Izaac thinks aloud

It's like a Picasso

2011-11-17T17:24:00.000+11:00

Edmund Capon, the curator of the Art Gallery of NSW on 702 ABC Sydney, speaking about the artwork of Pablo Picasso:

His artwork always says far more about Picasso than it does about the subject.

Like a lot of the Bible, I reckon. It says more about the author, than it does the subject.

A one-sided conversation

2011-11-15T19:05:00.000+11:00

One of the problems in reading a lot of the New Testament letters, and particularly 1 Corinthians, is we're only getting one side of the discussion. It's like overhearing someone on a phone call, and you need to supply as best guess the other side of the conversation. Trying to work out the other half of the conversation works best when the side you are hearing is arguing for something (e.g. against circumcision), rather than general statements (give thanks).

This entire process is fraught with difficulties.

As our New Testament lecturer Brian Rosner noted in class,

"It's all kind of speculative. If you don't like it, you call it speculation. If you do, it's called historical reconstruction."

This American Life Live

2011-11-15T10:36:00.005+11:00

Do you listen to the weekly podcast This American Life?

If you don't, you should. It is the best story-telling in the world. If you are a preacher, it will help you to understand the craft of language, and how to structure intrigue. If you are a person with the love of a good story, you will appreciate the well-told yarns.

Anyways, I'm wondering if anyone wants to come along with me to see 'Reinventing Radio: An Evening with Ira Glass' (the host of TAL) at Sydney Town Hall on January 11. Sarah has given her blessing for me to go out without her, so I'm after some company.

First show sold out in two days, and tickets on sale tomorrow for the second show (8:30-11:00pm).

And whilst I'm at it, I need to say again that I have no idea why ABC local radio hasn't started a local version of the program. With the long distances Australians travel, I am certain this would soon become the most popular podcast in the country. Someone needs to make this happen. The Conversation Hour with Richard Fidler is a start, but this is the next step between the story-telling of Conversations and the production value of PM with Mark Colvin.

What books do I need to have?

2011-11-15T09:40:00.003+11:00

Okay, so "need" is probably the wrong word. But I'm in Moore Books with money to spend and I'm lacking inspiration. Suggestions?

National Church Life Survey

2011-11-14T18:37:00.003+11:00

Did you fill out a National Church Life Survey survey on Sunday? It's a good idea, I think.

But obviously the NCLS people are not overly optimistic about the life of the church, considering the main sponsor on the front page.

A photo a day

2011-11-10T15:16:00.002+11:00

Image credit: oelal.wordpress.com

For the last few days, my wife Sarah has been taking a single photo each day on her daily walk as she passes the time until the birth of our baby.

I am writing about this for three reasons:
1. I'm not sure I have mentioned here previously that Sarah and I are expecting. The pregnancy has been going really well and this little one who we hope to meet in the next few weeks is a fantastic answer to prayer.

2. There are surprises around every corner in the Inner West of Sydney, and Sarah has a keen eye for a good photo. The one above is my fave thus far, and it reminds me of this song.

3. I have blog envy. Her new design is so beautifully minimal, and she caught me ogling at it the other day. How embarassment.

A new game - Scientheology

2011-11-04T10:13:00.002+11:00

I've invented a new game inspired by the quote I posted yesterday. I call it Scientheology.

For those who missed it, this was the quote from an article on overpopulation:

I love the old biblical statement from Isiah [sic] - 'all flesh is grass'. That's actually a brilliant statement because it summarises the basic truth that we are only here on Earth because we can trap the energy in sunlight and turn it into something of use to us. And the best way of trapping the energy of sunlight, virtually the only way we've got, is to use chlorophyll - the green stuff in plants - to turn the solar energy into a plant which we can eat or harvest and do what we like with. So ultimately our future depends on the ability of the Earth to trap that solar energy, and for a plant to grow, it needs water.

- Professor Roger Short, University of Melbourne

Scientheology involves taking a verse or section of Scripture and applying it through an exlusively scientific lense.

Today's challenge is Revelation 3:16 'So, because you are lukewarm–nethier hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'

Will you take up the Scientheology challenge? Can you explain how the thermal qualities of food apply to the Christian life. Perhaps you have knowledge of the mechanisms by which humans expel substances from their mouth.

Paul Williamson on the Problem of the Documentary Hypothesis Theory

2011-11-03T17:25:00.002+11:00

I don't think the word 'Theory' should be in that heading.

Anyways, the Documentary Hypothesis hypothesises that the Old Testament (especially the Torah) is basically a collection of potentially related but essentially independent stories which have been brought together by editors (redactors). The different sources who have been brought together have been identified as 'J' (Jahwist) 'E' (Elohist) 'D' (Deuteronomist) and 'P' (Priestly). As a side note, this led to the Jed P. joke in the OT part of my Moore Revue video which I assumed went over most people's heads.

This is what Paul Wiliamson has to say on the theory in our Old Testament 2 lecture notes regarding the promise of land to Israel being both unconditional and provisional in nature.

Those looking at the text through a diachronic lens see the explanation of such a paradox in the editorial layers allegedly underlying the final form of the text.16 All such theories, however, ultimately come up against the insuperable problem of why redactors would wish to combine two antithetic traditions, or qualify the tradition of an unconditional promise on such a selective basis themselves.

In other words, as I've said many times, this theory works on the assumption that the editor was an idiot.

The whole hypothesis arises from the fact that you can see the 'seams' of the editing process. And yet others argue we should worry where we can't see the seams, because it has been edited too well. But you can't have it both ways. If both evidence of multple sources and lack of evidence of multiple sources indicate multiple authorship, what evidence would you need to prove the writing is something close to a single author?

End rant.

We should let more scientists apply the Bible.

2011-11-03T11:07:00.003+11:00

This is a quote from an article on overpopulation (apparently there are now 7 billion people in the world).

I love the old biblical statement from Isiah [sic] - 'all flesh is grass'. That's actually a brilliant statement because it summarises the basic truth that we are only here on Earth because we can trap the energy in sunlight and turn it into something of use to us. And the best way of trapping the energy of sunlight, virtually the only way we've got, is to use chlorophyll - the green stuff in plants - to turn the solar energy into a plant which we can eat or harvest and do what we like with. So ultimately our future depends on the ability of the Earth to trap that solar energy, and for a plant to grow, it needs water.
- Professor Roger Short, University of Melbourne

From here.

Essay Feedback

2011-10-28T15:57:00.002+11:00

I love getting essay feedback.

This was the final line of my Church History 2 essay marker comments:

"This was a weakness in the essay - not enough critical engagement, especially with the secondary sources. Nevertheless, it was an 'above average' answer and was worth reading." [Emphasis mine]

It's always good to know that the best thing the marker can say about your essay is that is wasn't a complete waste of their time.

Some reflections on Assisted Reproductive Technology

2011-10-27T21:31:00.007+11:00

I had a really great evening at the Moore College Centre for Christian Living on Monday night, lots of thought provoking stuff which I just posted about here. I strongly encourage you to read that post first to put these thoughts in context.

Some random thoughts:
My personal conviction is that Christian couples should all discuss ART during pre-marital counselling. These decisions need to be made before they become an issue, and not in the emotion of the situation.

It is too simplistic for people to say, "I'm against IVF". It does not reflect a Christian understanding of intervention which seeks to minimise suffering and pain, not as an absolute, but as an expression of God giving us knowledge and understanding of his created world, and as a reflection of the hope of things being put right when Jesus returns. In its simplest form IVF is the combining of a single egg and single sperm brought together outside the body ('in vitro' is literally 'in glass' or 'in a test tube') and then transferred back. It is the bypassing of the fallopian tubes. We have heart bypasses, we have fallopian tube bypasses.

Often driving an aversion to all ART is that unnatural is wrong. But what is unnatural? It is unnatural to put a broken arm in a cast as that is providing an external support. But it is also unnatural to have a radius and ulna which aren't straight. In a very basic sense, ART is in the same category as fixing a broken arm, or dentistry. Sure, there is more to it, but the theological understanding driving all forms of medical intervention is the same. Though, clearly ART is different in that it involves human life.

People seem to forget that God is in control of all of life. There is no guarantees that ART will produce children. The success rate is still very small, but God is just as involved in the science lab as in the bedroom. This will affect how Christians go about ART, not if they will. Some forms of assistance have very few moral issues. Furthermore, a couple will only fall pregnant if God chooses for it to occur. An infertile couple will not have children at any cost, but children to the glory of God.

A recent objection I have come across with ART is its history of development. Embryos have, and continue to be destroyed as part of the research and development in the field. Is a Christian using some forms of ART implicitly condoning and supporting these ungodly actions by paying for their services, even if they follow a biblical approach (as outlined in the previous post), in good conscience? This is a hard one, and I would want to offer a few things in response.
1. God has put us in a world where right and wrong are often not black and white, but shades of grey. The history of many medicines and especially vaccinations has involved testing (oftentimes bad) on human subjects. Does this mean we shouldn't use the Rubella vaccine because it was originally created from a cell line of an aborted foetus? The history of development, though we wouldn't condone it, does not mean Christians are unable to receive the benefit of it.

2. But again, ART is a little different, for it is also the ongoing research which continues to trouble Christians, and which in theory, as infertile Christians use ART they are supporting this process. This again is a difficult issue. However, as Christian couples would not be supplying the embryos for research, their support is a byproduct of the cost of their treatment. The answer to these questions are complex. For the reality is that as our government pays for aspects of ART through Medicare, every taxpayer also contributes to the field. No doubt much of the money for research similarly comes from government grants. But I don't think we should stop paying our taxes.

3. It is really a deeper issue of supply as well. We need to make sure if we have an objection based on both
a. Supporting a flawed system, and
b. Having the profits of a business used for immoral purposes,
then we need to make sure we don't stop with ART. If we applied the same standards to our food and clothing of not being willing to financially enable people to continue to exploit other humans then we probably wouldn't own an iPhone or MacBook. We almost certainly wouldn't wear anything from Nike. We wouldn't eat any chocolate products (not just chocolate bars, but all chocolate) or drink any coffee (unless its fairtrade). My point isn't to excuse the use of ART if in using the treatment financial advantage is given which allows further morally corruptible research. But I'm saying the fact that we all wear clothing and eat food and use technology which often props up corrupt and exploitative practices shows that our ethical approach must be more nuanced. The morally neutral product is difficult to find. It might be that somehow ART research crosses a particular line for some people, but don't pretend it's some unique area where you are financing the 'killing of people' anymore than owning your iPhone does.

So I would hope at the least that any arrogant dismissal of using ART would be replaced with a humble acknowledgment that there is great complexity in the moral landscape God has placed modern day Christians in. However, as always we must reflect upon our ability to do good to our neighbour, even the unborn ones.

I'm really looking forward to reading Dr Megan Best's book when it is released. It has a clever title: 'Fearfully and wonderfully made'.

Dr Megan Best on 'A Christian Approach to Assisted Reproductive Technology'

2011-10-27T20:49:00.006+11:00

Dr Megan Best is a palliative care specialist but has been seeking to research and promote a Christian understanding of Assisted Reproductive Technology having been approached a number of years ago to work with the ethics advisory committee for Sydney Anglicans. She has a book coming out on the topic but here are my notes from a lecture Dr Best gave at the Moore College 'Centre for Christian Living' lecture earlier this week.

Dr Megan Best - 'A Christian Approach to ART'
ART - Assisted Reproductive Technology. Medical intervention which assists in the production of children. Most common is IVF. How should we think about the making of "test tube babies"?

Gen 1:28 "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth" Is this reproduce at all costs? Are there limits?

We are free to act within limits of God's design
Free to pursue healing of our bodies which makes child-bearing difficult.
But not "at any cost"

Goal: Framework for thinking, then application to common procedures.

1. Biblical view of marriage
Children created through sexual relationship within marriage between man and woman.
Christian marriage - Gen 2:24. Marriage is a new creative act of God.

Unitive (Gen 2:24)
Procreative (Gen 1:28)

What is the link to sex in marriage? RC says they must be combined, that only sex that is unitive AND procreative is right. Protestants recognise importance of both, and say both apply in marriage.

The command is repeated in Gen 9, so to fill and subdue continues. Not all couples can procreate (as recognised throughout the Bible), but it is the norm. Through children Gen 5 the image of God is perpetuated, and the blessing of God achieved.

Scripture teaches that the family is subordinate to the marriage. Emphasis in Gen 2 is on man and woman, and thus marriage is a valid end in itself. Desire to have children should not destroy marriage, as they aren't promised. Children should be extended same love and hospitality we have been shown, but conviction is to stand as couple no matter what.

Christians see children as opportunity to raise godly children to witness to next generation, not just perpetuating gene pool, and so need to think of responsibilies not rights.

2. Responsibilities of parenthood

To be Godly example to their children and witness to the next generation (Gen 18:19, Deut 6:7)
To nurture (1 Jn 3:11-16)
Material provision (1 Tim 5:8)
Kinship (OT genealogies, Joshua 4:4-7, 20-24) Our very existence is dependent on family line e.g. shown in adopted chilren knowing their parents.

Infertility is painful and often unexpected. It is only as infertility occurs that Christians understand just how much they have no control. Pain increased as infertility a taboo subject. The bible validates the pain of childbirth by comparing it to natural disasters Prov 30:15–16. In a funny way ART has increased anxiety, as there is now another big stress for Christians regarding intervention.

Lots of reasons to procreate. As a blessing of God, it is good to desire children. To those to whom it is denied, there is pain of loss. Difficult to understand why God would withold children from those who desire it (though not the focus of tonight). The desire for this good blessing is what makes the pull of ART so strong and increases anxiety.

3. Moral status of the human embryo
Does it matter how we treat an embryo? Firstly we need a biology lesson

Embryo is 1-8 weeks, then called a foetus. If a baby is a human, when did it start being a human? As everything is available in the first cell, and it is self-directing from that point, at that point life begins. We are dealing with a human being from the time of fertilisation. All professionals accept the self-directing and unique structure of the embryo from fertilisation. It is unified whole, not just collection of cells.

What does Bible tell us about development in the womb?

Conception linked to birth - Gen 4:1; Isa 46:3; Matt 1:18
Relationship with God while in the womb - Ps 139; Job 10; Ps 51:3
The incarnation of Jesus - Jesus' human existence began at conception - Phil 2:7-8
All humans bear the image of God - Gen 1:26-27, 9:6
Do not kill - Ex 20:13
Legal recognition of unborn child - Ex 21:22-25

To get involved in ART, need to have conviction to protect life from beginning.

4. Morality of individual ART procedures
ART is lucrative business, and not all providers are altruistic.
It is not wrong for Christians to seek medical intervention to fix things that are broken. But not ALL methods are acceptable if we want to protect life from its beginning. But reason for infertility will determine what form of ART is used and thus acceptable. Egg/sperm on their own not human, don't need protecting.

IUI - simple remedy to get sperm/egg to unite. Simply bypasses fallopian tubes - though an otherwise intimate activity now involves others. Still two week wait to know if there is a pregnancy. The only issue here is in how the sperm is actually collected - whether with pornography by masturbation or not. Some Christians have problem with masturbation, but most don't. Lust for other than spouse is a problem. Alternatives won't be offered, so need to be forceful. Many clinics allow those who live close by to collect at home. There are alternatives available regarding collection, so ask.

IVF - First and most common form of ART. Basic IVF involves single egg and thus no destruction of embryos. Again, fallopian tubes are just bypassed, and so no huge ethical concerns. But more commonly, IVF is combined with ovarian stimulation to produce more eggs, so that more than one can be harvested. Best case is 25% success for someone who walks into an ART centre. Ovarian stimulation can be used for those not doing IVF, but who can't naturally ovulate. Some dangers involved in this procedure. No ethical reasons per se for hormone use, but if all eggs fertilise, the problems of freezing embryos arises.

Freezing came about to increase success rates for patients and to avoid danger of ovarian stimulation. It is not expected all fertilised eggs will produce to live birth. Generally only 80% even fertilise. In most countries embryos not allowed to exist outside body after 14 days and must be destroyed or cryopreserved. 50-90% don't survive defrosting, depending on clinic (Note: This percentage is questioned later in question time as not in line with what people have been told). There is no formula that x number of embryos lead to x live births. You could have 12 embryos and none lead to live birth, or to 12. They usually look for those that look best, but there is no definite criteria for which ones will go best just by looking at them. Those that look best have no definite link to which will develop. Last year a baby was born from an egg which had been frozen for 20 years time. Only allowed to freeze for 5 years in most states (Note: this is also addressed later in questions).

Is it morally permissible to freeze humans if embryos are humans? This is the most difficult question in the whole business. The basis of Christian ethics is love for God and our neighbour. If we believe an embryo is human, a Christian will give each embryo the best chance at life. Every embryo that is fertilised should be transferred to a womb at some stage. A completely healthy couple having children naturally will have 50-70% of women who have embryos that fertilise but not implant. So for whatever reason God has chosen in the creation of children to build into the process some form of fertilsation which does not lead to a baby being born. The only reason for not transferring embryo is that it is dead. Easier to tell this at blastocyst (5 days) rather than at day 3. Arguments against freezing is that it is unnatural - that unnatural is immoral, but natural theology is based on human reason of what is natural/unnatural, and being after fall this ethic is confusing and not necessarily biblical. Slippery slope is a non-argument as we are down bottom of slope anyway. Further questions for freezing: What if couple gets divorced or one partner dies?

ICSI - Discovered by accident when needle slipped. Sperm injected directly into egg, rather than simply placed together. Used when sperm aren't mobile. Male offspring from ICSI tend to have genetic issues and higher infertility, probably arising from the scientist choosing sperm not the strongest.

Donor Gametes (Sperm and Eggs) - Can't buy human tissue in Australia so need to advertise. Big problem in terms of the family, as third or fourth person are added into the marriage relationship. A common problems with lack of equality in marriage, and husbands can find it difficult, creating tension. Problem also with offspring not knowing their heritage.

Embryo Biopsy
Genetic screening is problematic as it is making judgment on value of life. This does not protect embryos. (Note: Rob Forsyth was interviewed on 702ABC in Sydney that a friend at Bible study was talking about and apparently he had a great line on choosing the sex of your child something like 'A child is created from the parents, not for the parents')

Surrogacy - Lots of problems!!

Summary: Even if ethically okay, might not be okay for you. Lots of costs involved in treatment, physical risks primarily for women. Brings strangers into procreation and not the intimate activity its meant to be. Many find the process dehumanising. Emotionally traumatic. Time consuming. Will doctor help me overcome my ethical concerns, will I be happy to put my foot down. Success rate is still very small ~20% even in the best clinics. Need to set a stop time before you start. Is it worth the cost to your marriage?

Qns:
Egg collection? Early stage of technology. Once this process is improved it will decrease many of the issues, but big loss of eggs, and very very expensive, especially if clinic knows you are doing it for ethical reasons (as opposed to say having cancer treatment which will make a woman infertile).

Qn: Loss of eggs from defrosting? Freezing blastocysts (Day 5) has better defrosting rate than those frozen at day 3, and it's because less survive and growing them to this stage is picking the strongest. Interestingly, recent research suggests that even those that don't survive freezing stage would never have made it. (Note: I was wondering how this research would be possible, but I assume they are saying that eggs implanted which survive freezing have a much higher percentage chance of implantation compared to those which are transferred before freezing.)

