger in those who push left (“well, if I was going to be very controversial, ooh-er, I’d cheekily ask whether the Bible actually does mean that, as dangerous as it is to say so!”), even when it is normally far less dangerous to ask the question than to answer by reaffirming what the church has always said about something? Why does that generally hold true, even down to the comments on this very blog?

 

My guess is that there are at least three factors at work. The first is to do with the youth-centred spirit of the age, in which freshness is more fashionable than faithfulness, innovating inspires people more than imitating, technology trumps tradition, and novelty is confused with creativity. Many still think that the Dylanesque call to change everything your parents stood for is iconoclastic, without noticing that true iconoclasm is to be found when people challenge the deepest convictions of a culture, and (say) teach that children should obey their parents rather than tell them to move over because they don’t understand the world no more. When you add to that the modernist metanarrative of progress (which is not completely dead yet), and the wider social obsession with the possibilities brought by technology, it is easy to see why the view could creep into the church that changing things was Good and conserving things was Bad.

 

The second is equally obvious, in some ways, but it is worth saying anyway: contemporary secular culture is well to the left of the Bible on most things it teaches. Non-Christian Britain thinks the Scriptures are backward on all sorts of topics, including judgment, evolution, tradition, war, marriage, slavery, sexual ethics, holiness, gender roles, and the idea of teaching doctrine in the first place. So when we move to the left, we are almost without exception moving closer to what the culture around us thinks, and that makes the process much more comfortable for us. (I’m not saying, of course, that moving to the left is thereby wrong, merely that it is easy - and therefore that, if I know my own heart, the temptation to distort the Bible to get there is likely to be more acute.) Moving to the right, on the other hand, makes us more likely to be ridiculed by The Independent, Stephen Fry, the writers of sitcoms, our social network, and all the other cool-ade people we desperately want to like us. It shouldn’t, but that does make it harder.

 

The third factor, related to this, is that the victims of excessive rightishness are much easier to identify, and to feel sorry for, the victims of excessive leftishness. An anti-war protest is much easier to recruit for than a pro-war protest. It’s easy to make movies, or posters, about the victims of slavery and domestic abuse; not so much about the victims of abortion, since they don’t live long enough to be given names. When a couple splits up through unfaithfulness, causing massive pain to their children, the individualistic, morally leftish values that made it possible are not personified, and nobody blames the newspapers, TV shows or movies that make short-term romantic fulfilment life’s ultimate purpose. Being ostracised for challenging church dogma makes a great story, but being gradually dulled to the wonders of God because the gospel is not being preached clearly does not. Suffering under authoritarian leadership results in a narrative with clear goodies and baddies, replete with emotive terms like “spiritual abuse” and “cultish leadership”; the thousands who go nowhere under directionless leaders, with churches being endlessly hijacked by oddballs and dominated by the loudest voice there, have far less grotesque villains and do not lend themselves so compellingly to Oprah. In the modern world, if you’re going to make a public argument, you need a victim and a villain. And leftish victims and villains are just that bit more identifiable than rightish ones.

 

So there’s three reasons why I think pushing right is harder than pushing left. Practically, my guess is there’s some implications we should draw from that, affecting the way we lead, teach, and (yes) blog. But I’m done for now. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Beach Burial

Softly and humbly to the Gulf of Arabs

The convoys of dead sailors come;

At night they sway and wander in the waters far under,

But morning rolls them in the foam.

Between the sob and clubbing of the gunfire

Someone, it seems, has time for this,

To pluck them from the shallows and bury them in burrows

And tread the sand upon their nakedness;

And each cross, the driven stake of tidewood,

Bears the last signature of men,

Written with such perplexity, with such bewildered pity,

The words choke as they begin -

'Unknown seaman' - the ghostly pencil

Wavers and fades, the purple drips,

The breath of wet season has washed their inscriptions

As blue as drowned men's lips,

Dead seamen, gone in search of the same landfall,

Whether as enemies they fought,

Or fought with us, or neither; the sand joins them together,

Enlisted on the other front.

(Kenneth Slessor)

Falling Asleep

Some words of comfort from Spurgeon about death:


Falling Asleep:

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 46, sermon number 2,659, "Fallen Asleep."

“For a Christian to die, is, according to Scripture, an act of the most natural kind, for it is but to fall asleep.”

The more you think this matter over, the more clearly will it appear to you that there cannot be any pain in death; all pain must be connected with life, it is the living who suffer. In death, we forget all pain. That gentle touch, that divine love-pat that, shall end all pain and sorrow, is, the thing which men usually call death, but which the apostle rightly calls sleep. There is nothing to be dreaded in it; it may be altogether unattended with pain; I believe that, full often, it is so. To fall asleep is a very natural act, and so it is for us to die. A little child has been playing in the field gathering buttercups and daisies all day long; but, at last, tired right out, he drops asleep upon his mother’s lap; what could he do better? So, though we may be unwilling to die, the time will come when we shall have finished our life,—work or play, whichever you may please to call it,—and we shall fall asleep upon the bosom of our God; what better thing could we do? There is a dear old friend of mine, now in heaven; and, when he came to this house, one Sabbath-day, I said to him, “Our old friend So-and-so has gone home.”

The one to whom I spoke was an old man himself, one of our most gracious elders, and he looked at me in a most significant way, and his eyes twinkled as he said, “He could not do better, dear Pastor; he could not do better; and you and I will do the same thing one of these days. We also shall go home!” Our aged friend, as I told you, has himself gone home since that time, and now I may say of him, “He could not have done better.” Why! that is where good children always go at night,—home. If they ran away, where would they go? When our night comes, beloved children of God, you and I also must go home; do we feel at all afraid of such a prospect? If so, surely our love to our Heavenly Father, and to our Elder Brother, and to our home above, must be growing somewhat cold.

---

Four Rules for Preachers

Some wisdom on preaching from Phillip Brooks:

Four Rules for Preachers:
Phillip Brooks—one of the great American preachers of the 19th century—offered this counsel in his Bohlen Lectures on Preaching delivered before the Divinity School of Yale College in January/February 1877:

First, count and rejoice to count yourself the servant of the people to whom you minister. Not in any worn-out figure but in very truth, call yourself and be their servant.
Second, never allow yourself to feel equal to your work. If you ever find that spirit growing on you, be afraid, and instantly attack your hardest piece of work, try to convert your toughest infidel, try to preach on your most exacting theme, to show your self how unequal to it all you are.
Third, be profoundly honest. Never dare to say in the pulpit or in private, through ardent excitement or conformity to what you know you are expected to say, one word which at the moment when you say it, you do not believe. It would cut down the range of what you say, perhaps, but it would endow every word that was left with the force of ten.
And last of all, be vital, be alive, not dead. Do everything that can keep your vitality at its fullest. Even the physical vitality do not dare to disregard. One of the most striking preachers of our country seems to me to have a large part of his power simply in his physique, in the impression of vitality, in the magnetism almost like a material thing, that passes between him and the people who sit before him. Pray for and work for fulness of life above everything; full red blood in the body; full honesty and truth in the mind; and the fulness of a grateful love for the Saviour in your heart. Then, however men set their mark of failure or success upon your ministry, you cannot fail, you must succeed.