What happens to Christian couples who want to continue having embryos transferred after the five year limit on holding eggs expires? Many people delay making the decision on what to do with remaining embryos, so many just refused to make a decision and then stopped paying their fees. The five year limit on holding eggs is so clinics could cease having to pay the storage cost for those who refused to make a decision on their embryos, and had ceased to have any contact with the fertility specialist. The 5 years starts after a clinic loses track and a couple are no longer actively involved in fertility treatment. There is actually no limit on how long an embryo can be stored for, and companies will not destroy embryos of those who are still actively involved in treatment and/or continue to pay for storage.

Embryo adoption? In early stage. Better than gamete adoption. Shows love for the embryo. Generally a good thing. Interestingly, and sadly, most parents would prefer their embryos used for research rather than donated to a couple.

Research on ART offspring? No long term studies, but it is generally known children want to know thier origins. Donor offspring see that the whole industry is about the parents rather than the children. The anonymity makes them upset. Many children are pleased to know the lengths their parents went to, to have them. However, anonymity and where it comes out later in life is a problem.

I think lecturers should have a style guide for lecture notes

2011-10-26T15:00:00.001+11:00

I'm not being facetious. I reckon all lecture notes should submit to a style guide.

The college could provide a document which has all the styles embedded in a style guide so it's relatively simple to update all existing files.

It would need to include

a header with 'Moore College' and the subject name on two lines justified to the left, and the lecturer's name and year on the top right on two lines in size 10 font.
The footer would contain a single number centred.
Set reading would be contained in a box at the beginning of the document. Any 'Further Reading' would be in smaller italisised font at the end of the lecture notes.
Each lecture needs to be clearly numbered. Bigger sections would be marked by a centred larger font, possibly in bold. Sub-headings could be aligned to the left but clearly marked.
All paragraphs and sections would need a single line between them.
A font would be specified for all English writing but preferably would have the option to work with Hebrew and Greek. However, Hebrew and Greek should be up to the discretion of the lecturer, as not all of the markings of a language are easily displayed with a font.
All Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic for those playing at home) would need to be in Unicode (I think that's the fancy word for where you can copy and paste it in another document and it will keep the correct characters).
The document type would be required for all lecture notes, both in .pdf and .docx (though I still prefer .doc I recognise times have changed.)
Furthermore, just as students can only upload assignments with a specified file name, all lecture notes can only be uploaded with the filename '01_Title' and all supplementary files must similarly be attached to the particular lecture with which they come including '01-1_Title'

On a similar note, all subjects would come with a simple sheet explaining in appropriate columns
'Date, Lecture title, Lecturer, Set Readings.'

Any suggestions on the best font for lecture notes? Gentium, perhaps?

Download this Trevor Hodge EP

2011-10-26T13:28:00.001+11:00

Then once you've enjoyed it, go back and tip him. But don't forget to go back!

Trevor is the music pastor (read: worship pastor if you're looking for an argument) at Kirkplace in Sydney. Most of the tunes I've heard sung at College chapel or at the Oxygen conference, and they worked well in a congregational setting.

I dig it.

Aha! And you thought it was impossible to over-emphasise the bodily nature of the resurrection

2011-10-04T20:47:00.002+11:00

From Herman Bavinck on the result of a belief called totalitas materiae or 'the resurrection of the totality of matter'.

"... it leads to a variety of subtle and curious inquiries that are of no value for the doctrine of the resurrection. The question that is then pursued is whether the hair and the nails, the blood and the gall, the semen and the urine, the intestines and the genitals will all rise again and be composed of the same–in number and kind–atoms of which they were composed in this life."

No.

And eww.

Is this proof that everything can just as easily be over-emphasised as under-emphasised? My assessment of higher level theology is that the most comfortable location to engage in it is sitting on the fence.

Starting an essay on what we lose if we deny the bodily resurrection

2011-09-28T14:33:00.000+10:00

And poster child of the spiritual-as-opposed-to-bodily resurrection in Australia at least, is Peter Carnley.

His book The Structure of Resurrection Belief begins "Theology, like most other man-made things, is subject to fashion."

An ominous start...

Late night clarity

2011-09-18T01:36:00.000+10:00

It's about 1:30am and I have been up finishing a self-imposed deadline of having another sermon ready to go for the weekend away I'm speaking at next weekend. Once I wake up tomorrow (technically today) I will start again and need to have the third talk ready to go before I go to sleep tomorrow night (technically tonight but this is beginning to get confusing... though talk 3 needs the most work so it may end up actually being tomorrow).

Anyways, the reason I'm sharing all this is because I just had another moment.

In mentally preparing myself for another Groundhog Day of preparation tomorrow, I thought in my head, "It will be good to get a break from work tomorrow to go to church."

This excites me for two reasons:
1. I have not been turned into a professional academic.
2. The reflex of my mind is not to think of gathering with God's people as 'work'.

Fantastic way to go to sleep!

"One" with John Piper and John Lennox Streaming Now

2011-08-31T19:17:00.000+10:00

The big do in the city with 10,000 people is streaming online now.

Well worth a listen to J.Pip, and J. Lenno.

Blog slash real world cross-over

2011-08-30T21:54:00.002+10:00

I met Stuart Heath yesterday. We've crossed paths in the blogdom a few times, but this was the first time in person. I liked our brief chat so much that I returned to his stall at Oxygen 11 for a bit more of a convo today.

Part of our discussion involved the ethics of breaking personal trust in recounting private conversation online in blogs. That said, I'm sure Stuart won't mind me posting what I said to him, namely, "I think you're much nicer in person than you come across online".

This made me think two things.

1. I hope I didn't offend you, Stuart.
2. I wonder how I come across based on my blogposts and comments. Tell me if you like, I can take it.

Anyways, then I found out Stuart thought I had coined the nickname for him of, "the gadfly on the rump of institutionalism". This type of name-calling would be rather harsh, and very out of character for me. As I assured Stuart, it was in fact him who had coined the term here, then I liked it so I repeated it.

Hoping to have coffee in a few weeks.

Diary of an usher - Day 1

2011-08-29T22:36:00.001+10:00

My doctrine of sin comes almost entirely from ushering at Christian conferences. Such rampant selfishness. But I must admit, ushering today at Oxygen 11 (the conference for full-time ministry workers with 2220 delegates), a little bit of my hope in humanity has been restored. Okay, not that much, because we mainly let people sit where they wanted, but I felt a lot more joy coming from people following my instructions this time, compared with Engage last year. Perhaps it's coming from John Piper's message actually getting through?

Anyways, the main request today was for people who had left seats in the middle of rows, to move over and fill the gaps to leave the empty seats at the end of the row rather than in the middle where it is impossible for latecomers to get in. Now I am tempted to get a bit distracted from my overall gripe here by pointing out how hypocritical it is that so many of these pastors would often inwardly groan that their congregations leave massive gaps between themselves and others and don't interact during church meetings typified by their leaving chairs between themselves and others, and yet as soon as these pastors are part of a new congregation themselves they go and do exactly the same thing. But no, I won't go there. Instead I want to highlight that asking people to move over one or two seats would be easy right? Especially amongst a group of gospel-minded ministry folks. And to be honest, people were pretty good. A few bleats were inevitable, to be sure, and oftentimes these were legitimate reasons: I have a sore leg I need to stretch out, I'm a bit overweight and need to hang off the side, I'm old and have to go to the toilet a lot. But one response took the cake.

Sarah asked a couple to move along a few seats, and this is what they said,
"Oh. [cue disappointed look] We were just thanking God that we are here, because we'd been praying that we would get good seats."

Really? Really? You're going to go there? Christian guilt? That somehow we were going against God's will in asking you to move two seats to the right? Were you really praying that you'd get good seats? I mean, I don't want to question your prayer life, but is that really what you were praying before the conference? Well, maybe I was just thanking God that you were about to move two more seats to the right. And what does that mean? Is this some aberration in God's clear revelation that these two prophecies are at polar opposites?

Now, of course, my lovely wife said none of this. But she also isn't easily put-off. She just smiled politely, of course, maintaining eye-contact. And it turns out I'm not the only person who can't resist that understanding smile, because they moved. But I was shocked they tried to pull that one.

Though then again, what's a Christian minister if you can't bend someone to do your will through guilt?

The Church Planters Quandary

2011-08-25T11:53:00.001+10:00

Wannabe church planters are often stumped as to where to begin, once they've made the decision to plant a church. Is it just about settling on the best possible name for your church? Or should you begin by launching some kind of teaser website?

It's a big decision.

Turns out that to get a .com.au website you need an ABN.

To get an ABN you need a name.

Crisis over. It's all about the name.

There's more to life than deadlines

2011-08-24T23:20:00.004+10:00

There's more to life than deadlines.

My last few college assessments have gone in late. That's right. Bible College student: late. Doesn't sound right, does it? Aren't you Bible College students meant to be better than that? Aren't you meant to be motivated? But don't get carried away. It's generally only one day, or at most two, so we're talking a 7% deduction, at worst. But what do you think when I say I've handed in my last few assessments late? Slacker? Overworked? Lazy? Perfectionist? Almost all negative thoughts, I'd imagine.

On the plus side, the most redeeming feature about these late assessments has been that taking the extra day or two has on every occasion ensured at least an 11% improvement on the quality of the work. Plus, I submitted my Old Testament essay a week early and got my worst result at college thus far. But has your opinion of me changed since I've disclosed that I have been habitually late, of late?

Last week I was meeting with some friends to discuss some preliminary prospects for gospel work post-college. I casually brought up at the end of the meeting that I was going home to work on an assessment due the night before, and it was strongly insinuated by my friends that handing in college assessments late was a poor reflection on my organisational skills. Well, fair enough I suppose. That could certainly be the case. And it's worth asking the question. That perhaps if I habitually fail to meet deadlines, this could be a problem in some contexts e.g. when a sermon needs to be prepared each week you can't just take the 7% deduction in grades.

Now, I know what you're thinking. But please, forget that I just compared writing essays for assessment at Bible College to delivering sermons. Now, if you can get past that, let me explain why this symptom of late submission of essays is actually not caused by the disease of poor time management.

I chose to be late. That's right. It was a conscious decision on almost every occasion to submit my essays late.

The most recent was a church history essay. It was due 11:55pm Tuesday. I had been working on it, on and off for about three weeks prior to the due date. But the decision to submit two days late was made not at 11:54pm on the Tuesday, but two days prior, on the Sunday. After a full day at church, including four hours working on the essay in between services, I got home late Sunday night to have a quick dinner with wifey, before keeping on writing. At 11pm wifey said, "Can you please come and tuck me in for bed?" I thought for a moment. Stared at the screen. Yawned. Thought for another moment. And said, "Nah, I'm tired, I'm coming to bed too".

Blink and you may have missed it, but that my friends, was a swift left hook to the time management demons. I choose wife and 7% deduction over a sleepless night and associated grumpiness.

Sure there might still be more questions to ask in terms of how I've been using my time. But there's more to deadlines than life.*

* This reversal of my opening statement sounds profound, but if you ponder too long on it, it doesn't actually make sense.

Annual Moore College Lectures - Wednesday

2011-08-17T09:51:00.002+10:00

Paul's Replacement of the Law - "Under the law of Christ"

How common is the replacement theme in Paul in regards to Law and what does he replace it with?

1. The Motif of Substitution
In NT theology replacement is a way of relating the Old and New Testament, often associated with the fourth gospel

Jesus is new Moses
Exacts a new Exodus
Eclipses great Jewish feasts and institutions
Replaces temple
ultimate Passover sacrifice

Hebrews also stands out in this regard as it compares Jesus with sacrifice and priesthood.

But what about the replacement motif in Paul's thought with respect to the law?

2. The Christ-Torah Antithesis
One thing that didn't change for Paul after Damascus was 'Christ' and 'Torah' were mutually exclusive categories.

Gal 2:19-20 “For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me”

Phil 3:4b-8 “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ”

If once the law held a central place for Paul the Jew, for Paul the Christian that place is occupied by Christ. But why is he so opposed to the Law of Moses (the law as Law).

Gal 2:21 If righteousness came though the law, Christ died for no purpose.

The concern is to get through the law so comprehensively, what place does a holy life play? Doesn't living with the law make you lawless? Doesn't it make you an outlaw? Doesn't repudiation of the law leave license? E.g. Rom 6.

3. Law of Moses Substitutes

Gal 6:2 “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ (τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ)"
Rom 3:27–28 “Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith (νόμου πίστεως). For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.”
Rom 8:1 “For there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”
1 Cor 9:21-22 "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) (ἔννομος Χριστοῦ) that I might win those outside the law."

These phrases seem to be coined in contrast to or connection with the Law of Moses

Paul wants to impress Christ, Spirit and Faith on his hearers and he does so in this way.

Does Law of Christ = Law of Moses reconfigured?

Does Law of Christ = Rules of Christ

Does Law of Christ = Example of Christ

When Paul uses these phrases he has the same thing in mind all along.

Gal 6 - Paul does have a place for Christ's teaching in Paul's letters, but not prominent enough to be labelled 'the law of Christ'. Thus doesn't equal rules of Christ.

Earlier in 1 Cor 9 Paul says at some point we'll all be under Christ. There is sense in which we aren't under law and sense in which we are. It's about which law we're under.

In Rom 3, Law of faith is not another reference to Law of Moses as already held opposed in Romans 3:21-26, 28. Paul instead is contrasting two different laws. Law of works is Law of Moses characterised by doing, thus the contrast is between works and faith. The second phrase then is something like "The Rule of Faith".

Rom 8:1 In verse three Paul says Law couldn't justify us, so not simple rephrasing of Law of Moses. The Law of the Spirit is referring to saving work of Christ through the Spirit.

4. Fulfilling the Law

Paul says Christians fulfill the law, but it's not as simple as that.

Gal 5:13–14 “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful natured; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) in keeping this one command: “’Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Rom 8:3–4 “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled (πληρωθῇ) in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

Rom 13:8–9 “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled (πεπλήρωκεν) the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Notice that it is not laws, but the entire law that is fulfilled. Paul absolves us of that, but is not lawlessness but by walking in love we fulfill the law. It is not though an imperative, do this and you WILL fulfill the law (i.e. bringing in law through the back door).

Jews say do, keep, obey, the law, but rarely say fulfill the law (one occurrence at present). But is taken to mean obey lawS rather than as Paul saying the fulfill law (singular).

Is the perfect tense significant? Rom 13 Rather than "has fulfilled", instead better translated "The one loving the other fulfills the law". That is imperfective aspect. As for heightened proximity, the use of the perfect draws attention.

5. Walk in Newness of Life
"How to walk and please God" (1 Thess 4:1) is typical question for Jews to ask. The OT answer was "walk according to the law" (Lev 18:4; 26:3; 1 Kings 6:12; 2 Kings 10:31; 2 Chron. 6:16; Neh. 10:29-30; Jer. 44:23; Ezek. 5:6-7; 11:12; Pss. 77:10; 89:30; 119:1)

Paul never says that believers in Christ are to walk according to the law. Instead, as replacement he says to walk;

not as the Gentiles do (1 Cor 3:3; 2 Cor 10:2; Eph 4:17),
nor in idleness (1 Thess 4:12), or as enemies of the gospel (Phil 3:18);
according to or by the Spirit (Rom 8:4; Gal 5:16),
apostolic example (Phil 3:17), apostolic teaching (2 Thess 3:6) and the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14);
in Christ (Col 2:6), in love (Rom 14:15; Eph 5:2), in newness of resurrection life (Rom 6:4) and in good works (Eph 2:10);
as in the day (Rom 13:13), as children of light (Eph 5:15);
by faith (2 Cor 5:7);
wisely (Eph 5:15; Col 4:5).

Sometimes these uses are pitted against walking according to the law. Walking in newness of life, is opposed to walking in oldness of the law, it is instead new age of the Spirit. At least some of this walking language is in contrast to and acts as substitute for Jewish walking in the Law.

6. The Language of Newness
Implies a contrast with oldness, and sometimes this is explicit.

7. "Circumcision is Nothing" Complements

“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19)

Not restatement of the moral law, and the best evidence for it is other two uses;

“In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal 5:6); “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation” (Gal 6:15).

8. In Paul's Own Words
The theme of replacement. What does Paul replace under the law with?

Under the law of Christ, under the law of faith and the law of the Spirit. Having died to the law, Christ lives in us and we live by faith in the Son of God. Above all else, including righteousness under the law, we value knowing Christ Jesus our Lord. We don’t keep the law, but fulfill the law in Christ and through love. We don’t seek to walk according to the law, but according to the truth of the gospel, in Christ, in newness of resurrection life, by faith, in the light and in step with the Spirit. Instead of the oldness of the letter, we participate in newness of life, the new life of the Spirit, and the one new humanity. What counts is not the law, but faith expressing itself through love, the new creation and keeping the commandments of God.

Annual Moore College Lectures - Tuesday

2011-08-16T09:27:00.003+10:00

Paul and Law: Keeping the Commandments of God - Dr Brian Rosner

Paul's Repudiation of the Law - "Not under the law"

1. The Nature and Extent of Paul's Opposition to the Law
Need to face the negative approach of Paul to the law head on. The kind of statement such as "circumcision is nothing" is not isolated. Does Paul just take issue with nationalistic abuse of the law? Only certain parts? This is all a subset of Paul's relationship to Judaism. Is Paul guilty of the charge of apostasy? (Acts 21) Is he so radical he ceases to be a Jew? Paul didn't abandon the Jews and just go to the Gentiles. Acts gives a very different picture.

Statements against the law found across the Pauline corpus, and say the same things in different ways. For Paul the law is a failed path to life and righteousness. Paul's biggest problem with the law was that it excluded Gentiles.

2. Paul's insistence that Believers are "not under the law"
ὑπο νομον "under the law" occurs eleven times (in eight verses) in Galatians, Romans and 1 Corinthians. This phrase seems to be Paul's coinage. Meaning
a. bound by the demands of the Mosaic law code and subject to its sanctions
b. Gentiles are not and were never "under the law"
c. can have a neutral sense, referring to Jewish identity or negative meaning "under the penalty of sin" and is thus something from which Jews need to be released and something to which being under grace can be favourably contrasted.

1 Cor 9:19-21, Gal 3:10, 3:22, 3:25, 4:2–3 4:4–5, Rom 3:9, 7:14,

There's nothing wrong with keeping law under tradition as long as it's not put on Gentiles and doesn't impede relationship with Christ. Paul happy enough to observe law when living among those who would stumble if not.

Paul did not need to qualify his statement that he was a Jew, but did clarify his statement of "under the law" that he is not under the law (1 Cor 9). As Rom 6:14 under grace

Gal 4:4–5, 1 Cor 9:19–21 seems to say Jews are under the law and Gentiles not. But why do Gentiles need to be freed from the law if they were never under the law as in Rom 6:14?

This has been explained by:
1. Paul is writing from exclusively Jewish perspective. But Rom 6 seems to be talking of both.
2. Paul talks of Gentiles under the law by analogy as they are law to themselves. However, Rom 2 + 4 sees the law as possession of Jews.
3. Paul is generalising unconsciously from what he knows of Jews as if it's applicable to all

But the texts don't actually say Gentiles were under the law. However, to say you aren't something, is not to say you ever were? To say Australia is better than England to an Aussie audience, is not to say that everyone listening has lived in England. As Paul addresses mixed audience, his aim in Rom 6 is to convince them to live holy life through unification to Christ, and so he addresses a customarily Jewish objection to the law that the law gives life (Lev 18:5). The law increases sin. Paul is not reminding them of transference but that the gospel breaks the power of sin. Thus all people are under sin, but Jews are under the law, which is equivalent to be under sin.

This is defending Paul's consistency to being under the law. Could do the same thing with Galatians (Gal 4:21, 5:18). Some want Gentile believers to be under the law but they are 'led by the Spirit' (5:18) which is synonym for grace.

Sometimes 'under the law' means 'under sin'. Gal 3:23–25, 4:5. Oppressive overtones based on the concept of being "under" someone (which can be good or bad).

In Gal 3:10–14 Paul contrasts two paths to life. There are two dominions, "being under the law", and "being led by the Spirit". The law was an impermanent parenthesis in God's purposes. New Perspective says to be part of people of God you don't need to be under law of Moses, and this is true of Paul. But though this sociological element is important for Paul, it is reductionistic to leave it there. This does not exhaust Paul's negation of the law. His quotation of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 shows Paul's polemic against the law is about doing and faith as two paths to life. Salvation is by grace through faith, and the way to protect this, is to say we are no longer under law (even though some of us never were). The path to life is not by doing but by faith.

What is the origin of Paul's opposition to being under the law?
1. Paul's calling and conversion

2. Biblical theology of Paul's position as he sees himself fulfilling prophetic expectation. Jer 31:31–33, Ez 36:22–32 and Daniel 9:9–16a, 18b lament that the Mosaic covenant and law have failed due to human sinfulness and declare time has come/will come when people must look to God's mercy and grace alone apart from the law. For Paul these hopes come to fruition in Christ.

Christ has abolished the laws in its commandments and ordinances, and it has been replaced by grace.

3. In Paul's Own Words
How does he refer to not being under the law that might help us?

Rom 2:29, Paul sets up contrast between "lettter" and "Spirit" (Also in Rom 7:6, 2 Cor 3:6). These are only three places Paul refers to the law as "letter". Paul does refer to "letters" in the plural as in 2 Tim 3:15 but when in singular Paul uses "letter" to refer to Law of Moses and thus "letter" refers to "the externality of the law". Some translations take "letter" as "written code" in the three passages above.

Paul uses "letter" as a way of referring to the law as a set of commandments to be obeyed, as a written "legal code". If Jews have the law as "letter" as legal code and written collection of commandments, Christians do not. Not under law as letter.

There are four other terms in Paul's letters that describe the law as a possession of the Jews, but not of Christians:
1. Commandments
Rom 7:7–12
2. Book
Quotation of Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10
3. Decrees
Eph 2:15, Col 2:14 Christians are freed from the law as decrees.
4. Covenant
2 Cor 3:13–14 Whenever old covenant is read, is equivalent of whenever books of Moses are read.

Christians are not under the law as letter, commandments, books, decrees or covenant. Law is not for the righteous (believers), but to condemn the lawless.

Annual Moore College Lectures - Monday

2011-08-15T10:50:00.002+10:00

The Puzzle of Paul and the Law – Circumcision is Nothing

1. Make up your mind - Alleged Pauline Inconsistency
Negative critique and positive approval of the law. Paul can say law is holy, just and good, but Christ has abolished it. We uphold the law, but you are not under the law. Was Paul confused? Change his mind? How can Paul believe both sentiments? Some say law has no significance, some stress continuity saying we're under moral law. It is often that people try too easily to harmonise these ideas quickly. There is a tendency to take sides with either Paul or Paul.

2. Complex - but Unavoidable and Critical
This isn't big a-ha moment, but another way of stating what others have said in passing.

3. A Way Forward
1. Look at all the evidence
2. Use Biblical Theology
3. Treat the law as a unity
Paul speaks coherently and passionaately and pushes things as far as he can.

4. Definitions - "the law"
Most treatments of the subject take νομος as legal system in Pentateuh. But Torah or "law" came to denote not some collection of laws, or even the contents of the Sinai covenant, but rather the first five books of the Bible together. That is to call all these books as law because it's collection of laws is difficult because of the amount of narrative.

In terms of referent, νομος is not collection of laws but Law of Moses. e.g. Gal 4:21 "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" One negative and one positive use of the law. The most straightforward explanation is that Paul is referring to the Pentateuch in both cases.

νομος < Torah

Two exceptions?
Rom 3:19 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." Is actually quoting Psalms
1 Cor 14:21 "“In the law it is written, ‘By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people; yet even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord." Is actually referring to Isaiah

So occasionally,
νομος > Torah

Possible reasons:

Paul could be referring to part, for the whole e.g. the law, when he means the law and prophets.
Rom 3:19 Certainly these are a list of quotations from the Psalms, but earlier in Romans the law of Moses is the judgment for Jews. Thus this is conclusion from all the preceding chapters.

5. A Hermeneutical Solution to the Puzzle

Not which bits, but as what?
For Paul νόμος “is always the same collection of texts, but the import of those texts shifts dramatically in accordance with the hermeneutical perspective at each stage of the unfolding drama.” (Richard B. Hayes)

6. An Initial Sounding – 1 Corinthians 7:19

“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God.”

This verse is often identified as key to the discussion. Big idea of the section is "stay as you are for this is how you serve God." This verse is a very un-Jewish statement. Circumcision is nothing, but you replace it with God's commandments. And yet, Paul seems to be saying observe the laws of Moses. Yet he's just said one of the most important laws is nothing.

This statement comes up twice in other places (Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15). The thing that Paul replaces circumcision with is not the law in Gal 5 and 6. It is something different, and thus it is likely 1 Cor 7:19 is doing similar. Thus it is not a paradox but a polemic, the Corinthians then would understand keeping the commands as his own instruction. To back this up, only other time commands is used in 1 Corinthians is 14:37 which refers to what Paul is writing is the Lord's command. Thus it is polemic - Not this, but something else.

Paul thus does three things with the law and each must be fully heard without prejudicing the others:
1. Polemical repudiation
2. Radical replacement
3. Whole-hearted re-appropriation

It is treating the law as legal code, theological motif and source for expounding the gospel and for doing ethics respectively.

Paul and the Law in 1 Corinthians

Repudiation: 7:19 “circumcision is nothing”, 9:20–21 “I am not under the law”
Replacement: 7:19 “Keeping God’s commands is what counts”, 9:20–21 “I am under the law of Christ”
Re-appropriation as Prophecy: 8:5–6 Allusion to Deut. 6:4 – Christ the Lord, 15:45 Use of Gen. 2:7 to underscore the universal significance of Christ
Re-appropriation as Wisdom: 5:13b Words from Deut. quoted to climax the expulsion of the incestuous man, 9:9, 10:11

7. The Pillars of Judaism – Sectarian Strategies
Acts 21:28a “Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place”

And also other evidence such as Qumran community show other sectarian groups.

Paul uses temple language of his own service, and of the body of believers as temple, this is repudiation, replacement and reappropriation. Paul does what you'd expect to of a group that is breaking away. This is not sociological explanation, but there is salvation-historical reasons.

8. Implicit Evidence – What Paul doesn't say
Are there things Paul says could be of Christians to relate to the law that isn't true of Jews. According to his own testimony in Romans 2:17-29, Jews ‘rely on’ the law, ‘boast’ in the law, know God’s will through the law, are educated in the law, have light, knowledge and truth because of the law, are to ‘do’, ‘observe’ and ‘keep’ the law, on occasions ‘transgress’ the law, and possess the law as a ‘written code’. Paul never says that Christians should relate to the laws in any of the ways expected as Jews.

Paul not only omits to say such things, but he usually puts something in their place and sometimes even reverses what Jews customarily said. To feel the full force of the implicit evidence we need to notice omission, substitution and reversal.

AMCL #1

2011-08-09T20:43:00.005+10:00

Past lecturers at AMCL - Packer, Carson, Ovey, F.F. Bruce, Bray + Moore College Faculty.

Lectures will be available online for free this year 1 week after completion.

Tonight is overview, next week Monday–Friday are main lectures.

1. Critical, Complex and Controversial

Is there a topic more critical, complex and controversial?
Acts 21:28 Paul said to be teaching against... our law.
Paul's view of law led in part to the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity.
The very fabric of Paul's thought unravels unless we get to his understanding of the Christian's relationship to the law.
Why such a hot topic? Either people think

a. free gift of salvation compromised or
b. any motivation to holy life is removed.

Don't those without the law end up outlaws?
Scholars agree it is complex.

“Paul’s views on the law are complex.” (Ben Witherington III)
“Paul and the law – The subject is complex.” (Donald A. Hagner)
“Current discussion of Paul’s view of the law … has become extraordinarily complex.” (D.A. Carson)
“There is nothing quite so complex in Paul’s theology as the role and function which he attributes to the law.” (James D.G. Dunn)
“There is a general agreement that Paul’s view of the law is a very complex and intricate matter.” (Heikki Räisänen)
“This is complex.” (N.T. Wright)

2. Alleged Pauline Contradictions

Lots of questions of interpretation: Is Christ the end of the law in culmination and goal? Are we under laws jurisdiction or just condemnation? Are we under the moral law to keep the 10 commandments? Are the laws to separate Israel or simply laws to uphold?
Standard positions are well entrenched, we are taking another route.
Is Paul confused? Change his mind? Or something else going on?

Paul can call law - moral, just and good
On other hand law is - enslaving power that brings about death

Eph 2:15 abolished commandments. Law terminated by Christ (negative) but then Eph 6:1–2 says "children obey parents... this is first commandment. (positive)
Circumcision doesn't count, but keeping commandments (1 Cor 7:19). But isn't circumcision a commandment? And an important one?
Should we keep them in terms of observe or keep them in terms of retain.
Understanding Paul isn't in understanding disparate texts, but synthesising his whole thought. But it's hard to put all the puzzle pieces together with any agreement.

Three prominent views

1. Lutheran - Paul abolished the law and is a counterpoint to the gospel leading us to see ourselves and seek God's mercy and has no ongoing role in Christians life (though Luther himself)

2. Reformed - No place in saving, but once saved you are under moral law to please God

3. New Perspective - The problem of the law for Paul is not about salvation by grace not works, but that it was about excluding Gentiles from Kingdom of God and thus it is Jewish enthno-centrism that he is against the law.

Brian's three stages of exegesis.

1. Yikes

2. Hmmm

3. A-ha!

or if not 3

4. Yeah, right!

Will only get to 2 tonight!

Tit 3:9 'Don't quarrel about the law' makes the discussion of this series uncomfortable. :)

3. Solving the Puzzle

1. Treat the law as a unity

νομος occurs more in Romans than anywhere else. To only look at these texts that mention law by name is to cut Paul off at the knees for example 1 Cor 7:19. It's also important what Paul doesn't say, that you'd expect him to.

2. Look at all the evidence

Some people only study what they think is attributed to each "Paul" thus they study "Pauls and the Law"

Most evangelicals only look at Romans and Galatians and this could be considered "Pau and the Law".

3. Use Biblical Theology

This is biblical theological approach

Inductive from ground up and so we should use Paul's terms which are often absent from the debate. Don't go too quick to synthesies.

Need to treat Paul as a unity (as did Jews in Paul's day).

4. A Hermeneutical Solution

BDAG defines νομος as:

1. Rule or principle

2. Legal system

3. Collection of holy writings.

Most treatments take Law in Paul in this second sense. Though there are evidence of all three across the Scriptures, and Paul takes the Law as a singular whole, and not as singular parts. He not only introduces laws as Law but narrative as Law e.g. Gal 4:2

Not which bits, but as what?

Paul is negative about the law as law, but positive about the law as prophecy and as wisdom.

What is meant by as? In the capacity of / from the perspective of

The Law as Law

In Romans and Galatians, primarily negative. Believers are not under the law, have been released from the law.
Paul quotes three OT verses in relation to justification and the law (Hab 2:4, Gen 15:6, Lev 18:5) We rarely look at the third of these. "The one who does these things will live BY them". If you obey the commands you will live according to the Qumran scrolls.
In both places Paul quotes these texts (Rom 10, Gal 3 ??) righteousness is said to come not through law but through faith. Paul takes Lev to be a summary of the Law as Law. The Law is all about doing and is thus a failed path to life and we don't live up to its commands. Paul takes it as bad news, as it fails to give life.
1 Tim 1:8–10 "Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless."
The law used lawfully is not for believers, but for the lawless to effectively condemn them.
We are not under the law as it is used as the Law to condemn.
Don't overstate the argument of silence, or relative silence. But what does Paul not say? Or, how would Paul as a Jew be expected to approach the law? Do, observe, keep, obey, not transgress, they possess the law as written code. These are absent from Paul's discussion of Christians and the law. He does say they are to fulfill the law but that is different. In fact, Paul reverses some saying it doesn't lead to life but death.
Paul conceives of the law as letter that kills, commandments to be obeyed, but these are not for Christians. God does not hold us up to it or throw the book at us.
Jer 31:31-33, Ez 36:22-32 and Daniel 36:22-32 lament that the Mosaic covenant and law have failed, and must look to God's mercy. This is where Paul's view comes from.

The Law as Prophecy

This is the first of Paul's positive views of the law. We think of legal category of law, but rarely of prophetic. Gary Millar picks this up in Deuteronomy, as the pessimism of the book is still hopeful in a few places such as Deut 4:30 and one mention of atonement in Deut 32(?).
Acts 28:23, Rom 1:1-2, Rom 3:21-22, Rom 3:31 is NT referents to Paul having prophetic view of laws. Paul puts the Law and Prophets together.

The Law as Wisdom

Key motif in Paul's letters. But Deut 4:6 the Law will make you WISE (also Ps 19:7, Ps 119:98, Prov 28:7).
What does reading Paul and the Law as Wisdom look like? Notices character of God behind the laws, and the moral framework of creation behind the world. The laws appeal to moral reality stitched into creation.

Two examples:

Tithing

Tithing: Giving 10% is found in law of Moses. Does Paul recommend it to Christians?
Despite opportunities to do so, he doesn't. Christians are not under the law. But Paul says you should give cheerfully not under compulsion.
So does Paul think tithing is irrelevant?
No. 1 Cor 16:2 deliberate and proportional to your income.
Laws are there to teach us, to make us wise. We learn from them and read them as Scripture, and come to us not as legal demand but as wisdom for living.

Stealing

Rom 2 - accuses opponents of stealing, Eph 4 - thieves must give up stealing
Law quoted and thus still has role, but functions as admonition, teaching and instructions (all have wisdom connotations).
The Law of Moses is transformed as it moves through the Canon, and this view can even be traced through Jewish literature.

5. CONCLUSION

Paul's letters present negative critique, and positive re-appropriation.
It's not that far different from how most Christians view it. It has direction to how we live, but not as Law, and we see it as pointing to Christ.
For students of Paul, the biggest task then is to clarify the extent to which the apostle repudiates then re-appropriates the Law of Moses.

Quick advertisement for the rest of the lectures @ Moore College next week:

Monday 15/8/11: 10am
Tuesday 16/8/11: 9am
Wednesday 17/8/11: 9am
Thursday 18/8/11: 9am
Friday 19/8/11: 9am

Trying my hand at live-blogging: The Annual Moore College Lectures... starts now.

2011-08-09T20:05:00.000+10:00

Brian Rosner on Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God.

Moore College Online

2011-08-09T16:53:00.005+10:00

This is what I've been doing in my spare moments for the past fortnight when I should have been researching my church history assignment.

From 'Helium 2011' a.k.a. The Moore Revue.

With special thanks to everyone who helped bring my idea to life; Jimbo for sparking the idea with a joke about Hebrew and script editing, Laura for access to the real online Greek video, Simon for the beautiful animations, and all the lecturers for agreeing to make fun of themselves.

Delete the word 'epistle' from your vocabulary

2011-08-09T10:59:00.002+10:00

It's called a letter.

'Britney Spears' is an anagram of 'Presbyterians'

2011-07-21T13:25:00.000+10:00

There you go.

Youth Group

2011-07-05T21:36:00.000+10:00

I asked a kid from church earlier in the year, 'What do you think Youth Group is going to be like this year?'

He answered, 'It's gonna be wicked'.

Well, that remains to be seen.

How's college going?

2011-06-10T15:21:00.001+10:00

It's going.

Wordle of Oprah Finale

2011-05-27T21:39:00.000+10:00

Please stop visiting my blog...

2011-05-22T23:17:00.000+10:00

...I feel guilty that you keep showing up, and yet I have nothing to show you.

Okay, so I might be so stressed out at college that I've stopped generating any content here. I might be so stressed out that I had to palm off a sermon at late notice, have (according to wifey) been grinding my teeth and straining my vocals in my sleep (read=painful moaning), plus funny things are happening to my hair.

But forget all that, why haven't you subscribed to Visual Unit yet? I might be boring, but let me tell you, a genealogy that is represented by beard sizes is never dull.

What would also be cool is one that is represented by coffins (and he died, and he died, and he died..), except of course for Enoch.

Anyways, stop wasting your time here and go marvel at Mark's magnificent infographics. He's what you never knew you always wanted.

What are you waiting for?

John Commentaries

2011-05-20T01:10:00.001+10:00

Syllabus said Carson.

So I bought Carson.

What could be better than the Don? First lecture, lecturer announced Kostenberger is a protege of Carson and is better. He's got everything Carson has, but better on narrative.

So I bought Kostenberger.

Lecturer then half-mumbled three lectures later that their secret non-technical commentary which gets to the emotional and theological heart of John was by Lesslie Newbigin.

I'd never heard of him(?), and had already purchased two commentaries, so I borrowed it from the library.

After reading the four pages related to my essay I'd already be willing to trade Carson and Kostenberger for Newbigin. Okay, maybe not. It's an unfair comparison, they're doing different things. But I'll be chasing up Newbigin very soon. Brilliant, simple, heartfelt, engaging, and penetrating analysis.

I am getting plenty from all three, but Newbigin helped me feel the core of my essay question. Take away the Greek analysis and Kostenberger and Carson might do the same, but there's just something about Newbigin. Who is this man? I have no idea.

Perhaps its also a case of a rose by any other name not smelling as sweet? Carson goes for The Gospel According to John. Kostenberger quite simply is titled John. Newbigin - The Light has Come.

Now back to my essay...

The most awkward translation in the ESV?

2011-05-19T16:30:00.003+10:00

I am generally a big fan of the ESV. I understand why people push the Holman and the NIV in some contexts, but the ESV has been my Bible of choice since my uni days.

Though sometimes it's just plain awkward.

John 18:25

Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, "You also are not one of his disciples, are you?" He denied it and said, "I am not."

So.... are they asking him if he is, or if he isn't one of Jesus' disciples. And when he says "I am not", is he saying that he is not not one of the disciples, in which case he is a disciple. Or is he denying that he's not a disciple?

Thankfully some of the other translation options initially put forward for the question, were discarded:

Also you, one of his disciples not, are you?
You also are one of his disciples, are you not?
Not also, are you, one of his disciples, are you?
One of his disciples, you also, you are?
Disciples, one of also, are you, you are?
Aren't you also one of his disciples?

Accordance

2011-05-12T14:08:00.000+10:00

And I thought the egalitarian/complementarian divide was great at college*. I'm sitting in an Accordance seminar, and there are more Apples here than at the Berri factory. Mac-lovers unite!

*There is no divide. It's a joke. Don't comment.