The Ramadan Olympics and Islam's "Law of Necessity"

Must Muslims fast during Ramadan? Not if they're at the Olympics, observes Mark Durie:


The Ramadan Olympics and Islam's "Law of Necessity": This article first appeared with the Gatestone Institute.

Because Islam's "Law of Necessity" fully permits Muslims to find creative ways to adapt when Sharia Law conflicts with practical life, the argument that societies are obliged to make concessions to privilege all the demands of strict Sharia Law is considerably weakened.

Islam Is a flexible religion: religious obligations allow exceptions, subject to circumstances. Muslim religious scholars balance countervailing obligations to determine when exceptions apply. Understanding such balancing of necessities in Islam is not only important for public policy, but also for understanding how an identical set of religious beliefs can be used to justify war or peace, terrorism or peaceful coexistence.

 

Fasting During a Ramadan Olympics

As the London Olympics are underway, London organizers of the Olympics, according to a report in the New York Times, are supporting the needs of Muslims athletes, "with more than 150 Muslim clerics on hand to assist athletes, as well as fast-breaking packs including dates and other traditional foods."
As it is also the month of Ramadan, during which Muslims are obligated not to eat or drink, even their own saliva, from sunrise to sunset, spare a thought for the more than 3,500 Muslim competitors, who, if they strictly observed Ramadan, would be abstaining from food and drink from the first prayer of the day (Fajr) at 2.44 am through to the dusk prayer (Maghrib) at 8.53 pm (as at July 29, 2012, see Islamicfinder.org).
Optimum sporting performance cannot be expected from athletes who go without food or drink for over 18 hours -- a circumstance which would not be fair to them.
Many Muslim Olympians now in London will therefore not be fasting. Some may rely on religious rulings (fatwas) which exempt sportspeople from the Ramadan fast, such as a ruling issued in 2010 by the German Central Council of Muslims, that Muslim professional footballers, because they depend upon football for their living, need not fast during Ramadan.
The United Emirates, using a different approach stated that players may omit the fast as long as they do not stay in one place for more than four days. This is based upon a standard exemption for travelers during Ramadan (Sahih Bukhari, 3:31:167). Another exemption, following advice from imams in Morocco, is being used by English Olympic rower Moe Sbihi, who announced that he will donate 60 meals to poor people in Morocco for each missed fast day. Many Olympic athletes are postponing their fasts until their sporting commitments are completed. However, the Moroccan football team are fasting and trusting that Allah will help them to victory. All Muslims agree that fasting is obligatory during Ramadan; they differ in the exceptions they make.

 

"Necessity": Balancing What Is Forbidden with What Is Permitted

There is a powerful principle in Islamic jurisprudence, the "Law of Necessity," that permits what is forbidden -- the end justifying the means. If a goal is obligatory, then the means can also be obligatory, even if otherwise they might be forbidden.
In Islam the universe of possible human deeds is divided into what is obligatory, permitted neutral, disliked, or forbidden. Then there is the need to balance the pros and cons of every act. This is a world of choice which can embrace a necessary evil, or take a pass on a good deed for the sake of a greater good.
Some "Law of Necessity" exceptions go back to Muhammad; they are hard-wired into Islamic law. A case in point is the exemption for travelers during Ramadan, which some athletes rely on. Another exemption for travelers, which also comes straight from Muhammad, allows Muslims to catch up on prayer times later than the correct hour.
Life raises many complex challenges, and the balancing of obligations and prohibitions may require more subtle reasoning, dependent on context. The renowned medieval Muslim scholar al-Ghazali explained how the principle of balancing necessities can be used to make lying permitted or even compulsory, according to the circumstances:

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible … and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory . …" (The Reliance of the Traveller, p.745-46, paragraph r8.2)

Yusuf al-Qaradawy has written extensively about the jurisprudence of "balancing necessities." He explains that interests and pros and cons of any deed must be balanced, one against each other and weighed carefully.
Al-Qaradawy's focus was politics, not sport. He cited an example of the support given by the Islamist political leader Maulana Maududi to Fatima Jinnah in the 1965 presidential elections in Pakistan. Previously Maududi had declared that it was not permissible in Islam for a woman to govern (based on the teachings of Muhammad). He came, however, to regard Jinnah as the lesser of two evils, so he commanded his followers to vote for the female candidate, and against General Ayub Khan.
Understanding such balancing of necessities in Islam is important for public policy -- to grasp how an identical set of religious beliefs can be used to justify war or peace, terrorism or peaceful coexistence -- or any other decision, based solely on the circumstances at the time.

 

Balancing Necessities and Public Policy

Consider the issue of the timing of the Olympics: Was Juan Cole correct to suggest that the Olympic Games should be rescheduled so they did not fall in Ramadan?
The fact that the "Law of Necessity" allows Muslims to get around restrictions suggests that although it might certainly have been thoughtful or considerate, it would not in any way necessary to reschedule the Olympics for the sake of Muslim religious sensitivities.
The possibility of balancing necessities needs to be taken into account when organizations and governments are faced with demands that they make concessions for the sake of complying with Islamic Sharia Law. Because the Islamic "Law of Necessity" fully permits Muslims to find creative ways to adapt when Sharia law conflicts with practical life, the argument that societies are obliged to make concessions to privilege all the strict demands of Sharia Law is considerably weakened.
Non-Muslims in particular need to take balancing necessities into account. Consider Sheikh Ahmed al-Mahlawi of Egypt who accepts that it is not a sin for Muslim religious scholars to see women in the streets with unveiled faces: the need for Muslim scholars to get around in public places outweighs the prohibition against men seeing women's unveiled faces. He boasted, all the same, that he had compelled a US consular official to wear the hijab [headscarf] when she met with him. If the U.S. official had been better informed, she might have asked that Sheikh al-Mahlawi take a more moderate, balanced approach. She might have refused to submit to the hijab, pointing out that the Sheikh copes very well with looking at the unveiled faces of women whenever he goes into the street.