The Holman

2011-05-06T15:46:00.005+10:00

At Moore we have chapel services 3 days a week, where we read a chapter of the OT and a chapter of the NT at each service, apart from the passage being preached. I think this is fantastic. Because it's big slabs of text, it promotes helpful reading of the Bible, in a way which draws your attention and brings the passage to life. I think this type of systematic reading is an increasingly integral way of educating Biblically illiterate people. It goes against the grain of thought which says that:
a. You need someone to explain the Bible to you in order for it to be beneficial
b. We need to be brief and schmick in our services, so there's no time for this kind of thang.

Reading the unadorned word is an outworking of our theology of revelation.

Another great thing is Moore does not promote one translation of the Bible. The closest we get is the voraciousness of defenders of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, mainly from the verbal aspect crew who think the Holman peeps incorporate their schtick more. The Holman is the Bible pushed by the Southern Baptists in the US. These Southerners are well known for their extreme translation debates (which sounds like it could be sorted out UFC style), and it is strange to think this voracity has somehow seeped into the translation itself so that proponents out here pick up the 'defender of the faith' attitude.

Anyways, we get through the whole Bible every couple of years in chapel reading the one translation, and then switch translations. The Holman is just about finishing its run and then we're onto the TNIV (to me it would make more sense to go with the NIV (2011) as TNIV will be out of print soon, but I guess there's no surprise in an Anglican college being slow to change).

One annoying thing the Holman does is some words which aren't in the original languages but are being supplied to make the translation smoother, are placed in brackets. It is helpful in showing what is and isn't a reflection of the original, however rather than drawing attention away from these words, it ends up serving to focus attention on them. I reckon they should just have a go. If it really is needed to make the sentence make sense, just put the word in. If its not necessary, leave it out. People can always cross check translations to see where ambiguities exist. This happens in Bible Studies all the time as people have different Bibles.

Oh, and speaking of translations, I've retired my joke about "What do you think about The Message? I think there's lots of great children's Bibles." I actually think there are better children's Bibles.

Stuck

2011-05-06T15:07:00.002+10:00

I was stuck.

A book on the evangelical response to John Wimber's signs and wonders movement in one hand, Ray Galea's response to Catholicism Nothing in My Hand I Bring somewhat ironically in the other.

A brief furniture change in my house (a change is as good as a holiday, and cheaper) had given me an opportunity to categorise the books on my bookshelf. In which section of my bookshelf should I place these books?

Catholicism went in world religions. Charismatic book in my general theology section.

This I think summarises my approach to those with whom I have serious theological disagreements. Very few Roman Catholic people I know understand the gospel, and so sadly are not trusting in Jesus' death and resurrection for their salvation but rather are attempting to justify themselves by their works. I am trying to speak the gospel to these people in order to convert them.

Most charismatic/pentecostal types I know are thoroughly trusting in the Lord Jesus. There are some fundamental flaws as I see it in their theology, which can lead to unhelpful expectations of what God will do that have the potential to affect their belief. But these are predominantly my brothers and sisters in Christ. I speak the gospel with these people in order to clarify the truth and to correct error.

Are there things that I find in speaking with others where I am deficient? Most certainly. But this is my approach to them.

Living in the big smoke these days means there are enough Christians of most denominations that we don't really have to communicate. Country churches don't get this luxury, and it is a great testimony and Christian witness the way that many combined churches events are held revealing the deep agreement between most mainline Protestant denominations.

I may have mentioned it here before, but I was rebuked once by a dear old Christian lady at my church in the country when in conversation I'd had a bit of a jibe at my charismatic brothers. She said, "Now, now Izaac, they'll be standing by our side when the Muslims try and take over." Now it certainly isn't the first criteria I'd use to determine Christian fellowship, however there is a certain beauty to the sentiment behind the words. That, and a whole lot of unhelpful vitriol towards Muslims.

How not to structure a sentence in your sermon

2011-04-29T22:24:00.001+10:00

From the wedding speech at Prince Willie's wedding:

As we move towards our partner in love, following the example of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is quickened within us and can increasingly fill our lives with light. This leads to a family life which offers the best conditions in which the next generation can practise and exchange those gifts which can overcome fear and division and incubate the coming world of the Spirit, whose fruits are love and joy and peace.

I have no idea what this means.

But let me try and flowchart it for you.

h/t Bainsey on fb

Putting the Number Back in Numbers

2011-04-29T07:46:00.017+10:00

I've recently finished off an essay on Numbers 25:4-13 (Phinehas killing an Israelite who was getting busy [read as bizz-ay] with a Midianite, so Phinehas speared them through the stomach) and its relationship to an Old Testament theology of atonement. Now I'm not going to bore you with my essay answer (at least not yet), but I did want to bore you with an age-related law which was found within Numbers.

As part of my study I carefully read through Numbers looking for sections that anticipated and ultimately would help explain chapter 25. But what caught my attention along the way was the age-related conditions on service in the temple.

This is what it says in Numbers 4:1-3:

The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, "Take a census of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, by their clans and their fathers’ houses, from thirty years old up to fifty years old, all who can come on duty, to do the work in the tent of meeting.

And again Numbers 8:23-26:

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "This applies to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall come to do duty in the service of the tent of meeting. And from the age of fifty years they shall withdraw from the duty of the service and serve no more. They minister to their brothers in the tent of meeting by keeping guard, but they shall do no service. Thus shall you do to the Levites in assigning their duties."

Now of course, I would never want to argue this as prescriptive of today's Christian ministers. Moving from the Old Testament to modern application is always difficult, especially in relation to priests as Jesus is our great high priest, and we affirm the priesthood of all believers. Yet it is interesting to ponder these age restrictions.

At first I thought the "late-blooming" of (25 or 30) might have to do with the increased life expectancy (Moses lived to 120), but there is a retirement age as well (50). Why on earth are there age limits on firstly, allowing a Levite to start working in the temple, and then the age to ship him out to pasture?

At the very least (and I am aware it is different for everyone), there is a time when people reach maturity, and there is a time when people need to retire from a particular role. I love hearing of young blokes stepping up to take responsibility. But there is also a particular beauty in old blokes stepping down. Not in the sense of being pushed, or no longer being of value, or simply having "passed their use-by date", but in recognising 'I've had my time, now others must take the baton'.

Because its never pretty when they hold on too long. Or for that matter, when the young ones start too early.

Who am I?

2011-04-28T06:00:00.001+10:00

Insecurity is never attractive. But if you'll allow me a little taste of 'Dear diary' for a moment, I've been suffering a bit of an existential blogging crisis. This crisis is partly to blame for my lack of posts of late. That, and college, and some time-consuming personal stuff going on for Sarah and I.

Lately, I've been feeling like I shouldn't be speaking, or more specifically, blogging. Who am I to have an opinion that anyone else cares about? Sure, I say that the purpose of this blog is for my personal reflection. But by putting it "out there" I'm saying something about the value of my thoughts for others.

It's not that I feel I'm being overly negative, or critical, or proud, or arrogant, or abusive, or fame-seeking. In fact, quite the opposite. I've gotten in more trouble than its worth in saying things in this strange beast that is blogdom.

But who am I to say anything? I'm no ministry guru. I haven't done anything! I don't lead a church, I'm no expert on reaching Gen Y, I don't want to plant a church, I haven't won swathes of converts, I'm not an expert on anything, I haven't, I haven't, I haven't, I just haven't. I am Mr. Nobody. My Mr. Nobody hardly deserves capitals. I'm mr. nobody.

So shut-up and do something, you say. Well, that's what I've been doing. This is no ivory tower from which I throw my barbs on the unsuspecting tiny kingdom that is the few evangelicals who wander across my blog (and the unfortunate sods who google "Hillsong experience").

But I have found myself being decidedly less reflective since I've stopped blogging. I just haven't got the personal discipline to journal or whatever it is that 13 year old girls do these days to collect their thoughts.

I don't even know why I'm writing this now. I guess to give you an insight into my absence in the blogosphere of late. This is not simply my 6 monthly cry-outs for people to come and say, "No, we love your bad puns and you are significant you little rapscallion."

I warned you. Insecurity is never attractive.

Worst opening line to a song for people with lisps

2011-04-27T23:48:00.000+10:00

Consider Christ, the source of our salvation.

Falling in love all over again

2011-04-27T18:38:00.001+10:00

With The Briefing.

I nearly unsubscribed a few months ago, because money was tight, I hadn't read the last 6 months worth, which just piled up on my desk. I was overrun with college readings and, well, I wasn't getting value for money because I don't even own a coffee table they could sit on. Plus, my mate joked for a while that, "It's just book reviews these days".

However, after chatting with another friend I decided to re-subscribe. As a big fan of Matthias Media and of the idea of The Briefing, I thought its a way of supporting them and also in the hope that another 12 months would get me back on the reading wagon. Well, I'm back, baby. And loving every minute of it.

Did you read the April edition?

Three great 'Couldn't Help Noticing' articles. Sure, not as blatantly opinionated as the old 'lead balloon' column they used to have, but there was something here for everyone – a pop culture piece from Bolty, some protestant basics from Lionel Windsor, and another subtle corrective to the rhetoric of many church-planters from Peter Sholl on wanting our churches to be "distinctive".
Mark Thompson on 'Have we got the right Bible?', examining the claim that it was the early church which sat above the Bible and determined the canonicity of particular books. In fact, it was a great summary of 2 doctrine lectures from a few weeks ago. Good teaser for Moore College.
Justin Moffatt making enough generalisations to get his point across as he compared ministry in Sydney, New York, and London (note to self: talk to famous conference speakers in the hope you get invitations to travel internationally).
Paul Harrington is on the pulse of subtle correctives as he examines what exactly is strategic planning, as he asks 'strategic about what?'
A continuation in the series of classic christian books with a review of 'the universe next door'.

The Briefing is on the pulse in a way that blogs try to be but

A. Don't put enough thought into, and

B. No one bothers to read the post if the blog is long enough to achieve A.

The Briefing is on the pulse in a way books aren't because

A. They're too long

B. They take too long from concept to publication.

I'm reading a few less blogs, to engage my mind at a bit more depth.

Have I convinced you enough to renew your subscription?

As dry as...

2011-04-04T20:44:00.001+10:00

It's a bit dusty winds and tumbleweeds around here lately. I've been putting my writing efforts into a few other projects of late and as such my allocated writing time is being sapped before I can get to the blog. Strangely enough, most of these other projects have come out of my writing on this blog leading to some invitations to write elsewhere. Thankfully holidays are just a week away and I have set myself a few deadlines which should ensure regular programming returns soon.

Part of this writing includes another book review for publication. The book I'm reviewing is a bit dry at times. While this is not necessarily a criticism, I am trying to be honest in my assessment and wanting to give an accurate portrayal of what the book is like. I was searching for a simile to get across the toughness of the book at points. As dry as... as dry as... as dry as...

At times this book is as dry as the Sahara. Too obvious.
At times this book is as dry as the pub with no beer. Not punchy enough.
At times this book is as dry as a Baptist dance. I wish I could, oh how I wish I could. But too controversial.

Any suggestions?

Shady Ladies

2011-03-25T08:22:00.003+11:00

Sometimes it's the taking of photographs which reveal more than the photos themselves. The difference between the two sides of my family – my Mum's side and my Dad's – is seen at its most extreme when we take family photographs. Let me state right off the bat though, that I have a great affection for both sides of the family. They have all shown a great deal of care and interest in me and I care for them all. And yet, at times the divergent heritage of each family sticks its head out, and no more so then when we take family photographs.

You see, on one side – the one without the Christian heritage – there is constant joking about not standing on the edge of the family photo if you've married into the family. "Get in the middle [insert name], if you want to be in this photo forever". The reason, in case you're wondering is that if you stand on the edge of the photo, once you're divorced, the scissors are bound to be produced and you'll be quite literally cut off from the family. Being in the middle of the photograph ensures your future in the family! And we all know there are few more sacred truths in this day and age than, 'If there's no photographic evidence, it never happened.' Divorce is a sad, often repeated, and all too present reality for this side of my family. And that little bit of truth that lies behind every joke, in this case is not too far below the surface.

And then there is the other side of my family. The story goes, so far as I understand it, that my grandfather was one of 11 Christian brothers. Ten of these brothers made their way to Australia from England in the early 1900's, and thus began a strong Christian heritage which has been passed down to me. We had a family reunion about 5 years ago where we all had name-tags showing which brother we belonged to. I had "Izaac - Bill's family". Quite strangely though I imagine for family reunions is, ours included a family church service.

At another point in the weekend we all stood in the church hall (where the reunion was held) and we were asked to stand amongst our generations. Of the 11 brothers, at that stage there were just three widows left – a generation virtually gone. My Nana and one other wife present, were seated on one side of the room. To their right stood their children's generation where my parents stood. The next wall around stood my cousins and I, and the final side of the room held the dozen or so great-grandchildren that were present. The question put to us by one of my Dad's cousins (a man of the cloth), was, "We received a spiritual legacy from our fathers, and they are almost wiped out completely. The weakness of death has already been seen in our generation: What of the gospel are we passing on to our children? Have we spurned the spiritual legacy that was handed down to us?"

It was a stirring moment.

And I can think of nothing but thankfulness to God, that I should be born into such a family, even though as they say, 'he had no say in it, no say in it at all'.

Yet it is not that this side of the family is also without its skeletons. We had a big family tree printed off which ran 40 something A4 pages long along a wall. And there were a few sealed sections. Or at the very least, my cousins and I joked, they should have had post-it notes over them. There was the two brothers who married two sisters. Okay, so the brothers weren't related to the sisters, so it sounds worse than it is, but it sounds suspect. Then there was the one couple who divorced, and then the wife re-married one of her ex-husbands cousins. Not surprisingly those two lines from the 11 brothers don't communicate much and one side was virtually absent from the weekend.

The truth is, we all have our own story. Or, if you're a contestant on a reality show, your own journey. And we all have skeletons in the past that we would like kept in the closet. There's a reason we store skeletons in the closet and not in the lounge room.

Jesus had some skeletons in his closet. Have you ever read his genealogy in Matthew 1*? It reads like a script of The Bold and the Beautiful (or a script of Passions for those with better taste). There is a bit of a tension in what is actually on display here. Because the intention is put right out there in v1

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The genealogy is to show the positive side of Jesus' family history. He is the true son of Abraham, the true son of David. Jesus is the one who had been promised, who would come to be servant of all, despised and afflicted, the one on whom the punishment of humanity would be placed in order to bring life.

And yet, though this is a regal family tree, the details reveal there are a lot of skeletons in Jesus' family closet. Notice the 'shady ladies' mentioned throughout. Prostitutes, illegitimate relationships, foreigners, murder – Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, the wife of Uriah (of which the union is considered so tragic, Bathsheba is not even specifically named). And it is with these reminders that even the long vaunted calibre of the men listed is immediately transferred to their failures. In that sense, Jesus' genealogy reads much like those in Genesis which are haunted by that refrain, "And he died, and he died, and he died". A reminder of the judgment that has befallen humankind.

Jesus' genealogy is a reminder of the past, not just his past but the past of humanity. A history littered with sin and failure yet clothed with grace. And it is also about the future, for the Christ has now come.

*I've blogged on this passage previously.

SMBC has good community, Moore has a good library.

2011-03-24T07:32:00.000+11:00

Des from Moore College on Vimeo.

Al says (reflecting on the video above) that he's heard people say, "That SMBC has good community, Moore has a good library." LOL. I've never heard that one before. That must have been in the days before handball. The same joke I guess from the Moore College perspective (which I've only heard once or twice) would be referring to SMBC as SMBT: Sydney Missionary and Bible TAFE.

Whilst Sydney is blessed with many great theological colleges, SMBC and Moore are the two largest evangelical training centres. On the ground though (jibes aside) most people studying at both colleges have dear friends studying at the other college. The world is full of a relatively consistent percentage of jerks, and inevitably some of these find their way into Bible colleges and promulgate this view of fierce rivalry, but for the most of us we have great respect for those training at either college.

Incidentally, I agree with Des (who is in the video) that Moore College is a fantastic community to be a part of (and it also has a good library). I also feel enriched to be in a fantastic year group. I know this won't be everyone's experience of college, and I've personally not had the smoothest 18 months of my life since starting, but the college works hard to care for us, to encourage pastoral care amongst the college students, and it works. We spur one another on in many good and helpful ways.

Though back to Al's comment, does it also communicate something that the video spruiking Moore's community is shot in the library? Hmm.

Bible Translation Principle #37

2011-03-21T22:08:00.000+11:00

Retain difficult, yet significant words such as 'propitiation' and 'atonement', because it forces the considered reader to pause and dig deeper.

Attention all parents [UPDATE]

2011-03-17T10:32:00.007+11:00

Att: Non-Asian Parents

Please get your kid to learn an instrument. It doesn't really matter which instrument however it is worth noting guitarists are a dime a dozen, drummers are a luxury, but pianists are a dying breed. Music will always be a mark of Christians gathering as we are marked by joy and thankfulness and emotionally expressing our marvelous salvation through song, and so we will always desire musicians to facilitate this.

If money is an issue, then consider only paying for fortnightly lessons, and take the responsibility for their daily practise yourself. The best thing about weekly music lessons for children isn't the instruction per se, but the kick in the pants it gives them to actually practise.

Then once they've had a few years under their belt in classical training, they will need a bit of jazz training. Pay for an extra tutor for six months who can teach them how to build a chord and get beyond the sheet music. Muso's who need the music/follow the music too closely are the achilles heel of most church bands. We should all aim to be like guitarists, who need nothing but the 6 chords scribbled on the back of an envelope.

The other benefit is music is an easy and obvious way for the youngsters to begin serving in the church, because music relies almost entirely on the theological reflections of others. And if they're really self-conscious, get them up there for the first few months without plugging them in.

Att: Asian parents

Keep up the good work.

[UPDATE]
Some further thoughts:

People can be too precious about music (a true statement in general), but especially about the level of musicianship required to serve the body. It is often as if the idea of training younger members to serve applies in every serving capacity in our gatherings except in the band.
Asking someone from church who is proficient as a musician to teach your child is no guarantee of quality. Not everyone is a born teacher. Plus, if you're not paying, you might not value it as much, and lose the motivation to practise due to 'getting your money's worth'.
No one likes the recorder. No one. It's hardly even a real instrument. The recorder was created to be sold to primary school children so they could chew on the mouthpiece when bored, and then pass it on (complete with molar impression) to other sickly primary school children. The tin whistle is a musical instrument only in Ireland.
The saxophone is dead. Its sound immediately dates the music. Con Campbell is the only exception to this rule.
Trumpet and violin can add greatly to musical accompaniment, but generally require a longer gestation behind closed doors before they can be released into the world of church bands. Everyone notices the dud note on these instruments. The guy at the mixing desk can't mute an unmiked trumpet.
There are guy instruments and girl instruments. If a girl plays a guy instrument (guitar/drums) she is incredibly cool. The opposite however, does not hold true. Don't make your son learn the flute, unless his name is Ron Burgundy.

Prayer Praise Erase

2011-03-16T13:40:00.001+11:00

Some friends involved in university ministry have for the last 12 months been sending me and other supporters weekly prayer updates. These are generally just a few lines long, give a brief update as to what is going on the following week, some praise and prayer points from the previous week.

It is a great way to ensure that disordered pray-ers, like myself, bring these ministries before God in prayer, and enables me to share in the joy of answered prayer. I read it, pray it, delete it.