 

Balancing Necessity and Terrorism

Al-Qaradawi concluded that although it is wrong in general for Muslims to participate in non-Islamic governments or to make alliances with non-Muslim nations, compromises may be made when such lesser evils are 'balanced' against the greater good of the Muslim cause.
He also made the observation that many of the conflicts between different factions working for the success of Islam exist because of different interpretations about how to "balance" the different necessities and interests in Islam. Of course, Muslims who agree on their fundamental principles of faith can have very different views on how to balance these beliefs in any given situation.
Jihadi [holy war] martyrs make use of theological balancing necessities when they justify their methods for killing enemies. In Islam, for example, it is forbidden to kill oneself, but suicide, if it can be justified in the cause of Allah or furthering Islam, is not only permissible but heroic. Jihadi clerics are more than willing to write fatwas which ensure that a would-be martyr goes to his death with a clear conscience.In Islam, it is forbidden to kill women and children, but "collateral damage" is acceptable if a greater end is in sight. It is also forbidden in Islam to lie, but it is recommended that a pious jihadi using taqiyya [dissimulation] if necessary to achieve, say, a "martyrdom operation." The Al-Qaeda manual, for instsnce, appeals to the principle that "necessity permits the forbidden" to justify criminal acts; and the Indonesian jihad cleric Abu Bakar Bashir argued that jihadis were entitled to hack foreigner's bank accounts to obtain funds (see The Crime-Terror Nexus, New York State Office of Homeland Security). (For a bizarre example of the extremes to which jihad fatwas can go, see this report by Raymond Ibrahim.)
The ramifications can be momentous for Muslims and non-Muslims alike: consider the difference in opinion between the Saudi leaders and Usama Bin Ladin concerning the presence of American soldiers in the Kingdom after the invasion of Kuwait. Bin Ladin opposed this infidel 'occupation'. In his 1996 fatwa declaring war on America he counted the presence of US soldiers as "one of the worst catastrophes to befall the Muslims" since the death of Muhammad.
Saudia Arabia's Grand Mufti and supreme religious authority Sheikh Ibn Baz, however, allowed American troops into Saudi Arabia, although in another fatwa he had stated that Christian servants could not be employed in Arabia:

"It is not allowed to have a non-Muslim maid. It is not allowed to have a non-Muslim male or a non-Muslim female servant, or a worker who is a non-Muslim for anyone living in the Arabian peninsula. This is because the Prophet Muhammad ordered the Jews and Christians to be expelled from that land. He ordered that only Muslims should be left there. He decreed upon his death that all polytheists must be expelled from this Peninsula. (Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women, p. 36 compiled by Abdul Malik Mujahid).

Both Usama Bin Ladin and the Saudi authorities agreed on the principle that infidels could not be permitted to live in Saudi Arabia. What they disagreed on was how to balance this against other requirements, such as the need to safeguard the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This difference was enough to trigger Bin Ladin's war on America.
What distinguishes a jihadi terrorist from a more peaceful Muslim, therefore, may not be any fundamental difference in belief, but, as in the West, merely in a given instance, how the religious legal principles of his faith should be applied.

Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor and author of The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom.

Father’s “house” or “business”? - Luke 2:49 (Monday with Mounce 149)

I always love Monday with Mounce, even if it does arrive in my inbox on Tuesdays! Australia, ahead of the world...

There's a similar issue to the one Mounce notes below, in 1 Corinthians 12:1, "Now concerning spirituals"(if you translated the Greek literally), where most translators supply the missing noun and write "Now concerning spiritual gifts". I really like the way the Holman Bible went on this, they quite correctly say

"Now concerning what comes from the Spirit:" (1 Cor 12:1, HCSB)


which makes it much easier for the preacher to explain the true focus of the passage, which is not gifts at all but how the Spirit builds the body of Christ.


Anyway, I'll leave you with Mounce:

Father’s “house” or “business”? - Luke 2:49 (Monday with Mounce 149):

When Jesus’ parents finally realized they had left Jesus in Jerusalem, returned, and finally found him, Jesus’ response is surprising to all parents.
“Why is it that you were looking for me? Did you not know that I would have to be in my Father’s house?”
This is certainly the traditional understanding of the passage (cf. ESV, NRSV, NIV, NET, HCSB, NLT). But what is interesting is that the NASB puts “house” in italics (indicating that the word is not explicitly there), and the KJV reads, “I must be about my Father’s business.”
The Greek word for word reads, “in the (ἐν τοῖς) of my father (τοῦ πατρός μου) it is necessary for me to be (δεῖ εἶναί με).
The use of preposition + article + modifier + noun is a normal construction. What makes it a little challenging is when the final noun is omitted, being assumed in the context. So the traditional understanding is that the missing word is οἶκος, “house” (in which case τοῖς is masculine). This certainly makes sense contextually, since v 46 identifies Jesus as being “in the temple.”
But what is the problem with this? (The answer is simple, first year grammar stuff, so don’t think too hard.)


Right. τοῖς is plural, and you wouldn’t have the plural of οἶκος for “my father’s houses.”
Apparently, this is a different construction in which the article is functioning as a noun, and you still have to fill in a noun idea. See, for example, 1 Cor 7:33; “But a married man is concerned about the things of the world (τὰ τοῦ κόσμου), how to please his wife.” According to this argument, τοῖς is neuter and refers to the “things” (i.e., “business”) of his father. (But note: this requires a difficult use of ἐν to mean something like “in reference to.”)
Now, I don’t want to overstate the argument since Prof. Marshall says that the translation “house” is “perfectly possible linguistically and was accepted by the early church fathers.” But the plural τοῖς nags me, and suggests it is the ”things” of the father that was motivating Jesus to stay behind.
Either way, all translations have to be interpretive.
William D. [Bill] Mounce posts about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and is the general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation, and is currently on the Committee for Bible Translation for the NIV. Learn more about Bill at BillMounce.com, and visit his other blog on spiritual growth, Life is a Journey, at BiblicalTraining.org.

John Chapman

Watch and enjoy his interview at AFES Senior Staff Conference 2012, here. Just wonderful. A great saint speaking about matters dear to his heart.

Bigots!

Confess to being a bigot with Charles Spurgeon!


Bigots!: Your weekly dose of Spurgeon




The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Let Us Go Forth," a sermon preached on Sunday morning, 26 June 1861 at London's Metropolitan Tabernacle.



he reproach of Christ, in these days, takes this shape. "Oh," say they, "the man is too precise. He is right; but still, truth is not always to be spoken. The thing is wrong, no doubt, which he denounces, but still the time has not come yet; we must be lenient towards these things. The man is right in what he says, but we must not be too precise nowadays. We must give and take a little—there must be charity."

God's Word, in this age, is a small affair; some do not even believe it to be inspired; and those who profess to revere it set up other books in a sort of rivalry with it. Why, there are great Church dignitaries nowadays who write against the Bible, and yet find bishops to defend them. "Do not, for a moment, think of condemning their books or them; they are our dear brethren, and must not be fettered in thought." How many days ago is it since a bishop talked in this way in convocation?

Some believe in Popery; but here, again, the plea will be, "They are our dear brethren." Some believe in nothing at all; but still they are all safely housed in one Church, like the beasts, clean and unclean, in Noah's ark.

Those who come out with Christ get this reproach: they are too precise; in fact, they are "bigots." That is how the world brings it out at last, "bigots" "a set of bigots!"

I have heard say that the word "bigot" took its rise from this: that a certain Protestant nobleman being commanded, in order to gain his lands, to kneel down, and in some way or other commit the act of idolatry towards the host, said, when he came at last to the point, "By God, I will not;" and they called him henceforth a "By-God." If this be the meaning of the word "bigot," we cheerfully adopt the title; and were it right to swear, we would aver: "By him that lives!—by heaven!—we cannot speak a lie, and we cannot bend our knee to the shrine of Baal, bigots or no bigots."

The truth is first, and our reputation next.

Then they say, "Ah! these people are behind their time; the world has made such advances; we are in the nineteenth century; you ought to know better; the discoveries of science put your narrow views out of court."

Very well, Christian, be content to be behind the times, for the times are getting nearer to judgment and the last plagues.

"Ah!" but they say, "these people seem to us to be so self-righteous; they think themselves right and nobody else."

Very well, Christian, if you are right, think yourself right; and if everybody else should call you self-righteous, that does not make you so. The Lord knows how we cling to the cross, and as poor sinners, look up to Christ and Jesus Christ alone. Our conscience is void of offense in this matter.

"Ah!" they say, "they are not worth noticing; they are all a pack of fools."

It is very remarkable that in the judgment of their own age, good men always have been fools. Fools have been the ones who have turned the world upside down. Luther and Calvin, Wesley and Whitfield were all fools; but somehow or other God managed by these fools to get to himself a glorious victory.

And then they turn round and say, "It is only the poor—only the lower orders. Have they any of the nobility and gentry with them?"

Well, this reproach we can pretty well bear, because it is the old standard of Christ that the poor have the gospel preached unto them; and it has ever been a sweet reflection that many who have been poor in this world have been made rich in faith.

Brethren, you must expect if you follow Christ to endure reproach of some sort or another. Let me just remind you what reproach your Master had to bear. The world's Church said of Christ, "He is a deceiver: he deceives the people." Incarnate truth, and yet a deceiver! Then they said, "He stirreth up the people: he promotes rebellion. He is no friend of good order: he foments anarchy; he is a mere demagogue." That was the world's cry against Christ, and, as that was not enough, they went further, and said, "He is a blasphemer;" they put him to death on the charge that he was a blasphemer. They whispered to one another, "Did you hear? he said so-and-so last Sabbath, in his sermon. What a shocking thing he did in such a place! He is a blasphemer."

Then came the climax; they all said he had a devil, and was mad. Surely they could go no further than this, but they supplement it by saying, when he cast out devils, that he did it through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.

A sorry life your Master had, you see. All the filth in earth's kennels was thrown at him by sacrilegious hands. No epithet was thought coarse enough; no terms hard enough; he was the song of the drunkard, and they that sat in the gate spake against himn.

This was the reproach of Christ; and we are not to marvel if we bear as much.

"Well," says one, "I will not be a Christian if I am to bear that."

Skulk back, then, thou coward, to thine own damnation; but oh! men that love God, and who seek after the eternal reward, I pray you do not shrink from this cross. You must bear it. I know you may live without it if you will fawn and cringe, and keep back part of the price; but do not this, it is unworthy of your manhood, much more is unworthy of your Christianity. For God and for Christ be so holy and so truthful that you compel the world to give its best acknowledgment of your goodness by railing at you—it can do no more, it will do no less.

Be content to take this shame, for there is no heaven for you if you will not—no crown without the cross, no jewels without the mire. You must stand in the pillory if you would sit in glory; you must be spit upon, and be treated with shame if you would receive eternal honor; and if you reject the one you reject the other.

---

Healing – medicine or miracles?

Great words from Macca about healing from cancer.


Healing – medicine or miracles?:
Everyone has an opinion on cancer. Since my diagnosis I’ve been given books and blogs and articles to read. Some are conservative and mainstream. Others are out there and adventurous. I’ve learned about surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, phototherapy, herbal medicines, angiogenesis inhibitors, acupuncture, detox diets, and much more. It’s encouraging that research is advancing at a rapid rate and treatment options are available today that wouldn’t have been dreamed of a few years back. But it’s so confusing. There are so many voices. How do we know what’s best? How do we distinguish the quacks and the frauds from the progressive and informed? Do we just go with tried and tested or do we explore and experiment? I’m just grateful for my GP wife who is well equipped to ask the right questions and then translate the answers for me!
I’ve found something else disturbing, and it’s more theological than medical. A belief that treatment should be refused because it’s incompatible with faith in God. One man is refusing any treatment because his pastor has prayed for him and pronounced him to be healed. The problem is that he’s not healed. So what does he do? Conjure up faith that he really is healed, expecting his belief to eventually become reality? Or does he take the advice of family and friends and visit an oncologist?
The faith-healing movement has a lot to answer for. Promises of healing are sometimes presumptuous and dangerous. In some devastating cases people have died because they have refused simple, available, proven treatment options. I know of a number of people who’ve been left riddled with guilt because they (or their friends or relatives) have been promised healing if only they have enough faith. They’re rebuked for having hidden sin in their life. They’re criticised for having a weak faith or doubting God’s ability and willingness to heal. Sadly, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, leading people to doubt the goodness of God and the validity of their own faith.
The Bible describes God as the creator of heaven and earth. He sustains our every breath, knowing every detail of our bodies and minds. He is Ruler over all and not constrained in any way by our actions or beliefs, or our lack thereof. He is the Sovereign Lord who gives life and takes it away. He is the Healer who sometimes chooses to heal and other times does not. God works through our trials, struggle, sickness, and pain. He doesn’t promise to remove all suffering in this life, but he does promise to use it for our ultimate good. God has set a day when our healing will be full and complete, but this will be after our death and resurrection.
Ongoing illness needn’t be understood as a sign of personal sin or evidence of a lack of faith. It may simply be a part of God’s good purposes for our lives in this world of decay and death. Nor should we think that God’s ability or willingness to heal is in any way contingent on our faith. Jesus heals many people in the gospels without any mention of their faith. We mustn’t think that our faith is the trigger mechanism that activates God’s power to heal. God can do whatever he likes, with or without our help.
And what’s more, as creator and sustainer of all things, God can use whatever he chooses to bring healing to people. If someone is healed through chemotherapy, then we can thank God! He made the brilliant minds that have taken the products of his creation and applied them to fighting the cancer. If someone is healed through surgery, then we can thank God. He gave the skill to the surgeons, anaesthetists, and nurses. If someone is able to keep the cancer from growing or spreading by keeping to a strict diet, then we can thank God. How generous is God to provide ‘natural’ ways of combatting the cancer. If someone should be healed without any medical explanation and contrary to medical advice, then we should thank God. How merciful is our God, and how great beyond our understanding!
And if God chooses not to heal someone, but to take them home to himself, then we can thank God! We can thank him for our life! We can thank him for his kindness in giving us new life in Jesus Christ! We can thank him for his promise to rescue us from our decaying bodies and bringing us into a glorious future with him.
Healing – medicine or miracles? I really don’t mind. I’d love to be miraculously healed, and soon. I’d be thrilled to have chemo, or targeted drugs, or some other therapy succeed in eradicating all the cancer from my body. I’m very grateful that God has sustained me thus far and I look forward to many days, weeks, months and years ahead – God willing! But death awaits us all, one way or another, and I thank God most of all for the hope of the life to come.

³ Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, ⁴ and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade —kept in heaven for you, ⁵ who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. ⁶ In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. ⁷ These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire —may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. ⁸ Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, ⁹ for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.  (1 Peter 1:3-9)

Veggie Tales, Moralism, and Modern Preaching

UPDATE: I didn't write this. Still treating my blog as my facebook page. Sorry if you thought this was brilliant and then drew a wrong conclusion about whose brilliance it was. I am brilliant too, but in a derivative sort of way. Veggie Tales, Moralism, and Modern Preaching:
A number of years ago, my kids were into Veggie Tales.  And, truthfully, so was I.  It was actually quite enjoyable to watch these charming videos, cataloging the journeys of Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, et al.  Indeed, I could probably recite the opening song word for word.
On this note, it was interesting to learn this week that in an interview with World Magazine the creator of Veggie Tales, Phil Vischer, has expressed regret over the “moralism” of Veggie Tales:

I looked back at the previous 10 years and realized I had spent 10 years trying to convince kids to behave Christianly without actually teaching them Christianity. And that was a pretty serious conviction. You can say, “Hey kids, be more forgiving because the Bible says so,” or “Hey kids, be more kind because the Bible says so!” But that isn’t Christianity, it’s morality.

Now, there is much to be commended in Vischer’s realization. Certainly Christianity is more than simply behaving in a certain way.  Christianity, at its core, is about God’s redemptive work in Christ to save sinners by grace.  Moreover, when it comes to proclaiming the Christian message, we always need to present the imperative (here’s what you should do) within the context of the indicative (here’s what Christ has done).  The latter is always the foundation for the former.
However, that said, I wonder if Veggie Tales can be so quickly swept aside as non-Christian.  Vischer declares, “You can say, ‘Hey kids, be more forgiving because the Bible says so’…But that isn’t Christianity.”   Well, it depends what he means.  In many ways, such a statement is definitively Christian. It calls God’s covenant people (kids in this instance) to obey the authoritative word of their covenant Lord (regarding forgiving others).  Sure, it is a call to a certain moral behavior.  But it is a moral behavior that is in a biblical, covenantal context because it is based on God’s word.  If I said in a sermon, “be more forgiving because the Bible says so,” would that be considered non-Christian?  I hope not.  Surely Christians need to be more forgiving.  And surely the fact that God says so is a compelling motivation (though not the only motivation).
At this point I suppose one might object and say that we are free to give moral imperatives as long as they are always given alongside the gospel message.  But, again, it depends on what one means by “alongside.”  I would certainly agree that any moral imperative must always be rooted in the gospel message of grace and forgiveness in Christ.  But, does this mean that it must always be stated immediately in the very next sentence?   Does it always mean that it must be stated expressly every time you give a moral imperative?  I would argue that the gospel is the foundation for moral imperatives, the context for moral imperatives, and the backdrop for moral imperatives.  But, we must be careful about insisting that there is a magical formula for how that must be expressed in any given proclamation of Christian teaching.  Indeed, I think a number of biblical examples bear this out:
1. The book of James.  When one reads the book of James it is clear that it is a letter of morals.  We are called to not show partiality (2:1), to help the poor among us (2:15-16), to watch our tongues (3:1-12), to stop our coveting (4:1-2), to be patient and longsuffering (5:7-8), to pray faithfully (5:16), and much more.  Moreover, this letter does not explicitly mention the atonement, the cross, justification, salvation by grace alone, or any core aspects of the “gospel” message.  Is James therefore moralism?  Not at all.  You have to take James in context of the entire New Testament and the fact that the core aspects of the gospel message are explained elsewhere.  No doubt James wrote already assuming that his audience understood the basic truths of the gospel.
2. The Sermon on the Mount.  Although it is obvious to anyone who reads it, it is often overlooked that Jesus’ most famous sermon is composed of almost all moral imperatives.  Jesus covers an impressive list of moral topics: anger, lust, divorce, oaths, fasting, worry, and more.  Indeed, Jesus even warns his listeners that God’s judgment will fall on those who righteousness does not surpass that of the Pharisees (5:20), and for those who fail to keep his word (7:21-26).   And, once again, there is no express mention of atonement, the cross, justification, etc.  Does this make his sermon moralism?   No, once again, the sermon has to be taken in the larger context of Jesus’ teachings, and the teachings of the NT as a whole.
3. The book of Proverbs.  Once again, here is an entire book that is fulfilled with moral wisdom on how one should live their life.  It tells us how to act, think, feel, on a variety of critical issues.  And, there is no express discussion of atonement, justification, salvation by grace, etc.  Does this make Proverbs moralism?  Not at all.  These exhortations, once again, need to be understood within the larger context of the Bible’s teachings.
These are just three quick examples designed to make a very simple point: sometimes it is Ok to take large blocks of teaching and focus on Christian morals. One should not have to stop every five minutes to give a “gospel presentation” out of fear of being accused of moralism.   The key issue is whether there is a larger context around those moral teachings that adequately provide a gospel foundation for obedience.  If Veggie Tales were used as a supplemental teaching tool to parents who were adequately explaining the gospel to their children, I could see it as very useful (and very Christian!).  Veggie Tales were never intended (I hope!) to be a complete Christian curriculum for kids, even though some parents may unfortunately use them in that fashion.
Of course, this whole discussion is about more than just children’s videos. It also has tremendous relevance for modern day preaching.  The big push today in Reformed circles, and rightly so, is that we should always be concerned to “preach Christ” from every text.  And I agree 100%.   But, the key question is “What does it means to ‘preach Christ’?”  For some, this has turned into a requirement that every sermon must be about justification by faith alone.  In order to avoid the trap of moralism, we are told that we must find a way to turn every passage of Scripture into a discussion of how we cannot keep the law and how Christ has kept it for us.
Now certainly justification by grace alone is a foundational and wonderful topic. And it should be preached regularly with vigor. But, to suggest that every sermon needs to be narrowly about this topic is to misunderstand the biblical vision for preaching.  Our call to “preach Christ” includes all of his offices not just the priestly one.  Why should we limit our preaching to just this one office?  Can we not “preach Christ” by preaching about his kingly role? Or his prophetic role?  Can we not preach a sermon that primarily focuses on what our King requires of us and how we need to obey him? Ironically, by limiting our sermons to just the topic of justification we are actually working against the very thing we are trying to preserve, namely keeping Christ at the center of our preaching.  If we are really to keep Christ there, we must be willing to preach all his offices.  We must preach the whole Christ.
But, there are other problems with this approach.  If preaching Christ just mean preaching justification then whenever we come across a text that is focused on morals (James, Sermon on the Mount, Proverbs, etc.), then our tendency will always be to focus on the “second use” of the Law.  In other words, our tendency will be to just point out that our congregations cannot really keep this law and must flee to Christ to be justified and forgiven.  While that is true, that is not the only role of the law in the Christian life.  The law is also given to Christians as a positive guide to how we should live in obedience to Christ (known as the “third use” of the law).   We want to make sure that our preaching balances second and third use, and does not just automatically default to one.  If we default to third use, our temptation will be legalism.  If we default to the second use, our temptation will be antinomianism.
Also, and perhaps most problematically, this particular understanding of what it means to “preach Christ” can hamper fair exegesis.  If we feel obligated to preach only Christ’s priestly office, then we must find a way to turn every text to this issue even when it may not naturally go there.  Thus, we “find” Christ in the text in an unnatural way rather than a natural way.   This ends up creating sermons that sound almost the same every time, regardless of what the passage actually says.  This proves to be somewhat ironic in Reformed circles that have historically placed such an emphasis on careful exegesis and expository preaching.  In some ways we have failed to trust the text (and its sufficiency) and have replaced it with our own ideas of what it has to say.
All of this, of course, is not designed to downplay or deny the real threat of moralism in many churches today.  To be sure, many pulpits lack the gospel message entirely and simply preach a “do this” version of Christianity.  But, the solution is not to impose a “one size fits all” version of preaching where any extended moral exhortation is immediately labeled moralism.  Indeed, the Bible is filled with extended moral exhortations. Perhaps we should take a cue from the Scripture on this issue.  The indicative is the ground for the imperative, not its obstacle.