One of the new ministry apprentices calls hers the prayer/praise/erase email.

Brilliant.

Back in my day

2011-03-10T06:00:00.001+11:00

Back in my day, my family only had two mobile phones.

Time and technology is on an ever-increasing trajectory. This, like most things, is not a recent invention but humans have been pushing the technological barrel, long before the wheel was invented to move said barrel from one place to the next.

Things I've noticed with the changing technological tide in churches:

When the speaker says something people agree with, charismatic churchgoers shout 'Amen', Anglican churchgoers nod profusely, theological students type furiously. Lecturers at college get feedback from the audible increased flurry of laptop keyboards aflutter.
I remember reading in the paper a few years ago someone noting that the mobile phone has introduced new phrases into speech such as 'I'm on the train'. Before mobile phones, that fact was pretty much evident to anyone who would hear you speak the words. Other phrases however, are becoming dated. In the middle of my sermon I wanted to say, 'Turn to Hebrews...', but I realised that as more and more people are reading the Bible on their phones (a practice I'm not a fan of), what I really should say is, 'Scroll to...'. At first I was mourning the loss of the 'Turn to' phrase, but then on further reflection I realised the idea of scrolling to books of the Bible is actually much closer to their original form.

Have you noticed any technological changes lately?

Bible Reading and Maintaining the Spiritual Life

2011-03-09T14:50:00.003+11:00

Blink and you missed it, but today we had probably the most important two lectures we will have in our entire time studying at Moore College: Keith Condie on 'Bible Reading and Maintaining the Spiritual Life'.

The premise was that the greatest danger for Bible teachers is they tend to move from before college studying the Bible for transformation, to simply studying the Bible for information.

Now the mistake most people make to try to solve this problem, is to completely separate personal Bible reading and prayer, from our regular 'work'. This is achieved by perhaps sitting in a different chair, at a different time, sometimes even with a different Bible. The idea being you engage in devotional reading apart from your theological study.

The problem with this solution is it sounds so attractive. After all, it's lifted straight out of page 2 of the evangelical application manual under 'Read your Bible and pray', sub-point 'Daily devotionals'. However what this action does is fundamentally undermine the practice of theology. Our study of God through his word must never be thought of as being performed in a vacuum. Rather whenever we speak or think or read of God, we are encountering not the concept of God but are faced with and examined by the living God himself.

This is what J.I. Packer had to say in, An Introduction to Systematic Spirituality:

I question the adequacy of conceptualizing the subject-matter of systematic theology as simply revealed truths about God, and I challenge the assumption that has usually accompanied this form of statement, that the material, like other scientific data, is best studied in cool and clinical detachment. Detachment from what you ask? Why, from the relational activity of trusting, loving, worshipping, obeying, serving, and glorifying God: the activity that results from realizing that one is actually in God's presence, actually being addressed by him, every time one opens the Bible or reflects on any divine truth whatsoever. This second stage in theological method, as commonly practised, separates the questions of truth from those of discipleship; it proceeds as if doctrinal study would only be muddied by introducing devotional concerns; it drives a wedge between theology and doxology, between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, between knowing true notions about God and knowing the true God himself, between one's thinking and one's worshipping. Done this way, theology induces spiritual pride and produces spiritual sleep (physical sleep, too, sometimes). Thus the noblest study in the world gets cheapened. I cannot applaud this.

Keith suggested the correct approach is not to separate the two, but to always approach our study with six key attitudes to the study of God's word:
1. Be respectful
2. Be responsive
3. Be reflective
4. Be delighted
5. Be intelligent
6. Be prayerful

Now, the danger of over-indulgence was also touched upon, where it is true for most people at college that we take in more than we can possibly ever respond to immediately. And yet an abundance of spiritual food is no excuse for us to refrain from eating altogether! The analogy of a chef was used – A Chef spends a lot of time preparing food for others, but the Chef herself, still must eat.

The only point of the lecture I disagreed with (perhaps, wished for more clarification on) was Keith suggesting that it is a form of arrogance to come to college thinking you know everything you need to know. Now, I understand Keith was attacking those who feel they are only ticking the college box so someone will give them a job. But it is possible to be too reactive to this issue. Whilst we should expect to be challenged, and rebuked, and changed, and humbled as we study at college, provided we came with a sound knowledge of the gospel it is true also that what we are seeking is added depth of belief. In that sense I would consider it a failure to leave college in any other position than the one I arrived in – knowing the truth of salvation, and dedicated to serving Jesus for the rest of my life.

Perhaps this is because I know from experience that my biggest theological lessons have yet to come from any theologians (in that hoity-toity use of the word), but instead from many supposedly untrained saints who have been following Jesus for 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60 years. This is not being anti-intellectual. It is rather informed by the understanding that we must be like children in our trust of God. Though my depth of understanding of Jesus death on my behalf should only increase with more study and reflection, there remains a simplicity to trusting him that I had when I arrived for that first lecture, and I hope above hope remains in me when I walk up to graduate, and is firm within me still when I close my eyes for the last time in this life.

Thinking that you don't need to go to college might arise from misplaced intellectual arrogance, but it can also be an expression of the Christian knowing you won't leave any more saved than when you walked in.

I'm almost certain that these will end up being the two most important lectures we will have in our time at college.

The wisdom I wish I never had to gain

2011-03-03T18:43:00.000+11:00

A lot of my blogging energy over the past month has been directed towards helping Sarah write some posts for the Equip Book Club, where she reviewed Just the two of us? Help and strength in the struggle to conceive.

Sarah did the thinking and the writing. Then we discussed the posts together, I would re-read the chapters, offer suggestions and add a bit of polish, before back to Sarah for final editing.

I hope one day I am part of that group of people who feels slightly guilty talking about infertility, because God has chosen after that season to give the blessing of children. It's strange that many who 'graduate' from infertility*, feel like they have been blessed with a great empathy for others experiencing it, and yet equally feel like any advice they give sounds a bit hollow when the back seat of their car is full of little people.

And so, ever since Sarah and I began on this path, we'd always hoped to take some time to write down some of the things we were feeling in the moment, in the hope that those reflections would be of benefit to others if by God's graciousness we were ever to leave 'the club'.

I hope that these posts of Sarah's have gone a long way to achieving this purpose.

1. Our Story
2. The Cold Hard Facts
3. So Many Questions
4. Acknowledging the Pain
5. Who am I?
6. Marriage, Men, and Miscarriage
7. Treatment
8. The Long Unknown

*I should add that many people who are eventually granted children by the Lord continue to mourn their infertility, whether it be that they cannot have kids without intervention, or even that their peer group will always be those few years ahead of them or have more children.

The Messiah

2011-03-03T14:48:00.003+11:00

On the back of a number of enquiries from students, college has announced they will cancel lectures to enable students to attend the 3-day KCC OXYGEN Conference in August with guest speakers John Piper and John Lennox. In other news, Jesus is due to return just a week later, however classes will continue as normal.

I jest. It is a gracious thing for the Board of Studies to agree to, and I would love to go. However, I'm not sure if us Bible College students need refreshing in the way that the conference is aiming for. After all, most of us are pretty much just starting out. We should ideally be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed about vocational ministry, not disillusioned, exhausted, and in need of an oxygen hit (Note: If it happened to be around exam time, this would change things completely). For those who want the Christian celeb experience, I assume Piper will be speaking at college at some stage, like most visitors, as well as at ENGAGE where many college students will attend, plus there is the big evangelistic rally too.

As for why I'm not going: at a student price of $295 for 3 days non-residential it is out of my budget. And I'm not sure how many other students will be able to justify the expense as well.

I'd be interested to know if you are planning on going along, especially if you're a student or from interstate. I anticipate it will be be a really encouraging, Jesus-focused time of refreshment.

Mankind

2011-02-28T17:45:00.002+11:00

My 'mankind' sermon went fine. Thanks for asking.

One of the elders at church commented to me that he could see the benefit of my college doctrine lectures coming through in my content. Now, not to speak down college, we have probably only spent about 2 hours one Monday afternoon 12 months ago looking specifically at 'mankind'. In fact, doctrine has been one of the most surprising flops so far in my college experience. Three hours straight on one day squeezed into a single semester, meant we regularly covered multiple topics each week, or topics across weeks. I felt it never got to hang in the air, and so I never really got a chance to ponder too much upon the systematics. In terms of the sermon, by far the biggest influence on the content was my time as a university student as we studied Genesis in detail every other year.

Thank you also to everyone who commented on my post last week. If sermons were footnoted, you would all have had a superscript number placed beside your name written in tiny font.

In some ways I felt like it was a rip-off sermon. I mean, I didn't download someone else's talk and fudge it as my own. And I didn't really direct quote anyone. It was more that I can see the influence of those who have taught me coming through. I guess this is what's supposed to happen as we learn. That we are filled with the bits of pieces of our knowledge of God, and it gets pieced together in our minds by the Spirit teaching us, and then somehow at the end of it we have a relationship with God that is not based on any knowledge which is dramatically new, but that which is a direct byproduct of those who have entrusted the message to us. And yet this 'new' understanding in my mind occurs in a way where it would be possible to trace each thought back to its original source.

I think there might be something profound in what I'm realising here. I'm not sure what it is, but it feels deep. I think I'm having a moment.

Language Tales

2011-02-25T15:03:00.000+11:00

One of the many benefits promised to us from learning Biblical Greek was that we would also understand English grammar for perhaps the first time. I say this because most students of my generation didn't get much grammar growing up, beyond the simplest 'a noun is a thing', and 'a verb is a doing word'. It was out of favour with the education makers during my schooling years. Supposedly its now back in though, because they were asking some questions on an episode of It's Academic the other day, that I wouldn't have understood until last year.

I have certainly picked up heaps of grammar through learning Greek, but I've also learnt some of it through surprising means. I recounted last year how I discovered the importance of conjunctions. And this year I'm adding to my learning by discovering the value of verbs. I had an unseen translation in a Hebrew exam the other day, the only problem was, there was a heap of verbs in it that we had never been taught but were expected to decipher from context. I didn't know them, didn't know the passage well enough to fake it, couldn't work them out, and so I left them blank. It makes for fun reading. Moses.... top.... mountain.... the LORD our God... into... law... Moses...

Verbs are extremely important to communication.

___________

Now, I was at the wedding of some dear friends last week. During the sermon the minister asked us if love was a verb or a noun. My first thought was, 'I can tell you if you'd like me to consult my Greek Bible'. My next thought was, 'From what I know of Greek, it is extremely clear whether a word is a noun or a verb'. But then I thought, 'That's probably not why he was asking the question'. Knowing the difference between a verb and a noun, isn't everything.

Irony

2011-02-24T22:06:00.000+11:00

Tonight, after dropping Sarah off at college I was intending to kill the proverbial two birds by filling up with petrol whilst the price was low and I was already using the car. Unfortunately I realised on the way there that I left my petrol receipt at home. I left the petrol receipt at home because I was using it as a bookmark as I re-read sections of David Allen's Getting Things Done.

Fail.

True humanity

2011-02-23T07:38:00.003+11:00

Your mission (cue music), should you choose to accept it, is to help me solve a riddle. I've been given the task of preaching as part of my church's doctrine series, on the topic of 'Mankind'. Easy enough, I know you're thinking – we are created by God, but we are sinful, we cannot understand ourselves without knowing our creatureliness, our fallenness and Jesus as the ultimate man.

The problem is, I can't really talk about creation as that was last Sunday. I can't really talk about sin and suffering, that's the following week. I can't really talk about Jesus, we'll cover him over two weeks under 'The Person of Jesus' and 'The Work of Jesus'. So what should I do?

It is, essentially a sermon on the role of mankind from Genesis 1-2. The question is, why is it important to know the way we were created?

Now my conviction is I don't think you can understand humanity without understanding sin. I don't think you can understand humanity without understanding Jesus as true humanity. But the easy thing to do would be to say, "Well, who cares about what we're doing these other weeks, I'll just say what I need to". That, I think, would be to waste the opportunity. It is fundamental to our understanding of this world which can appear to be chaotic, and disordered, and ravaged by the effects of sin, that we do see God's good disposition to his creation and the associated value that gives us, and the role that gives us within the world.

So my three relationships which help us to understand mankind are:
1. Mankind in relationship to God
2. Mankind in relationship to each other
3. Mankind in relationship to creation

Visually it might be represented a little bit like this...

As for where I go from there, if I had to go to only one place (which with a 22 minute limit looks likely) I will probably go to Mt 28 where Jesus says all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me, therefore go and make disciples.

The line of thought being that the true reflection of our created selves is to be a follower of Jesus which enables us to relate rightly in the three relationships of points 1-3. In terms of role (our gardening) that commission is fulfilled still through the bearing of children, but the bearing of spiritual children as we make more disciples to also help with our gardening i.e. making following of Jesus.

If I had longer I would take the long view (which I'm not entirely convinced of being the best way to get to Jesus)

Jesus was true mankind (e.g. Heb 4:15 lived without sin, made like us in every way), which enables us to return to God (approach the throne of God with confidence (4:16))
We now restored to relationship with God express our true humanity, truly restored (Maybe 2 Cor 3:18 where we are transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory). Big idea is we take his benefit for ourselves.
So Jesus ultimately fulfilled his role as true man (Mt 28:18-20 - having used his rule correctly, he was given all authority in heaven and earth). Jesus was the true image of God in this world and his application was therefore go and make disciples of all nations.
We express living under God by being restored to him through Jesus. We express our restored relationship to each other as men and women and to wider world in the rest of creation by preaching the gospel. We garden and we fill and subdue through the true expression of humanity – making disciples of Jesus (Col 1:28 we proclaim Jesus, to present everyone mature in Christ.)

Another potentially simpler route is via Psalm 8, which examines man as the pinnacle of creation, and then the Son of Man as especially blessed.

Any advice? Is it just confusing? Is there a still more excellent way?

Stupid Pride

2011-02-22T07:17:00.000+11:00

Our Hebrew lecture yesterday involved going around the class one at a time and translating a verse out loud for the whole group. I didn't learn much because as I waited for my name to be called about three-quarters of the way around I just sat there mildly sweating, clammy hands, with a slightly increased heart-rate, dreading my turn. I was so nervous I ended up reading the wrong verse (which I was translating correctly) and I got even more flustered as the lecturer and others kept correcting me (on the translation of the verse I had missed) while I, ever confused, kept exploring the semantic range of the first word on the wrong line in the hope they would eventually agree. Once we got on the same line it was all good, but my nerves were shot.

However, as a positive I now know what it must be like for poor readers/ESL people when it gets announced in Bible study that 'everyone will read a paragraph as we go round the circle'. Time to panic!

I am very quickly losing confidence in Hebrew.

To make matters worse, I was getting discouraged as all these people before me were translating like they were reading the English and easily translating words that as far as I could tell I had never seen before in my life. I kept turning to my mate beside me and asking, 'Am I supposed to know that word? They all translate so quickly?' Eventually after the third time he had answered 'No, we've never seen it before', he added 'Look, they all have their software open'. You see, half the class had Bible language software on their computers in front of them anyway, quickly looking up words they didn't know and translating their line before they supposedly translated off the cuff. I too tried to have the passage in front of me on my Mac, but when it got to my turn I just decided to not try and fluff my knowledge.

And all the while we were perpetuating the myth that we were better than we were, and feeding to our poor lecturer that we knew more than we did. Stupid pride.

Micah sermons

2011-02-21T21:33:00.000+11:00

Because I usually reflect on this blog during my preparation for sermons I preach, it is not uncommon for your comments and questions to end up in the final manuscript. Because I consider you all a part of my preparation process, I like to post links to the finished result - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

My series on Micah I prepared and delivered last year (first at uni, then at church) is a perfect illustration of the benefit of editing.

Talk 1 – 36:51 – slightly edited
Talk 2 – 41:52 – unedited
Talk 3 – 26:53 – heavily edited

The quality is directly proportional to the amount of editing. The first two you can get the hint as you listen that I'm kind of dying a little inside. I was. I'm nearly breaking out in hives just thinking about it.

Sarah is blogging for Equip Book Club

2011-02-21T09:26:00.001+11:00

My wife Sarah is blogging over at Equip Book Club on Just the two of us? Help and strength in the struggle to conceive. In a very biblical way, I don't normally approve of 'loaning out my wife'. However it is my great pleasure to encourage you to have a read, in the hope that perhaps you might see, just for a moment, a faint suggestion of the magnificent blessing that God has bestowed on me through Sarah.

And yes, I am boasting.

Please feel sorry for the youth group I help lead

2011-02-13T00:06:00.000+11:00

They lack... how can I say it tastefully? They lack, creativity.

This time last year we voted on a new youth group name. We wanted to re-launch with a new vibe, a new culture, we wanted to do something, well, new. There were four options chosen by the leaders in an anonymous ballot, plus the choice of writing your own suggestion, which if good enough would constitute a revote.

No suggestions were forthcoming. The victor by a landslide was, 'Youth Group'.

Beam me in, Scotty.

2011-02-12T23:54:00.002+11:00

Back in Sydney after 6 weeks away, I've been talking a lot to people about my holidays. And inevitably the conversation gets around to Sarah and I getting stuck in Brisbane during the floods and how I had to take some back roads past Nowheresville and round the corner from Yonder in order to get to Maclean to preach on the Sunday.

They should have just video streamed me in like Mark Driscoll.

The sermon, as I've said previously, was only a pass. I had motivated myself with a lot of positive self talk during the week that this sermon was going to be my 22 minute scorcher. It was not to be. I was way too long, yet again. Whether an empty excuse or vile justification, I would only add in my defense that in the days leading up to the sermon I was channeling a bit of Father McKenzie (of Eleanor Rigby fame), thinking I wouldn't be able to get back (to where I once belonged) because of the floods. Thus the incentive to work was just not there seeing as though I imagined I was writing the words to a sermon that no one would hear (no one comes near).

If you want to hear what someone sounds like who was trying to write new sermons whilst camping 10m from the beach and supposedly "holidaying" (the first two) or whilst thinking it was relatively pointless writing a talk because inclement weather would mean it would never be preached (the third one), you can listen via the Maclean Presbyterian Church website.

Finally by way of warning, I am compelled to offer the following caution:
I love the people of Maclean Presy very dearly. But seriously, they also have one of the worst church website designs I have ever seen. No doubt designed and maintained with love, it is difficult to get past the clip art and 'Web Counter'. It was probably cutting edge in its time. That time has passed. But God's mercies, new every morning, have at least ensured there is no midi file playing 'How Great Thou Art' in the background and no comic sans in sight. I should also state for the record that the website was added after Phil Campbell's time as minister. I say this to protect Phil's legacy of tasteful design.

Why men hate going to church.

2011-02-08T14:21:00.000+11:00

There's a book on my bookshelf somewhere that I haven't read which goes by that name.

Last Sunday, I worked out the answer: The song Blessed be your name. Or to be more specific, the bridge and the last line of every chorus in the song Blessed be your name.

They're high. Extremely high. Unnaturally high if you're a post-pubescent male. Those parts of the song are getting up in the range of only being able to be heard by animals and plants. And to be brutally honest I have theological issues with having songs of praise to our God written to only be heard by animals and plants.

Then again, it is kind of biblical.

Back to it...

2011-02-08T14:10:00.000+11:00

Well I'm back at college for a two week Hebrew intensive. Unlike our one day Greek intensive coming up (which doesn't sound like it will be that intense) this is quite stretching. The theme of day one was, "Everything you think you know, you don't". Which is quite disheartening really.

The new batch of first years are around today as well which was accompanied with a bit of reminiscing and the occasional, 'it seems like only yesterday...' I was looking around at them all this morning at morning tea and thinking to myself, "Were we really that thin?" The answer: probably.

Reading Calvin is good for the soul

2011-02-04T09:25:00.001+11:00

Reading Calvin is good for the soul. I can put it no other way. John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion reflects upon our God and on our God's abundant benevolence towards us, and these reflections are humbling and enriching. I thought having to read 500+ pages of Calvin during my "holiday" would be a drag. How very wrong I was.

My brain isn't particularly wired to working through the ten commandments under 50 sub-points. However, I've never been one to let learning styles get in the way of an activity being beneficial to my person. Reading Calvin, I'm coerced back to God's revelation in the Scriptures. And so it has been refreshing to join some more dots together in my understanding of God, in his simplicity and diversity.

Mind you, it hasn't all been happy happy joy joy. Occasionally I've needed to keep myself focused when I haven't felt like picking up the book to read my 20 pages for the day. So I've kept a keen eye out for helpful illustrations Calvin uses or things I disagree with, or questions I've had that are resolved by what I'm reading. As the copy I was given has already been covered with summaries, underlining and question marks I was led at times by the previous owners questioning. Though rather than minimising my own thoughts, I think these annotations focused them.

At one point I was amused to read Calvin saying:

...when circumstances demanded it, [Paul] swore without any hesitation, sometimes even adding a curse. (Page 393)

This is as good an example that I've come across yet, to demonstrate why we must read Bible verses in their context. You see, we wouldn't expect to just take a verse out of any other literature (e.g. Calvin) and expect it to make sense, but we do it with the Bible all the time.

Calvin as you may have guessed was talking about swearing oaths, and is not talking about when Paul got up in the middle of the night to go to the toilet and kicked his little toe on the corner of his bed.

I've read every page, man

2011-01-31T15:51:00.006+11:00

Yesterday morning, lying awake in bed after what could have been no more than four hours sleep, I got me to thinking about a song idea I had many years ago. This germ of a song idea must have occurred to me at least five years ago. I'd had a few tries at getting the syllabic structure to work, but nothing seemed to come out right. But somehow through the sleep deprived haze I decided to make another attempt at writing new words to the classic Aussie song I've Been Everywhere by Lucky Starr, with the place names substituted for every book of the Bible.

For years I'd been toying with the idea of writing a song called 'I've read every book' (which incidentally, I have). I had the couplets "I've read every book, man/ I've read every book man/ Genesis to Revelation/ Found out about salvation.' But as I was lying there I said to myself, "Self, the rhyme would be better if it said 'page, man' rather than 'book, man' because it rhymes better with salvation. And then I finally got the first verse to work as well with a little gag on the end, rather than just squeezing in more book names.

So that was it. I was off to the study with my guitar and laptop opened. An hour and a half later (with the help of my trusty rhyming dictionary) I had me a song. That was yesterday.

Today's lunch break from study was laying the track down on Garage Band. It took me about an hour to get set up and recorded. That's the best way. No mucking around.

So if you want to have a listen you can check it out over on the Izaac Sings Aloud myspace page. Where our motto is 'Izaac sings aloud... but I wish he wouldn't.'

I’ve read every page

Well I was strolling the aisle of the dusty second-hand book store

When along came the owner, to help me find what I was searching for.

“If you’re looking for a Bible, mate, they’re round the other side.”

So I followed him on over, as he led me as my guide.

I asked him if he’d ever read any of the holy book?

He paused for just a moment, and gave a funny look.

And said…

I’ve read every page, man. I’ve read every page, man.

Genesis to Revelation,

I found out ‘bout salvation

It starts off with creation

I’ve read every page.

Well I read

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers

Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel,

Samuel, Kings, Kings, Chronicles, Chronicles,

Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job and Psalms

Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

Isaiah, Jeremiah, getting here I’m tempted to retire.

But I’ve read every page, man

I’ve read every page, man

From the promise of a nation

To warnings ‘bout damnation

Genesis to Revelation

I’ve read every page

Then I read

Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea,

Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah stuck up in the whale,

My car, your car, his car, her car,

their car, our car, whose car? Micah

Nahum, Habakkuk, that sounds a bit yuk,

Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi… ah

I’ve read every page, man. I’ve read every page, man.

Exiled from the promised land

Judah as the chosen clan

Waiting for the Christ-man

I’ve read every page.

Well I read

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Corinthians

Corinthians the second one, Galatians, Ephesians

Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians 1 and 2,

Timothy, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrew, James

1^ST Peter, 2^ND Peter, John, John, John, John

John, John, John, John, Jude, Revelation.

I’ve read every page, man. I’ve read every page, man

Genesis to Revelation

Jesus our salvation

He took our condemnation

Have you read every page?

IJC 2011

I love to have a beer with Calvin

2011-01-31T08:28:00.001+11:00

It seems every spare moment I have of late is taken by reading Calvin's Institutes or trying to finish a bunch of translations. I've got one more week. The holidays are almost gone, and it's that last minute rush of trying to finish off all my vacation assignments before registration at college. I still feel 'vacation assignment' is an oxymoron, but I guess I'm really the moron for not being more on top of my work over the break. Thankfully I haven't been too slack, just 25 pages a day for the next week will have me finished my Calvin, I've got 2 Greek, and 3 Hebrew translations to do in that time. I'm also getting a book review from the blog published in The Briefing, but seeing as I hadn't read the book for a year I'm trying to read that again as well to make sure I still agree with what I said.

Lately I've been blogging in my head, but haven't had time to get it down on screen. Do you ever have this feeling? You see something, think something, notice something, and you start formulating your thoughts in the form of a blogpost, except that you're nowhere near a computer. Well usually I then get to a computer in the near future and get it down, but not over the past few months.

But I have been blogging in my head. For example the other morning I woke up early and couldn't get back to sleep. So, like always seems to happen in those moments, my mind began to stroll. Lying there awake I wrote an introduction to my next sermon, a couple of lines to a song (which I then got out of bed and wrote and will hopefully reveal later this week), and I also managed to make a comparison between my preaching and jerky.

My brother in law is right into beef jerky at the moment. Apparently the protein is good if you're trying to bulk up. I'm not, but I tried some anyway. The best thing I can say about jerky is that it gave me an analogy for my preaching of late (No, not that I've been a jerk for those who were thinking it). Rather, I've been attempting to feed people who are ready, no longer milk but solid food (read: meat). But I've been giving them jerky. The essence of solid food is definitely still there, but it's well and truly overcooked. Nourishing, yet difficult to digest. Slightly bitter to the taste.

As for the beer with Calvin thingy, I was waiting in my car in a car park the other day because I was an hour early for a bucks night dinner. So I was sitting there in the car park, reading Calvin and then, just because, I opened a beer and drank it whilst reading Calvin. I've never drunk a beer on my own before, and I don't plan on making it regular. I would only probably have on average one beer a month and generally only at someone else's invitation. But it was quite refreshing in the hot afternoon, to sit down and have a beer with Calvin. Plus, there was a sense where going out of 'study mode' and into 'rest mode' made my thinking on what I was reading even clearer. It must be like my mates in high school used to tell me their snooker playing got better after two beers. Not that I'm advocating a beer or two before study each day at college, I'm just saying that I'm still happy to sign off that I've 'carefully read' all of my Calvin readings, even though 20 pages were read with the Institutes in one hand and a Corona in the other.

I love to have a beer with Calvin

I love to have a beer with John

Extended explanation

He sometime rants about icons

It's all about God's graces

Not about our work that saves

I love to have a beer with Calvin

Shows I am depraved.

Wordle for my sermon last Sunday

2011-01-18T14:51:00.001+11:00

I spent last week staying with friends in a flood affected part of Queensland, and was meant to be preaching last Sunday in a flood affected part of NSW. It took a few back roads and a bit of winding through country trails but I made it back in time to preach.

My passage was 1 Corinthians 3.

I give myself a pass. I feel like having now preached the sermon I understand what I was trying to say, so I'm ready to sit down and write the talk afresh... but the moment has passed. God will do what he will with what I said. Another death by chocolate thing. Too much content. Not enough clarity. Too long.

Thankfully though, the sermon has been preserved online in all its muted glory for future generations to poke fun at. At least it was long enough that no one would ever bother using it in a 'what not to do' seminar, even though the sermon might be a good candidate.

Sarah suggested that I give myself the same feedback after every talk. Obviously this means I'm not equipped to self-correct on these issues. So I'm giving myself one more try before calling in the men with the giant wooden spoon to start my spankings.

Biblical proportions

2011-01-12T12:58:00.002+11:00

On Moore College mission last year we were promised a 'door-knocking experience like no other - a positive one'. That's because we were only going back to visit houses that had been previously approached and had shown anything other than antagonism. In the end it wasn't quite as great as promised, but still better than most times. For me the best door-knocking I've done was on beach mission at Brooms Head. I had a visiting run of houses rather than tents, but still people were on holidays and relaxed, willing to talk. Often they were not in their regular homes or were renting so it felt less like we were intruding. Plus a lot of the time few people were home because they were down at the beach, so it ended up being a bit of a break from the hectic mission program.

Part of the art of door-knocking is intentional small talk. You need an 'in'. One of the strange things about Christmas time is that every other year there seemed to be a natural disaster. My first year on mission the national park around the town was littered with bushfires. My second year, we began mission the day after the Boxing Day Tsunami. It felt like a million miles away from sunny, quiet Brooms Head, but everyone was talking about it. So that was our 'in'.

'Have you been hearing about the tsunami? Crazy, isn't it?'

Most beach houses are white. There was this one house on our run which was a bit different to most of the white houses at Brooms Head because it was Greek influenced. The owner was a Christian man and woman who were always ready with a glass of water to refresh my mate Mike and I on our journey. Our brother in Christ in the Greek style beach house had an interesting response to the tsunami. He said, 'A lot of people are blaming God, but this isn't God's doing.'

So whose doing is it?

One of the best things about systematic preaching (that is the kind that moves gradually through entire books, not the thematic kind) is that it allows the Bible to set your agenda. You preach on sections of the Bible that you might not normally cover, or that you shy away from because it's hard.

One of the flow-on effects though is that this makes many churches in my circles less likely to directly address significant events that are occurring in our world, as they occur. So whilst we might pray for what we see in the news privately, and those leading prayer corporately will do the same, these events rarely are addressed through biblical reflection. Sure, our prayers are informed by our understanding of the events from God's point of view, but not in the same way that prayerful reflection of the Bible will do. Being too structured in our systematic working through scripture can prevent an adequate response when big events are happening.

Maybe it's a product of our time. What few old sermons I have read often do address quite directly specific issues of their time. But the great depression or a world war or two will probably do that to you. Now our wars are fought without conscription and more by air than land, so we keep relatively detached from them. If someone addresses Iraq in a sermon, they're more thought to be promulgating a particular political position than a theological one. Natural disasters likewise raise our concerns and our prayers, our financial support, but unless personally involved are unlikely to dramatically alter our world view, or our view of God.

Floods are covering the news. Except for in WA, where to highlight the land of extremes in which we live, there are bushfires. But Queensland is flooded. The sad death of a number of individuals has finally taken the media's focus off the purely financial implications of the event. My home town of Maclean in Northern NSW is bracing for floods as well, though the levee there should hold. So what should we say? Of course, we'll pray. Many of us will donate money. But how are our views to be shaped of these events in a way which reflects our relationship to the creator?

Perhaps this isn't the week to change your passage to Genesis 6-9. That would be tacky. But without a doubt whenever a so-called 'natural' disaster occurs, or 'mother nature' strikes, the view of most people, even most Christians like the man in the white Greek beach house, is shaped more by a view of chance than of a sovereign God.

If you are talking to friends who are blaming God, or wondering how Christians respond to such events, then in these instances my mind goes first to Luke 13:1-9. Don't go to Noah, go straight to Jesus. These words of Jesus don't provide all the answers. There are no simple answers. But Jesus' words do provide a framework for how to approach these disasters. Jesus is the one who gives certainty amidst uncertainty, the one who reminds us that repentance provides security, and the one who died and rose again that we might dwell with God for eternity.

Stuff not worth blogging

2011-01-12T12:02:00.001+11:00

Sarah and I had dinner the other night with Simone and Andrew whilst staying on holiday with Nathan and Robyn. I'd never met Simone in the real world but have interacted a little bit through the blogosphere. Robyn commented that Sarah and I, "Virtually know Simone already". And the pun was absolutely and gloriously intended.

How come all the good TV shows are on Sunday night and whichever night I've got bible study, no matter which night bible study is on?

I arrived at my parents place Christmas Eve and Mum had the Carols in the Domain service on the TV, playing on 7Two. Because everything was performed by celebrities, the general order seemed to have the bigger stars sing a Christmas carol, followed by a performance piece of their own. But the danger in having the stars perform their own songs is that a lot of pop music would be inappropriate for the occasion. There really is no smooth way to transition from Away in a Manger to All the Single Ladies. Therefore it was quite clear that the performance songs were then chosen because they kind of felt right for the occasion, so anything classical or a bit gospel was in. When I walked in the door, Josh Groban was singing You Raise Me Up. It seems to tick all the right boxes. It's classical, it's well known, and was a hit for Josh Groban to serve his self-promotion. But my first reaction was, isn't this more an easter song?

For every sermon I preach, I write three

2011-01-11T22:45:00.002+11:00

This is me. John Calvin, as the final words in his introduction 'to the Reader' in Institutes of the Christian Religion quotes Augustine;

I count myself one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write.

Far be it from me to create comparisons between myself and Calvin, or even Augustine for that matter. But it is telling that Calvin recounted these words in the introduction to a book that would run to over a thousand pages. So maybe I am like Calvin, that is, longwinded.

I've realised that each time I preach I actually write three sermons. And depending on which one you get will determine the length and quality of what you hear.

Sermon 1
I think while I write and I write while I think. Traditional wisdom says don't start writing until you know what you have to say. My unconventional wisdom is how can I know what I have to say if I haven't started writing? So I work through a passage noting down interesting bits, thoughts for the big idea, questions I have, some commentary on what is being said, noting linked ideas, possible applications etc. By the time I've finished this I've got a lot of content.

Were I to preach now it would read a bit like a commentary, except longer, with less focus, but I have worked out a rough outline. I could preach at the this point. I've only had to do this once. It was horrible. For all involved.

Sermon 2
Now that I know what the passage is about, I've got some form of metanarrative to unravel. This storyline will be the driving force behind the sermon. Sometimes it comes with a big dilemma, sometimes it is a tension within the passage that needs to be resolved, but at this stage I have a hook. This allows me to set in motion that story arch, to hopefully give some form to what I say for the hearer. At this point I have started to cull what I've written, have hopefully placed in some linking sentences so the thing will kind of flow.

This is oftentimes when I will preach. It is meaty, but it makes sense. It is in fact too meaty, death by chocolate kind of thing, and generally the feedback I receive is it was great, faithful, you kept my attention but there was too much. And I almost always agree.

Sermon 3
Occasionally I'm prepared enough that version three gets at least partially completed before I preach. This is where I get on the slimfast, hit the gym and cut the fat. I cut. I cut and then for good measure I cut some more. What is hopefully left is still a meaty sermon, benefitting from the hard work done with sermon 1, but though meaty is punchier and easier to digest.

I usually get to this version when I preach a sermon a second time on a later occasion (not when I preach it twice in one day). The benefit of the preaching itself helps me get to this point. Plus, the shame and embarrassment felt when version two bombed forces my editing hand. This is the sermon you really want to hear, but don't get nearly as much as you should.

Sermon 4
I haven't had a chance to do a sermon 4 yet, but I anticipate it will come in the future. This is where having preached gradually through an entire book - which has forced me to do the hard work of delving into the larger structure and argument - I then actually know what I'm talking about and throw out everything I've written before and start again.

---------

This probably sounds like I'm spending three times the amount of time and effort on preaching than is necessary. That's not really true. I just kind of start writing right off the bat which means where other people might spend time thinking before the writing, for me doesn't happen. Or at least it isn't scheduled and occurs whilst I'm washing up or laying awake at night.

Perhaps if I end up with a ministry role where I'm publicly teaching each week (or multiple times weekly) my pattern will change. But this is how I go about it at present.

Now, enough procrastinating, I must get back to work on the text for Sunday or I'll be lucky to make it past sermon 1.

I'm a hard man to track down

2010-12-23T18:14:00.002+11:00

It's true. I'm like some kind of internet Christian ninja. You write stuff online and all of a sudden people want to contact you. Okay, okay, occasionally it's when I put my foot in my mouth and people want to yell at me politely, but mostly people want to ask me a question, or say something nice. The only problem is there has been no obvious way of contacting me through the blog without making a public comment on a post.

I feel a bit like that confused AFL girl the other day who was served a court notice through social media. Since I've started this blog, the following means have been used to contact me:

Through friends of friends
Through making a comment giving me their details
Through a Facebook message (even though we weren't FB friends).
Through (the potentially offensive) taking my details off an unrelated contact database
Through contacting Moore College, who contacted me and said they couldn't give my details but I could contact this person if I wanted to.

So I've added an email link on the sidebar. To keep the crazies at bay, it is a pseudo-account. If I like you I'll respond from my real email address and we'll be one step closer to being friends in the real world.

Also, perhaps if you are a random reader of this blog, you might like to use this post as an opportunity during the festive season to say, 'Hi'. I don't generally hunger for people to comment on my posts. That just feels a bit needy. But it is also strange (but appreciated) when strangers walk up to you at conferences and say, 'I read your blog'. If I was an American preacher I would say to you anonymous reader that, 'I love you'. I don't. I could say, 'I tolerate you'. But that's not true either. I'm somewhere in the middle - glad you show up, but intrigued as to who you are, how you got here and what it feels like to stalk someone through a socially accepted method (just like Facebook).

To Justine, who told me she feels like she needs to "fess-up" to reading my blog when we ran into each other in the physical realm, there is no need to re-confess.

But to everyone who cares to drop by, thanks for reading, and have a merry Christmas, celebrating the coming of our Saviour.

Christ: the power of God and the wisdom of God

2010-12-22T11:33:00.003+11:00

When people want to move from the wisdom literature through to the New Testament, especially when the starting point is Proverbs, there is a tendency to go straight to 1 Corinthians, where Christ is the wisdom of God. Specifically 1 Corinthians 1 explains the folly of the crucifixion is the supreme demonstration of the wisdom of God which he uses to shame the wise of this world.

This movement though has always felt lazy to me. It feels like simple word association at its extreme. It sounds logical enough that, wisdom = wisdom. And I'm not just dumping on this link, and it could be absolutely correct, but I've rarely heard it explained more than what could be summarised as, "Here's another place in the Bible that mentions the word wisdom, and guess what, it's about Jesus." Hey, if you're going to go anywhere from the OT to the NT, then Jesus is a good place/person to end up at, but still it seems to me a fairly shallow kind of surface association.

Now here is where I explain what is a better passage you could go to which demonstrates the fulfillment in Christ and the best way to apply the words of God in the wisdom literature post Christ. Except I don't have the answer as yet. With Ecclesiastes, one of my favourite passages to go to is 1 Corinthians 15:58, which in light of the resurrection claims that our labour in the Lord is not in vain. This works well into the whole examination of Ecclesiastes of life under the sun and the way that death is the great leveller.