An Indonesian Book Burning

I've decided to post links that I'm sending to facebook onto this blog as well. Perhaps it'll inspire me to write more than a post a month!
UPDATE: Sorry, I was treating this a bit like facebook but I was reminded that I needed to include the detail of who actually wrote the blog!! This is from Doug Wilson.

An Indonesian Book Burning:
There is currently a ruckus over in Indonesia over a book I wrote, 5 Cities That Ruled the World. The publisher there (Gramedia) has formally apologized for their role in it, and has burned their copies of the book.
The first thing about this that I should note is that people on the other side of the world are in significant trouble because of something I wrote, and I don't want to in any way make their situation any more difficult than it has to be. But this is how hostage taking works, isn't it? Unreasonable and belligerent people are always willing to commandeer a situation, and then blame others for the devastation that follows.
Whenever this kind of thing happens, whenever Muslims threaten violence because their prophet was "defamed," they are only proving that it wasn't a defamation at all. The sons of Muhammad do the works of Muhammad.
The offending passage in my book appears to have been this one:

"He [Muhammad] became a marauder and pirate, ordering attacks on Meccan caravans. Two years later, Muhammad ordered assassinations in order to gain control of Medina, and in AD 630 he conquered Mecca" (p. 26 of the English edition).

I think one of the news stories said that I had called Muhammad a "pirate and a murderer," which I repeated in one of my tweets on this situation, but having now gone back and looked at the original passage, I actually had said marauder and pirate. These are sentiments that ought to be unremarkable in a free country, but apparently Indonesia is not quite there yet.

Letting a caravan have it is noted in the Koran itself:

"You were encamped on this side of the valley and the unbelievers on the farther side, with the caravan below. Had they offered battle, you would have surely declined; but God sought to accomplish what he had ordained, so that, by a clear sign, he that was destined to perish might die . . ." (8:42)

For those who want to pursue this subject further, the downstream history of Islam's approach to violence is ably discussed by Bernard Lewis in What Went Wrong? A good brief biography of Muhammad can be found in the first chapter of The Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic. Another interesting discussion is offered by Mark Gabriel (a former Muslim) in Jesus and Muhammad, in which he chronicles "profound differences and surprising similarities" between Jesus and Muhammad. The place to check would be his Chapter 7, "Spreading the Message." In Secrets of the Koran, Don Richardson (author of Peace Child) has a good chapter on the violent passages of the Koran, and their original context.
In the meantime, I would ask everyone to please pray for the safety and security of anyone involved in this mess which, if there weren't such serious possible consequences for some, would be laughable.

Wiggly kid's talk: God never changes

My kid's talk for church this morning...

Hi kids and hi everyone. Welcome to Gordon’s culture watch. Culture watch is where we watch a video and I give you a verse from the Bible to think about.

Hands up please if you’ve heard of the Wiggles? Keep your hands up if you like the wiggles!

Wow lots of people like the Wiggles. Who’s been to a Wiggles concert? What was it like? Do you have a favourite song?

I’ve got a clip here from my favourite song, and as you watch it you can sing along

VIDEO Hot potato!

(Hot potato. Cold Spaghetti. Mashed banana. Hot potato)

Great song! and you could also see that the Wiggles look a lot younger then than they do now. I’ve got some photos here of how the Wiggles have changed. Most of you kids would know that Greg Wiggle got a bit sick for a while, so Sam joined up

PHOTO. Wiggles with SAM.

Then Sam finished up just back in January! So here’s a photo of the Wiggles with Greg Wiggle back!

PHOTO Old Wiggles. They look a bit older though don’t they! Did you know that Jeff Wiggle is nearly 60 years old? Wow.

So just in the last two weeks three of the Wiggles have said they’re retiring!

Anyway the Wiggles aren’t finishing up completely because there are some new young wiggles, here’s a photo of them:

PHOTO Young wiggles.

And one of the best things is now there is a girl wiggle, and her name is Emma, and I think that is great especially because she comes from close to here, and she was Miss Granny Smith for 2009

PHOTO Emma Watkins Granny Smith.

Now I want to say that sometimes change is good, and sometimes it’s not so good. I used to say to my daughters when they were babies, my job for you is to stay the same forever. But they didn’t! And now my 13 year old daughter is a bit sad that the Wiggles have changed, she says they were the One Direction of her childhood. (You know that One Direction is the world’s greatest boy band, don’t you).

Well I just want to finish with a verse from the Bible where the Lord Jesus talks about change, and it is a great Bible verse because even though it says everything changes, there is one thing that doesn’t change.

Mark 13:31 Jesus said: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.”

So kids, the Wiggles will change. You will change. We might come back in 30 years and this building might not even be here. But God never changes, and the words that he speaks never change, and that’s why we should trust him, and that’s why we should trust all his promises.

Seven Stanzas at Easter by John Updike

Shared this before, no doubt will share again!

Seven Stanzas at Easter

By John Updike

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His Flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that — pierced — died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck's quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

Telephone Poles and Other Poems © 1961 by John Updike.

John Piper and masculine Christianity

Simone has sparked a fascinating discussion on John Piper's talk, “The Frank and Manly Mr. Ryle” — The Value of a Masculine Ministry.

You can find Simone's post here, but do read Piper's original before drawing conclusions.

It is good to see a thoughtful defence of some of Piper's ideas and expressions in the comments to Simone's post. Not that Piper needs others to defend him, but it is likely that he would have his hands well and truly full if he weighed in to every discussion that referenced his original address.

Find a fool

Preached this yesterday:



Psalm 14: FIND A FOOL

I was a bit surprised when I came to prepare Psalm 14 to discover just how important it is. It is a Davidic Psalm, which means that it was written by King David, the man who gets called the sweet psalmist of Israel in 2 Samuel 23.

but as interesting as that is, the real reasons why this Psalm is so important I would summarize by saying God, the Bible and Jesus.

The first reason is the obvious reason, God spoke it so it is the word of God.

The second reason, which I’d half forgotten, is that this Psalm is repeated almost word for word later on in the book of Psalms, Psalm 53, only a few words are changed, the word LORD is replaced by God, there’s an added reference to the scattering of bones of the enemy, and there is most likely a new tune, if you check the heading that comes with the Psalm. Why is it so? Well you read them yourself and make the comparison,

but I am quite sure that God doesn’t say the same thing twice in two different places without a reason, in much the same way as you may choose to say to children under your care, be very careful crossing the road because we don’t like getting run over, even though you have said it many times before and even if those children can now repeat it even before you say it. That is the whole point! You don’t want them to forget! It’s why there are 4 gospels that tell us about Jesus, not just one!

And I take it that God does not want us to forget any of his Word but especially he doesn’t want us to forget this Psalm.

The third reason this Psalm is important is that it is a Psalm about Jesus, quoted in Romans chapter 3, but we will get to that in a while.

Right now I want to ask the question who is a fool, you see that the Psalm begins with the words ‘The fool’. The fool has said in his heart ‘God does not exist’

And probably the big distraction to get out of the way is that ‘fool’ is not about intellectual ability.

I felt like a fool in 1980, and many times since may I say, but on this occasion I was sitting quietly as a second year sociology student, and the tutor, who clearly wasn’t a fool by anyone’s estimation said, surely no-one here believes in the idiot notion of human nature any more, to which I foolishly said, I do.

Now the tutor, and lots of other people, thought that they had found a perfect example of a fool, but a fool in this Psalm is not just about not being clever or not keeping up with the programme, because as you can see in verse one, the defining characteristic of the fool is the man who says, ‘God does not exist’ or if you have another translation in front of you, ‘There is no God.’

That is pretty clear isn’t it; being a fool is not about an intellectual limitation, it’s about taking the view that the God of Israel—remembering that it is David king of Israel who writes—doesn’t exist, isn’t there.

Now once we’ve worked out that being a fool is not about being stupid…


I mean the world is full of stupid people isn’t it? On July 2 1982 Larry Walters attached helium balloons to his deckchair and rose to a height of 4.6 kilometres with the plan of shooting some balloons with a pellet gun so that the deckchair would slowly come down. He hadn’t meant to go that high, the original plan was about 10 metres or 30 feet. He shot some balloons, accidentally dropped the pellet gun overboard and eventually caused a 20 minute blackout in Long Beach California when the cords from the balloon got tangled in powerlines.

We are not talking that sort of stupid. Psalm 14 says it is about refusing to acknowledge the existence of God, which means that one of the new atheists, undoubtedly brilliant men, like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, comes much more easily to mind.

Now they undoubtedly fit the bill of people who say that God does not exist, but there are just a couple of other things to notice in verse 1, and the first is that it is not just an outward denial that we are talking about, it is an attitude of the heart. So yes, there may be an intellectual component but actually there is more going on here, it is an inward, personal attitude that says no, God is not there. And add to that the second half of the verse brings in the matter of action

‘They are corrupt; they do vile deeds. There is no-one who does good.’

Now that additional information makes it immediately harder and easier to find a fool. Harder, because we all know atheists, at least one person who will loudly and prouldly announce, ‘There is no god, it is all just superstition’ and so as soon as the Psalm begins, we think we’ve nailed the person it’s talking about,

and it turns out that we sort of have, but sort of haven’t, because it is talking about an attitude of heart which may or may not be publicly expressed, and overflows into wickedness of action, it is not just someone who thinks bad thoughts but who does bad things. That may have been Christopher Hitchens and it may be Richard Dawkins but if we are honest neither of them are particularly obvious as wicked people; actually there are plenty of people in the world where we might say much more easily, no they are corrupt, they do vile deeds,

in fact once you bring the whole question of what people do into it, you’d want to finger far more public 20th century atheists like Joseph Stalin, or Mao Zedong, or Hitler who said ‘Nature is cruel, therefore we are also entitled to be cruel’ ; people who both actively denied God and went out of their way to kill people, Christians included, who opposed their ideology.

We have to say there is no doubt in King David’s mind as to who the fools are. They are his enemies, in verse 4, they are the ones “who consume my people as they consume bread, they do not call upon the LORD.” But actually, when we think about it in those terms, there are many fools in the world.

We were up at CMS Summer school this week and had a wonderful time, including catching up with the Clarks from this congregation, andy and Nicole Clark and also Michael and Caroline Clark and their kids, who are going off to Munich for Michael to teach theology.

We heard news from every corner of the world, many wonderful things, and some awful things. did you know that in Eritrea, which is next door to Ethiopia, the Christians are undergoing terrible persecution. They are taking Christian leaders and putting them into containers. They are taking those containers and burying them, so that the men inside suffocate. These Christian leaders are being buried alive.

There are other stories too, I hope that if you don’t already, you will get hold of the magazine from the Barnabas fund which comes out every month and find out how Christians are suffering for being Christian in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Sudan, Egypt, and many parts of the world, if only so that you can be prompted to pray for them on a regular basis.

The point of what I’m saying is that to be a fool is not simply to verbally or perhaps mentally deny that there is a God, that is, to be an atheist, but to carry that action out into the world. Jesus said that the two greatest commands are to Love God and to love your neighbour; the fool is the person who says, well there is no God, and who hates his neighbour and eats him up, he doesn’t love God, he doesn’t love man. That’s what a fool is.

And indeed once we realize that there is your picture of a fool, you actually realize that the question better asked is, who is righteous? Is there anyone who doesn’t act and think like a fool at least some of the time.

All of the people are all fools, some of the time. If Abraham Lincoln didn’t say it he should have.

Really, is there anyone righteous? Anyone who really does love God and love his neighbour?

Now we know that there must be righteous people, because David speaks of them in v 5. “God is with those who are righteous.”

Again in v6, “You sinners frustrate the plans of the afflicted, but the LORD is his refuge.”

And when we come back next week, we will hear even more about righteous people.

But for the moment, let’s look at ourselves not just from the perspective of David who writes the Psalm, but from the perspective of God himself.

vv 2-3

In other words, when God looks down on us, he finds no-one righteous.

That very idea is taken up by Paul when he quotes this very Psalm in Romans chapter 3, let me turn there now but if you have Ps 14 in front of you, please stay there while I read.

Romans 3:10-18

Paul, writing to Christians, picks up David’s Psalm and says that is absolutely true; possibly even truer than David knew. We are all fools! We are all people who say in our hearts, “God doesn’t exist”. What sort of person are you when no-one is looking, when not even family members are noticing? That is the person that God sees, and he sees people who think he doesn’t see them because they don’t see him, and when we are convinced that even God doesn’t see what we do, then we act accordingly.

So who is righteous?