I'm currently preparing some talks on 1 Corinthians 1-3 and hopefully I'll be in a better position by the time I've finished to comment on the rightness or wrongness of seeing the wisdom language in Corinthians as alluding to Proverbs. My gut reaction is to say it isn't. Not that I will go into this in any of the talks, nor that it necessarily discounts this movement as right. But I hope to resolve my discomfort.

Summary:

It feels lazy simply moving from wisdom literature to 1 Corinthians 1.
I have no better alternative as yet.
I am sensing I still don't understand Proverbs today.

It would be remiss of me to finish without saying how surprising the wisdom of God is as demonstrated in the crucifixion of the Christ. It is hardly surprising that the wisdom of the one true, all-knowing and powerful God surprises little old me, but nevertheless it is a wonderful wonderful thing. It is a beauty that can only be appreciated from the perspective of those for whom this shame (of the cross) and the shame it brings on us (working against our wisdom and as a result of our guilt), is truly the power of God; our righteousness, sanctification and redemption.

Do you make a personal budget?

2010-12-20T12:50:00.001+11:00

Do you budget? I've just completed mine for 2011, then emailed it off to Sarah with comments for her to peruse and adjust. We normally use the budget more as a rough guide than a strict law, but looking at the figures I think we need to be stricter this year.

Sarah and I have ~~sanity money~~ an allowance of $10/week each which we can spend on whatever we want. But if we buy gifts for each other it comes out of our allowance (which accumulates if not spent). Other things that come out of our allowance include eating out, and buying non essential food items like Coca-cola and Doritos (My mild OCD comes out when I split up our grocery bill into food, non-essential food coming from allowance, house supplies, personal supplies).

What else would you be interested to know?

It is expensive to own a car. Costs $20/wk just to get the car on the road, not including repairs or fuel. This year we spent $31/wk on gas (That's LPG, not an Americanism). Hoping to cut that to $27/wk with a bit more walking to college and a few less trips to the grocery store.

As I make it, we can meet all our financial obligations for about 29K. Seems like a lot, but there's only two of us. I am thankful to God for Centrelink Student Payments, for Fee-Help loans to cover college fees and for a paying job this year which will cover the shortfall.

Be careful what you wish for

2010-12-16T13:49:00.002+11:00

Well it looks like my campaign to be featured on Moore College advertising has paid off. Though perhaps not in the way I imagined.

Today my bulging mailbox had two rather thick envelopes from college for Sarah and myself. Similar letters were no doubt sent to a large percentage of college supporters. Little did I know as I opened the envelope addressed to me, that I would actually find myself inside my own envelope. It was a bit of an existential crisis for a moment.

Anyways, here is me as a Christmas angel.

You're invited to hang me on your tree (between a few elves and reindeer) as well as to donate to the college.

The first step to getting on the propaganda was to have my photo taken. If you're wondering why I'm wearing a green polo shirt and a brown jumper (a killer combination), it is because of my desire to wear through some of my shirts this year by having a specific shirt I wear each day of the week. So this photo was taken on a Tuesday. It was only after the offending shot was taken that I realised my collar had been folded over too far on my right side. The designer stubble is not really 'designer' at all, but more lazy stubble. I think the combination of geek chic mismatching clothes (yet still with an air of class), the stubble and the thick-rimmed glasses pushed me out of the generic white Anglo bracket to get me on the advertising.

If you want me on your tree, I'm sure the college (with a joyful donation) would be happy to mail me out to you. And to be serious for a moment, you really should consider donating to college. Plus, apparently I've already thanked you, and I'd hate to have done that for nothing.

And whilst I'm transferring photos from my phone, check out what I found on the ground when I opened my car door in the car park last week. It was on one of those sweltering days...

Do you reckon the kid would have had a similar facial expression to Bill when they dropped him?

Excelling with money

2010-12-16T07:00:00.006+11:00

Phillip Edney has a saying that the last parts of blokes to be converted are their right foot (driving) and their wallets. I have to agree. I have wasted a lot of money in my lifetime. My vices were CD's, movies, and fast food.

The biggest step for me in being deliberate with money was not through getting married (though I assume this is where it kicks in with most blokes), but in tracking every dollar I spend. It sounds a bit obsessive, but it really isn't that much work. I just designed an excel spreadsheet that does all the maths for me, and breaks down into what I'm spending on each item each week. Another fancy bit of the document tells me my average spend per week on each item as well as a running total and compares it to my budget.

We plan and budget to spend money on entertainment for the sake of our sanity, even though we can't afford it. That is, we were cutting into our savings this year at college, trusting that we won't be students forever and we'll have more income in 2011.

But money can rule over us in many ways. It's not just in frittering it away, or lusting after more and more stuff, it can also rule us by being too thrifty, or fretting over every cent, or refusing to spend/give money when we need to.

When I first started this tracking (as a student) it was ~~scary~~ embarrassing how much money I would waste. So every dollar I spend goes into my phone and is transferred that night onto the computer. By about November I'm usually sick of it and so I give myself a month or so respite from tracking every dollar. I then delete the old file and start again the next year. We have a budget which acts as a guide and keeps us accountable, but we're not chained to it. I delete the file each year because I don't want to spend my life worrying about money or comparing it year on year.

An ever present danger

2010-12-15T11:54:00.000+11:00

It's always dangerous giving singers a microphone in church. Sure, they need it to sing, but it's often in that space either side of the actual singing that havoc can be wreaked.

At NTE, with the experienced and godly selection of band members, this wasn't going to be an issue. But there was this corker, which was prayed over the closing bars of a song whilst we were still standing.

.. and we pray that we will stand in God's power. Amen (Amen). Please sit.

Fail.

Biting at the hand that feedbacks you

2010-12-03T13:54:00.000+11:00

Giving feedback to people is a dangerous task. My problem is this is only a recent revelation. I've always been happy to give anyone feedback if I thought I had a helpful contribution. I didn't care if they were older, younger, more or less experienced, male or female - if someone deserved thanks or praise I would offer it, and just as surely if I had constructive comments I would offer them also.

The reason I had no qualms in offering my opinion was in my mind there was nothing personal behind the comments. I just thought I could help and so I would say my piece. So for example in our Moore College orientation we had the most boring half hour of my life as the lady from the library walked us through (in a lecture format) a few of the aspects of the library service. At the end she asked if anyone had ideas for information to include or ways of doing that presentation differently then to let her know. So I did. My suggestion was to use all the same information but do it as if she was researching an essay. So start by having an old essay question that she puts to us and get us to think what we would search, what kinds of materials we would be looking for, and use that as a means of demonstrating the capabilities of the searches and actually walk us through the structures she had but utilising the essay example.

When my mates asked me what I was talking to her about afterwards, and I told them, they said I was arrogant. Now apart from telling them to go jump, I was quite dumbfounded. In my mind there wasn't a hint of arrogance. She asked, I offered and the end product for next year might be improved. I didn't look down on her, think anything less of her or more of myself. I just thought I could help.

Now I can see how people might think it was arrogance: because I'm assuming I have something to offer. And no one likes to be told what to do. Yet to be honest, the whole concept of being accused of arrogance for daring to give someone feedback just shocks me. I feel like I'm giving feedback in love, and for their and my benefit. The process of giving feedback sharpens me even more than them because I realise mistakes I make as well or ways they are teaching me.

It's hard not to be precious over something we put our heart into. And it is this protectiveness and ownership that makes it hard to receive comment on. As we invest ourself into the presentation or event, we then take everything personally and live or die by the response. But at some level it is great if we can detach ourselves to step back from the thing we have done or created in order to hear what people say. I'm not even sure I'm that great at receiving feedback either. But something is wrong where any attempt to improve or suggest ways of improvement is seen as arrogance.

In response to this, some people and workplaces (and even ministry teams) I've seen choose to say nothing. That way at least there is the appearance of unity and cohesion. Others still do it, whilst being particularly guarded. That is they don't give feedback over email. Better in person or at least over the phone. I see the wisdom in this. Others like myself go with the love sandwich (love at the start, improvements in the middle, love at the end). But again it seems to me that the pride comes not from the feedbacker but more often the person receiving the feedback.

My other principle for those receiving feedback (including to myself) is to give people the benefit of the doubt. Few people start out trying to discourage you or cut you down. In fact, amongst the Christian community it's usually just the opposite: to build you up. But this building up is not in the American sense of irrational praise, but it is speaking the truth in order to benefit you.

And the other thing is, if a friend is telling you something critical at some level they are putting the friendship on the line. Because there is every chance you will take it the wrong way. So to say something negative is to take a risk that it could be taken the wrong way. There's no obvious danger in just giving empty praise. I realise people have been hurt before which makes this whole thing difficult, but all too often I see people having a hard reaction to critical feedback. We need to receive feedback softly.

As a side note, every time I have considered quitting blogging it has been when I have offered critical analysis on another person or event online. There is wisdom in asking whether or not a blog is the appropriate forum to do that. But inevitably when there have been issues it has been from people who either don't read blogs generally (and don't understand the medium) and/or aren't regular readers of my blog. I hope that most people that have read my blog for a long period of time don't see arrogance behind my reflections, but see searching analysis that is more often directed at myself than others.

Vacation Assignment

2010-12-02T06:00:00.003+11:00

It's an oxymoron, isn't it? Either way they still need to be done, and I'm convinced they are beneficial for my learning.

My pre-2nd year vacation assignments are:

Greek translation
Hebrew translation
Calvin readings

Also, is vacation an Americanism? It feels like something you would perhaps do on the pavement/sidewalk then throw some trash in the can after eating some cantaloupe on the way to your apartment.

Nah mate, in this country we take holidays. And we walk on the footpath, throw rubbish in a bin, eat rockmelon and live in a unit.

I hereby repent of my subconscious dislike of systematic theology

2010-12-01T06:11:00.002+11:00

I think I have a subconscious hate of systematic theology. Or perhaps it's best described as a leaning against. No, I haven't started my summer reading of Calvin yet (that begins tomorrow), I just happened to come to this realisation last night during that great time of reflection known as 'doing the washing up'.

I understand that systematic theology arises naturally from God's revelation. It is a true, right and necessary exercise for Christians to engage in. Systematic theology clarifies our understanding of God, and thus allows us to know him better, and to understand the way he has revealed himself, how we are made right with him through Jesus, as well as enabling us to live wisely under God. So I'm not anti-systematics. But I think I still have a disposition against it which I have only just become aware of.

The reason for this stance is I associate systematic theology with bad bible reading/teaching. Or perhaps bad isn't the most appropriate word, maybe more like unsound bible reading. That is, those who are strong on systematics often know their bible really well but don't read their bible well. So they see a word during bible study or when preparing a sermon and off they go. What they tend to say on this tangent is invariably sound biblical truth. On the other hand, perhaps because of these wild flights, they rarely exegete the passage well. The meaning of the word or concept within its context takes a back seat to them downloading their understood dictionary entry on the matter at hand.

One of the strengths in Mark Driscoll's preaching (which surprises many people considering his popularity) is his systematic theology. I was going to say MD made systematic theology cool again, but MD seems to make everything cool. What he has done is highlighted a felt deficiency in much modern preaching reagrding systematic theology (at least in my circles). You see, the bread and butter I was raised on was sound exegesis. Start with the passage. Actually my most repeated phrase in bible study is 'Where did you get that in the passage?' Now to be fair I don't ever want to change this aspect of my biblical understanding. I want to start small and build out from there. But the question is, do I ever get that far out from the details to see the systematic elements? I believe I don't. Or at least I haven't traditionally. The sound approach of biblical exegesis and making sure I understood the passage correctly has given me that emphasis, to the extreme that I realise now I have neglected the systematics to a large degree.

Back to Driscoll, because of his relatively sound systematic approach, he has gained a rightful esteem amongst evangelicals. But personally most of his exegesis is rarely as sound. Oftentimes it is simply useless in teaching the best method of reading the bible. At the Engage Conference a few years back everyone was saying, "Imagine having to follow MD into the pulpit?" But then when he spoke on the Sunday morning and was followed by Don Carson we all realised we'd had fairy floss for the entree. I love the guy as a brother in Christ, but I don't want people to replicate his teaching on the finer points of how to read the Bible. I mean, he always gets back to Jesus which is great. But I'm not sure if following his method you could start with the Bible and get back to such a sound systematic framework. Whereas an emphasis on what's in front of you on the page would be more likely to achieve this.

So what I anticipate over the next few years at college is my viewpoint and understanding of systematic theology to exponentially increase. The key thing post-college will be to show how the systematic theology comes to bear in the lives of individuals. And how to incorporate the more deliberate understanding of the framework I am reading the Bible from (I realise I must have a framework now which is largely intuitive but without much awareness), and how to show the way an individual section of the Bible both leads to and is sharpened by the systematic framework to which it relates.

The problem is I think most preachers (if I can narrow it down to that for now) don't have a platform from which they are able to do both. A congregation accustomed to detailed exegesis will generally be unwilling to accept further reflection time because the exegesis can be tiring to listen to in its extreme. On the other hand, those accustomed to stronger systematic emphasis tend to be less interested in the details of the passage, are less likely to read their bibles accompanying the talk and fade quickly on detailed examination of the actual text.

But it takes time to give an adequate exegetical basis to demonstrate both how to read a passage correctly to get to the truth in it, but also to show how the text leads to the systematic conclusions, and vice versa. Few preachers have the ability or desire to do both. But I think it is something to aim towards. Because an emphasis too far in either direction will have very real implications for the health of a congregation, their ability to feed themselves from God's word, and their ability to articulate their faith.

We all tend to lean to one extreme. I'm just realising I need to gravitate a bit more the other way.

The Lord's Supper

2010-11-30T06:17:00.000+11:00

One thing about churches trying to be relevant is they give us lots to talk about.

I know of a church who updated the Lord's supper to be eating and drinking potato chips and coca-cola instead of bread and wine. What do you reckon? Is it kosher?

Personally I quite enjoy it when the Lord's supper is celebrated as an entire meal. This isn't because I'm a poor student and my favourite word is 'free' but because it feels a lot closer to the original intention.

The Coke thing just seems tacky.

Receiving the baton

2010-11-29T06:13:00.000+11:00

The second letter we have of Paul's correspondence to Timothy is a well-mined part of the Scriptures. It has something for everyone. Apart from the bizarre fascination of reflecting on the last recorded words of someone such as Paul, there is the general dynamic of exploring an older wiser individual writing from their years of experience and offloading this wisdom to their young charge. It taps into a relational yearning of many of us as we or our parents and grandparents age.

Because the life situation Paul is in when he wrote the letter is so extreme, we tend to read the whole letter through Paul's eyes. Some of Paul's letters don't lend themselves especially well to seeking specific individual application to the reader. It is there of course, but as many letters are written to entire churches there is some extra steps to take in order to satisfy our western individualistic mindset. As this letter is written to an individual it more easily has us asking individualistic questions. But from whose vantage point should we read? The writer or the recipient? The half dozen or so sermon series I've heard have taken more of a Paul view talking about 'famous last words' and 'passing the baton'. It's not that the view from Timothy's perspective is ignored, but the scale is weighted heavily to Paul's end.

Now that's all fine. But the passing the baton angle is helpful to demonstrate the potential issues. Because of 2 Timothy 2:2 we think of this as one place that encourages us to pass on our message of Jesus to others. Who these 'others' are is dependent on the congregation. But if we read ourselves as Paul rather than as Timothy, we can miss that at times the message focuses more on receiving the baton rather than merely passing it on.

Now the ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Paul is doing the passing on thing, and he's calling Timothy to do likewise. And it is a false distinction because one of the things you receive the gospel for, is in order to pass it on. The passing is also one of the methods to protect the gospel. So it's not about receiving the baton to the exclusion of passing it on. But I just get the vibe that rhetorically we lose some punch by taking too much of a Paul's eye view and go straight to the imperative to 'pass the gospel on' and miss the step of 'what does it mean to receive the gospel?'

Just some thoughts running through my head the last few weeks. Still a bit scattered.

Bible Book in a Sentence Sunday - Ephesians

2010-11-28T07:51:00.004+11:00

Ephesians in a sentence:

Being united with Christ unites Christians with one another, leading to a new way of life.

Okay so I admit it isn't that catchy, but is it accurate? Can you do better?

Classic Sermons

2010-11-27T21:41:00.001+11:00

Well I feel a little guilty describing sermons from the living as 'classic', but it is generally an apt description. I was given a heap of old cassette tapes of old sermons about 12 months ago which I've gone to listen to a few times, but couldn't be bothered getting to the tape player. Rather than throw out I'm choosing to digitise.

There is a mixture of tapes from 'St Matthias Tapes' and the Katooomba Christian Convention with talks by Don Carson, Phillip Jensen and John Chapman.

So far I've listened to a few of Phillip's as they were transferring. I was shocked to notice afterwards that these talks on Ephesians were from 1982. Wow. Could have been written for today. That is one benefit of using fewer 'topical' illustrations, I guess. Plus, it really just shows the way that God's word applies to human existence and if we have that large a view of what God does through his word, then it creates a much broader intention to the message. Knowing God changes everything. And knowing this leads to what I want to call 'big' preaching.

Also I love how preaching is truth through personality. One of Chappo's talks at KCC is titled 'God speaks - what do you make of that?' Classic Chappo.

Language or Doctrine?

2010-11-26T10:26:00.003+11:00

I'm learning two languages at Bible College: Greek and Hebrew. If I'm successful I'll be able to fumble my way through most of the Bible in the original languages (there are a few sections in Aramaic). Knowing the original languages isn't the most important thing in reading the Bible, it's humility. And our belief that God communicates himself in time through human words means that the meaning of the words is more important than the words themselves, thus we're able to translate our Scriptures into many other languages. As English speakers we are very well served by a number of excellent translations which range from kids translations (The Message) through to easy reading translations (NIV) through to the harder reading but more informative (ESV).

At college this year I've heard a couple of different attitudes from older year students towards learning languages. All students studying degrees learn Greek, whereas Hebrew is an optional subject which slowly consumes its victims.

The basic assumption is you can't learn everything, which sounds sound. So you need to decide which compromise you're going to make. If you keep up both languages then you won't be able to finish all your readings, especially doctrine reading. And so you are really answering what you want to leave college with: two biblical languages or deeper reflection on theology? Now it's never so black and white, and you will no doubt get some of both, but what are you going to major in?

My gut tells me I'd rather leave with the languages. I'm a bible teacher. Studying God's word is my bread and butter, and I want to be able to do that to the best of my ability. Some of that involves the doctrinal framework from which I approach this understanding. Yet in the next breath, that same framework inevitably arises from the study of the word istelf. Knowing the languages won't make me any more godly, but it will help me to teach the Bible from the perspective of understanding the intention of the author more clearly.

At the moment I'm choosing to be naive and assume I can do everything.

Shh

2010-11-25T06:13:00.002+11:00

Don't tell her, but I've worked out what I'm getting Sarah for Christmas - a life insurance policy for myself.

Sure, it doesn't sound that romantic but it's motivated by a desire to provide in the case of my untimely death. Though it could also be interpreted as me fearing for my life, possibly even at Sarah's hands. Hmm. Will have to think through how I sell this one to her.