Notice that David himself is righteous, the writer of this Psalm; and not because he is good! The second time this Psalm comes back, when it is pretty much repeated word for word in Psalm 53, is very shortly after Psalm 51 where David confesses and repents of adultery and murder. He is not righteous because he does good things!

Look with me at v 7

v 7

Here David is speaking as someone who is not a fool, but as someone who calls and cries out to God. Zion is the hill where Jerusalem is built. Jerusalem is the city of David, where God is not because he has to be, but because he has promised to be, and that is why David, in the face of fools, can call out for Israel’s deliverance to come from Zion. God will hear and rescue him, and everyone who with David calls out.

And this is of course where the Christian turns, for exactly the same hope. When Paul takes up this Psalm in Romans 3, he uses it to prove that there is no hope at all for any human being, because we are all corrupt in God’s eyes. We all have our own way of saying, “God doesn’t exist”, whether it’s in our secret thoughts, or our secret actions, or in the way we treat each other when we think we can get away with it.

But the very next thing that happens in Romans 3 is that Paul points us to the Lord Jesus, who is presented as a propitiation through faith in his blood. All the terrible things that we fools do, and that quite rightly deserve the terrible judgement of God who looks down from heaven and sees that all have turned away and become corrupt—all those terrible things have been paid for by the death of Jesus on the cross. He is our propitiation; he pays for all the wrong we’ve done, he bears God’s anger against our foolishness..

And so Psalm 14 isn’t in the end just a lament over fools, or over intellectual limitation, or over evil deeds; it’s a prayer of trust that the God who saved king David from his enemies will also save us, if we will put our trust in Jesus, so that there is for those who trust God nothing that will separate us from his great and powerful love revealed in Jesus Christ.

My plans for 2012

Firstly, given that the Lord may return before 2012 anyway, and given that we have not in any way given up on 2011, and given that we want to be giving thanks for his grace at all times and in all places,

Merry Christmas!

And thanks to God who gives us his grace in so many ways, but most especially through the life, death and resurrection of his son, the Lord Jesus.

However I wanted to let blog and facebook readers know in a bit more detail what my plans are for 2012. They are in order of importance: one, to keep following Jesus as Lord; two, to keep loving my family in word and action; and three… well read on.

Due to family and personal circumstances I decided to take a break from AFES (Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students) work half way through 2010. I’m convinced under God that it was the right thing to do so, with some sadness, I finished up as campus director at the Cumberland campus of Sydney Uni.

There was never any intention to step back from the work of gospel ministry, however. So in the time since then, I’ve looked for opportunities to keep on teaching the Bible and God’s message of forgiveness in Jesus—whether in the family with my dear wife and daughters, or in meeting one-to-one with various people, or in preaching at church and elsewhere, including a series earlier this year on the book of Daniel at Cumberland campus.

As well as that I’ve done some writing, including some articles on the resurrection, and some writing and editing for a Bible course, Faith Under Fire for use in the Australian Defence forces, and drafting a statement of belief for a Christian school.

I’ve also been producing a video featuring broadcaster Kel Richards and evangelist John Chapman, and working with children’s gospel worker Bruce Linton in putting together a website for children’s ministry resources (we haven’t gone live on that one yet).

Together with the joys and responsibilities of family life, and part time work singing and playing the piano, and driving hearses, most weeks have become just as full and busy as any of the work that I was doing on campus!

However in God’s grace, a new possibility has come up for 2012. Having talked again to various friends in AFES, I will be starting work with the Conservatorium of Music (known to all and sundry as the Con, part of the University of Sydney) as soon as I am able to gain sufficient support to begin.

Initially I will be working two days per week, but there is a very good possibility that this will increase down the track once we all get a chance to see how things are going. The basic job will be the same as previously: Bible teaching, meeting with leaders and meeting one-to-one to read the Bible and pray, together with a team of others including some friends from St Andrew’s Cathedral, Andrew Lim and Sarah Cheng.

There’s a lot more to be said, but one of the things I must do before I can start is work on building a team of friends and supporters who will pray for the campus and the progress of the gospel, and possibly be willing to offer financial support as well. If you’re a facebook friend or a friend from other parts of life I may already have contacted you about this already, and thank you very much to those who’ve already said they want to be part of the support network for what I’m affectionately referring to as ‘the Con job’!

I’m already making plans to contact more people to ask if they (you?) would like more information about how to support the work of this ‘Con man’ in 2012. But if you don’t want to wait for my call or message, please let me know that. The best way is to message me on facebook and ask for more information, or you can send me an e-mail at ggordonc AT optusnet DOT com DOT au with the words ‘Con job’ (or something similar) in the subject line.

So that’s the latest, would love to tell you more and no doubt will do so through this blog or other means, but if want to make sure you find out, please make contact with me and let me know that.

UPDATE: You can contribute financially, if you wish, by going to this link and finding my name on the relevant drop-down menu.

http://www.afes.org.au/support

Advice please, on lingerie model advertisement

Advice please.

I'm an older man who walks daughters past a lingerie model in the local shopping centre (photo, larger than life size). After school drop-off I went in to complain, saying that in my view the photo was not suitable for public display, and I didn't want said daughters walking past it.

Response from manager was: She was within her legal rights to display, and if the complaint was to be taken further, go to centre management.

She would be ready with her arguments which, in summary, were:

As a Christian, she didn't think the display was

a. provocative

b. immoral

c. illegal.

Different people would offer different opinions on a, and b, but she is correct on c.

What's best next?

beans...

Going to try these beans.

1 lb fresh green beans (not frozen), stem end trimmed off
1 Tbs dark sesame oil
1 tsp kosher salt
1/2 tsp black pepper

Preheat your oven to 450ºF while you trim off the stem ends of the green beans. Wash and thoroughly dry the beans.

Spread the beans on an aluminum foil lined baking sheet, then toss with the oil, salt, and pepper. Arrange the beans to fit on the baking sheet in a single layer. Cook for 10 minutes, then stir the beans and cook for another 5 to 10 more minutes, or until the skin is wrinkled and beginning to brown in places.

Let cool for a minute, add a dash more dark sesame oil, then commence super-sonic snacking.

Closing my Cumbo blog for a good reason!

Somewhat late, but I am closing my Cumbo blog. You can read the last post here, or you can hear it here. ;-)

The spur to finally closing the Cumbo blog is to avoid any confusion. In the grace of God, I've begun support raising for a new job, hopefully beginning in early 2012, working two days a week with the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students, still at Sydney University but this time with the Conservatorium Christian Group.

Really excited about joining this team in what Fifi and I are already affectionately referring to as 'the Con job'.

Mozart A minor piano sonata

Written about the time of his mother's death.

I've always thought what Grimaud expresses here:

Grimaud opened with Mozart’s Sonata in A Minor, playing it as if she were lashing a carriage down the streets of Salzburg. “It’s Mozart’s only sonata with fortissimo markings,” she says. “I like to think of it as something quite extreme, and that’s how I play it.”

From here.

Listen to her brilliant performance, here.