My MTS trainer has a good policy with insurance (completely unintentional pun), he insures anything that would ruin him financially. Thus something like a house burning down would qualify, crashing a car would not. It sounds like wise stewardship to me. If you were trying to prooftext it with the bible, you'd probably head more towards the idea of not insuring anything and finding treasure in heaven, but all things considered it still sounds wise to me.

A question to the blokes out there: is this something you've also considered? I'm not getting a kickback from the insurance companies, but it seems like the wise thing to do. We all think we're invincible at a young age, but who knows how many days God has numbered for us? And I imagine there would be a significant financial (and emotional) adjustment Sarah would need to make if I was called home to glory. Speaking of which, it would be a great irony were I to post this and then somehow die before I actually purchased the insurance. That's it. It's on my 'to do' list for today.

Should a small group study precede or follow the sermon?

2010-11-24T12:11:00.002+11:00

Yeah, yeah. Take back your contemptuous glare about how I'm creating a false distinction between two tasks which are doing the same thing, or how I'm too Sunday-centric, or how I'm over-emphasising structures. Take it back.

Okay, now I'm ready to ask the question quite seriously. If the small/home/cell/bible study/connect groups study the same content as the sermon on Sunday, should they follow or precede the sermon?

Some thoughts:

I love the idea that we study the same thing for a week. I think generally it (helpfully) decreases the emphasis on the Sunday sermon, and encourages reflection on God's word.
I also think where possible the Kids Church/Sunday School program should cover the same content as well to encourage interaction between parents and children on what they're learning.
I much prefer people writing their own study, even if it's very broad, rather than prepared studies. Much better. It's more time consuming but also more rewarding.

If the study precedes the sermon:

The preacher can get further opinions (from his group) on the passage before preaching, see where the passage rubs people in their everyday life, get illustration ideas. Creates a collaborative feel to the teaching.
It can somewhat unhelpfully allow questions that are 'too hard' to be deferred until Sunday when the expert will reveal all.

If the study follows the sermon:

I've heard of one group who follow the sermon so that there is no "official study", and people merely discuss what they learnt Sunday, questions they had, how they're putting it into practice. (This allows lots of people to be willing to have the group meet at their house without expectation of preparing a study).
There is sense where people have already been shaped by the preachers view, and won't grapple with the passage themselves. They merely regurgitate what they heard Sunday.
If the study follows the sermon (which hopefully teaches the heart of a passage) the temptation in the small group will be to major on the minors, and miss the big idea.

Personally I prefer small groups to precede the sermon.

Responding to atheism

2010-11-23T13:25:00.001+11:00

This article by Phillip Jensen repays careful consideration. He examines the challenge to 'prove the existence of God' and uses this challenge to think through the convictions of atheists. The beauty of Phillip's article is he considers the appropriate philosophical terms which frame the debate, but specifically how the consistency and emphases of the Bible shows us the framework in which to understand and respond to atheism.

The last days

2010-11-23T08:30:00.001+11:00

The last days. What do you picture when you hear that phrase? Third Eagle? Arnold Schwartzenegger?

Paul has something else in mind in 2 Timothy 3.

People will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

Sounds a bit like today, right? But strangely the end of this description reveals these people are found not 'out there' but rather in the body of believers.

having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

Now some take this to be talking about the times of tribulation. But Paul understands the last days to be something Timothy will face. He goes on.

Avoid such people.

Paul sees the end of days as not some time when the sun starts doing funny things and people/zombies start killing each other randomly, but as the period between Jesus first coming and his second. And just like the tagline to Arnie's movie End of Days, we are to 'Prepare'. How?

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings.

We prepare ourselves by one of the bible passages where the application truly is 'Read your Bible'. Now, part of the problem of the doom and gloomers who do some funky things with the Bible, is the doom and gloom becomes the lens through which they read everything. Paul gives a better way:

you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

I get the sense that if more of the Bible was read through the focus of Jesus' first coming (the lens of salvation) then a lot of the problems associated with the 'end of days' would not be so big a problem. Not that Paul necessarily had the New Testament writings in mind when writing, but the salvation focus of the Scriptures is helpful.

The Scriptures do more than make us wise for salvation to trust in Jesus, as Paul goes on to say, but that framework really will prepare us for the last days in which we now live.

A stimulating sermon last Sunday.

Assessing Assessments

2010-11-22T20:12:00.002+11:00

You would expect that the biggest lightbulb moment at Bible college would be something profound. Marvelling on the glorious transaction of the cross as the Father's anger was poured out on his Son. Perhaps something about the nature of the trinity, or seeing a biblical truth anew through knowledge of the biblical languages. No, not me. My biggest lightbulb moment came midway through first semester when I realised somehow I had managed to finish the HSC with a score in the 90s, plus fly through an applied science university degree, without ever knowing how to study. I mean, really study.

It is nothing short of God's grace (Though perhaps also a mild indictment on our education system). But I truly have never studied. In one sense, I've never needed to. My goal was either to pass an exam, or know just enough to be able to do my job. But studying God is different. Because it counts. At college I am on about knowing God better, understanding him deeper, and obeying him more fully (?fuller).

But a year down and I am on my way to learning how to study.

On a related note, people said to me at the start of the year, "You can't cram languages". As it turns out: not true. You can. And I did. And somehow it has stuck. Though I should preface that statement by saying I never tried to cram vocab. I was generally on top of learning new words, and have come to the realisation that vocab covers a multitude of sins.

One interesting byproduct of actually knowing what I'm meant to be learning is I have become hyper-critical of examinations. That is, though I was rebuked by Sarah earlier in the year for a distinct lack of graciousness when getting essay feedback, this has been replaced with a hopefully more humble and appropriate assessment of our assessments.

I overheard a lecturer responding to a student question about exams with a statement along the lines of "We know you're here to learn, and you'll do the work regardless of the assessments we set." I remember only too fondly from my early days living out of home what it was like living in fantasy land, where apparently this lecturer still resides. The principle is sound: that we're here to learn. The implication - that we will learn everything regardless - is naively misguided. Like everything in life, college is a series of compromises. To focus on one thing is inevitably at the expense of another. And so assessment is more than just an arbitrary task to fulfill some kind of irrelevant educational expectation.

Conversely, I have very quickly ascribed to another lecturer Gibbo's view - that the teaching staff communicate to students where they should spend their time based on where marks are allocated. This gem from Gibbo came in response to our Greek principal parts test. In trying to reduce the number of assessments, the Board of Studies decided to take away the 10% exam that traditionally existed to test principal parts. The only problem was, they still expected us and really wanted us to learn them. So we still had to do the work, they just didn't add the additional imperative of marks. So, as other things were due at a similar time, the percentage of students who put in the hard work of learning them, was greatly reduced on previous years who had the 10% exam. We still had the exam, but the prize (to those who scored 8/10 or above) was a piece of cake that Gibbo had baked. This long excursus has a point: Assessments aren't arbitrary, they communicate to the students where they should invest their time.

My further reflections on the Moore College examination system are really a byproduct of that definition. If the examination communicates where students are to invest their time, the method and content being examined must be in line with the goals of the particular subject.

Thus our final Hebrew exam was way too short in time. Only about 10-20% of the class finished (thankfully I was in that group, but only just). I felt that at this early stage, speed isn't a particular concern of our language learning. And there is a sense where we really should have to labour over the particulars of the language. At the point where a large proportion of the class is unable to demonstrate their knowledge, albeit knowledge that is slow, seems to be a deficiency in that test. Part of the problem is our year is the first where subjects are broken into semesters (e.g. Hebrew 1A and 1B) rather than year long subjects. And thus with the Hebrew exam they kind of cut the original two hour end of year exam in half in both time (to one hour) and in it's content. Unfortunately the parts cut out were the easier stuff (vocab) where you would usually rush through in a disproportionate amount of time to the mark value.

Or take our Old Testament 1B exam. There was a multiple choice, short answer section (worth 1/3rd of the marks). Yes, that's right. At Moore College. Multiple choice. I can hardly believe I'm typing this. The funny thing was, that was the hardest part of the test. In the essays I can get points for arguing, even if my conclusion is wrong, but there are no free marks in multiple choice. And furthermore, in an overview subject (it was the entire OT canon barring the Pentateuch which was covered in first semester), many of the multiple choice covered minutiae. For exam preparation we were told, whatever you do, don't sweat the details. It's all about big picture, know the century, know the rough political situation. And then we get a question on the Maccabean revolt, which firstly is in the intertestamental period and has limited bearing on an OT overview, and secondly IT'S A DETAIL! A quick look on wikipedia says it was 167-160 BC, which I'm pretty sure covered at least two of the answers. And like all good multiple choice questions, there was often more than one correct answer and we were supposed to answer the most correct. Which is fine, until you get a question like what is Daniel 7-12 most about? And the options are three of the possible historical applications and the fourth option is spiritual warfare. The answer is completely dependent upon your particular view of Daniel, it's composition and intention. What does spiritual warfare mean anyway? If it was composed in exile, then that spiritual warfare may well have been the rise of Cyrus (one of the historical options). But I digress.

There is a sense where fill-in-the-blank questions just aren't an adequate test for what is essentially an art (biblical interpretation). So one of the questions which I got wrong was 'According to 1 +2 Kings, after David which king receives the greatest praise?' I wrote Hezekiah, because as an open book exam I had my bible there, and I thought what better way to learn the summary of a king's reign than read the summary of the king's reign (the regnal form for those playing at home)? I compared 2 Kings 18:5 which says,

He (Hezekiah) trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him.

Now with a description like that, it didn't matter what was said about Josiah who was the other option (Solomon gets a better wrap in Chronicles and the New Testament so he was out). And this is what it says about Josiah in 2 Kings 22:2,

And he (Josiah) did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn aside to the right or to the left.

Now that's a pretty good description, right? Follows in line of David, pleased God etc. It's just a pity that Hezekiah was so trusting in God before him, that there was no one like him after him, as Josiah was. Case closed: It's Hezekiah. The only hiccup is a second summary later in Josiah's reign in 2 Kings 23:25 which says,

Before him (Josiah) there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.

Well, now that makes things interesting, because all of a sudden you've got two kings 'like no other'. Obviously they're like no other using different measurements. So now you're asking what basis of the reign is being judged? Is it better to never turn away from God (Josiah) or to amidst sin turn back to him (Hezekiah)? That's still a hard question in my mind which I could argue either way. So yes, Josiah is the most right answer. I even have a soft spot for those who would answer Solomon and even anyone who said Jesus.

It sounds like I care more than I do about the 1.27% of my final result that this question was worth. I really don't care. The benefit for me was knowing what a regnal form was, and how it was a good indicator of a king's reign, knowing who these kings were and where they reigned, even when I wasn't certain of all the details. So it was successful because I learnt overview. Unfortunately this question wasn't especially testing overview. I had to write the essay outline in my head to convince myself the answer was Hezekiah (even though it wasn't). So whilst the process of answering the question adequately applied the intended course outcome, that I still got it wrong simply consolidates for me the failure of this method of examination to truly reflect the course aims. It was a section testing details in an overview subject. Yes, a detail covered in the lectures. Yes, a detail I should have known. (My gut reaction was Josiah until I read the regnal forms). But no, I don't feel these questions on the whole enabled the students to be examined on their overview knowledge of the Old Testament. In one sense it enabled us to be differentiated academically, but in an arbitrary way - dependent upon guessing correctly or who happened to remember the right date during their study which happened to come up in this section.

Alright, end rant.

I must have a big idea here somewhere.

Okay, college is great and I've learnt heaps. I think in some ways I am even moving towards the, 'Will learn for learnings sake' of that naive overheard lecturer. The lecturers are well thought through in their teaching and assessments, and most encouragingly are responsive to feedback. But personally, now that I actually want to learn, it has dramatically shaped my understanding of the assessment process and how it helps facilitate my learning.

Back to normal programming

2010-11-21T13:23:00.001+11:00

With the seemingly non-stop sprint to the end of the exam period over, it feels good to finally be back blogging. I fell into a deep black chasm at the start of Moore College Stuvac and four days after my last exam I've finally managed to crawl out. So over the next few weeks no doubt I'll be offering some reflections on the year gone. It's hard to believe (results permitting) that I've finished a whole year at Bible college.

I feel generally exhausted, but I'm appreciative for the time off to recharge over summer. I've noticed a lot of my classmates are working jobs over the break. Sarah asked me whether I thought we should also be looking for paid work. But we don't need the money and we need time to rest. Plus, not working means we're able to help out leading a strand at the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students' National Training Event (NTE). And I'm preaching for three weeks at my home church in Maclean for our mutual edification. So with summer college work, working up some new sermons, serving the university students and catching up with out of town family, it doesn't make sense for us to be working a job purely to have more money to waste. That's not to disparage those who work, but we have relatively few financial obligations outside our daily living expenses.

I've been reflecting a bit lately on the idea of rest. I've found myself using the categories of productivity to qualify and quantify my 'rest'. That is, I have found myself asking how much I need, what makes something restful, is a particular activity (e.g. blogging) to be counted as rest? In one sense, rest can only be defined in relation to work. But it's more than the absence of work. And I don't think I rest merely in order to recharge to do more work. I think rest is a state rather than an action.

Anyways, this is my 'clearing out the cobwebs' blogpost.

It feels good to be back.

Best investment ever

2010-11-10T19:08:00.000+11:00

$30 from Moore books.

The Youth Group Principle

2010-11-09T13:35:00.002+11:00

Your favourite movie is probably inappropriate. The problem is, you don't think it is. Until you play it for your youth group. It happened for me with Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I squirmed with every expletive, gradually sliding lower and lower into my beanbag.

Other examples I've heard of;

Back to the Future (Surely everything from the 80's is innocuous)
Seven (Seriously, what was he thinking?)
Zoolander (You forgot what happened at the end of the party)

Have you ever accidentally discovered the 'Youth Group Principle'?

Nice body

2010-11-08T18:41:00.002+11:00

In Greek, the word 'soma' primarily means 'body'. Now because this idea of a body is given a metaphorical application to the diversity in the assembly of God, it can become a name for a group of Christians. You might say they are a 'body of believers', which works on both the level of collective noun as well as the descriptiony thingo.

You wouldn't know it to look at me, but I actually know some cool people. I myself am not a cool person, but I know some and can usually spot one a mile off. Believe it or not, I even know some cool people who are Christian. Mostly, they're baptists. But the few I know who aren't baptists go to Soma Church in Macquarie. Because the people I know who go there are cool, I assume everyone else that meets with them must also be cool.

This past week Soma Church has been on my mind a lot, as I've been studying Greek in preparation for the relatively tame Greek exam I had today (I'm tipping a distinction average for the class). The reason I've been thinking about Soma is because one of our base words for learning the Greek noun system is soma (σωμα), so it comes up quite a bit.

Unfortunately for the Soma Church crew, the word has a similar semantic range to the word 'body' in English. That is, our dictionary definition is:

σωμα: body, corpse.

It's cool to name your Christian gathering after the 'body' metaphor of the New Testament. It's slightly less cool to name it 'corpse'. Though incidentally, that also is an accurate way to describe some church groups.

Tips for Greek translation

2010-11-04T12:19:00.000+11:00

The people around Jesus are amazing.

Note to self: If translating the early parts of Mark's gospel and Jesus is the one being healed, it's time to start again.

Assumptions

2010-11-04T08:29:00.003+11:00

My default position is to assume people aren't Christians. I remember this attitude began forming for me years ago when a friend and I were talking about the musician Ben Harper. My friend said, 'I'm pretty sure he's a Christian'. Having just read a Rolling Stone article where Harper expressed a fairly clear pluralistic mindset I asked why she thought that. It was because Harper's album 'Diamonds on the Inside' was draped in Christian overtones with songs such as, 'Picture of Jesus', 'Amen Omen' and 'Blessed to be a Witness'. That said, the album also has a song called, 'Touch from your Lust'.

I'm sympathetic with the view that, if someone is a follower of Jesus or not is ultimately between them and Jesus. But if our desire is to present everyone mature in Christ there is benefit in understanding to the best of our knowledge where people stand with God. I'm not talking about celebrities, and let's face it, the whole American Christian thing is fluid at the best of times, but about those for whom we come into contact with.

Of course there are tell-tale signs that someone may not understand the gospel. For example if a peron identifies primarily with a denomination rather than as Christian (e.g. I'm Anglican) then I'm likely to try and ask some leading questions to try and understand what exactly it is they believe.

And if someone walks in to our church gathering I always assume they are not a Christian. What's the worst that could happen? If they don't trust in Jesus death and resurrection for their sin I might get a chance to explain the gospel to them. If they are a Christian, they'll appreciate being reminded of the gospel again, and that I was loving enough to make sure.

Some downsides to this 'assume nothing' approach is that I think this makes me less likely to work with people and denominational groups that I don't know. Which is a problem, I think.

I really need to get off my computer

2010-11-02T21:30:00.001+11:00

It's stuvac at Moore College.

I'm taking a break from Greek study to begin looking over my Old Testament notes.

Question to Sarah:

When you're reading through the notes, do you read all the links?

Sarah:

The links? The links? What are you talking about? Do you live in the real world or computer-land? They're called bible references. And yes, some of them are really important.

Today my blog is 500 days old

2010-10-29T06:00:00.005+11:00

Unfortunately I missed the one year anniversary of Izaac thinks aloud, so instead I've used Wolfram Alpha to calculate when my blog turned 500 days old. That day is today (and also happens to be the 302nd day of 2010 as well as the day of a 'waning gibbous moon').

Anyway, to celebrate I thought I'd share some tidbits, links and other thingamabobs.

Stats
399 posts have attracted
3.284 people who visited from
30 countries viewing
26,924 pages during
12,924 individual visits spending an average
3 minutes and 7 seconds on the site.

Most referrals to the site (incidentally the first three bloggers I ever read)
1. Mikey
2. Simone (Read Simone's glowing review of my blog)
3. Nathan

Most read posts
1. Reflections on Engage
2. What I learnt from my visit to Hillsong
3. Chicken Little and the AUA

Most disappointed readers
The 33 people who got here through searching google for "Hillsong Church" or "Hillsong Experience".

Random post lights (you decide whether high or low)
iPhone Holy Bible
Moses should be called Drew
Learning styles
Sometimes I talk too much
In your anger do not sin
Choc-ism

MTS: A holy pyramid scheme

The Christian Brag-shelf

If I had an editor

On Music
The Quinity
Two page revolution
Come Thou Fount

On Preaching
Before you get up to preach
Note to self
Young preacher feedback translation guide
It's caught
The sermon was too long

Deeper reflection
A history of Cumberland Uni Church through chairs: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4.
Responding to atheists on campus
Country ministry
Part of my story
Tim Chester at Moore
Congratulations

On Moore College
Prejudice #1
Being left out
Marriage and thermodynamics
Prejudice #2
Junk Mail
Too Christian #1
Goals
Essay guidelines
Hebrew
Affront to Anglicans
Too Christian #2
The Library

Sarah
I blame the wife
Howdy partner
Post conference husband
Suspicious wife smells collar
Just the two of us
Happy Birthday Sarah

Rupert Murdoch owns the Bible

2010-10-28T21:19:00.000+11:00

How did I not know this?

The New International Version of the Bible is one of the most popular modern English translations. The NIV is published by Zondervan which was bought out in 1988 by HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

As someone said to me today, people might not be buying newspapers anymore, but they're certainly buying Bibles.