Mea Culpa

Oh dear, it really is something when your own parents read your blog. It turns out I need to apologise to them for this quote:

"As far as my parents were concerned sexual ethics and abortion were the deciding issues - justice trumps mercy, as it were."

Turns out they don't quite remember it like that. Sorry Mum and Dad.

It also turns out that learning to repent is a life-long process. Who would've thought? Don't you just get it taped by your 20s?

Here's a great quote from Mark Twain... hopefully I won't have to apologise for this too!

“When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years.”

It's all my fault

It may surprise you but I am not alluding to a poll of the most unlikely things for politicans to say.

Instead it comes from my musings on atonement models - i.e. different pictures we use to explain what Jesus achieved on the cross.

Over the past few years, even among evangelicals, PSA (Penal Subsititionary Atonement) - the view that Jesus suffered God's righteous punishment in the place of sinners - has taken a bit of a beating. This debate was at its zenith in the UK about 3 years ago and centred around a book written by a Baptist called Steve Chalke.

Anyway, I have followed the arguments closely over the past few years and here are a couple of comments:

1. While it is crucial to demonstrate how faithful to scripture any model is, I'm not sure that proof-texting is very constructive in this particular discussion. By definition any model will involve reading back into the text an abstract system as much as reading it out from the text. Of course there must be a place for careful exegesis (which IMO demonstrates just how biblical PSA is) but trading verses doesn't gain much ground at the popular level.

2. One key issue is responsibility. PSA is the only atonement model that makes sinners completely culpable for their sin. The model gaining ground in popularity is known as Christus Victor and can be found in passages like Colossians 2: 15. Here Jesus is portrayed as a mighty warrior who defeats the enemy of the devil for us, who cures the disease of sin. Now all of this is biblical and quite appropriate as just one model among other biblical pictures.

However, what happens when we put CV front and centre? What happens to our accountability? Sin is the fault of the devil, it is the sad consequence of the sickness I have. But what about me? When it comes to sin the bible teaches us that it's all my fault. No one made me do it. Romans 6 and 7 do teach us that we are slaves to our sinful nature, but Paul still holds us fully responsible for our actions.

Any view of the atonement needs to put together all of scripture's teaching on the subject. And that is precisely why I think it is so important that we hold onto PSA, along with the other biblical metaphors. It is when we see that God holds us accountable in Christ on the cross, that sin and its power can really be dealt with. Sin is a disease, but I am responsible. Rather like anybody under the age of 40 who gets lung cancer from smoking. Ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. Sin. It's all my fault, I'm blaming no one else.

Dawkins vs. Lennox

No, it's not boxing.

After looking at the views of Richard Dawkins on Sunday I thought people would be interested in seeing him in live debate with John Lennox.

This is is not the recent debate in London in October. This happened last year. The format is rather disappointing because it is not really a debate (they are only allowed to give one response at a time). Therefore I think Dawkins is treated a little unfairly here - Lennox is always given the chance to 'attack' without Dawkins being allowed to respond properly. Nevertheless it is interesting. And you can watch it all for free via this site...

Debate between Dawkins and Lennox last year in Birmingham, USA

What's natural?

The question of what is natural to us has been rattling around my head since Trevor Cairney spoke last week on 'True Freedom'.

This comes to the fore in current debates over sexuality. For example, in the row over homosexuality both sides want to claim that their position is based on what is natural. Some say that homosexuality is 'unnatural'; others that same-sex attraction (for some people) is natural. (Usually the debate rages over what 'para phusin' means in the Greek of Romans 1.)

However, Paul's ethics cuts right through this debate - e.g. in Romans 6. According to the apostle there are only two default positions for all humanity: slaves to our sinful nature or slaves to God. Christ sets us free from what is natural to us, in order that we might live according to what is natural for our redeemed humanity. This is not re-packaged gnosticism. It is earthy and gritty humanity; but it is redeemed humanity instead of fallen humanity.

The Dream of Gerontius

Tonight we were treated to tickets to the Opera House - to enjoy Elgar's famous rendition of Cardinal Newman's poem The Dream of Gerontius.

Since Newman was a famous convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism it should be no surprise that the poem is about the prayer of a dying man as he faces his own mortality, God's judgment and (interestingly) purgatory.

Let me quote from what the Angel sings almost at the end:

Angels, to whom the willing task is given,
Shall tend, and nurse, and lull thee, as thou liest;
And Masses on the earth and prayers in heaven,
Shall aid thee at the Throne of the most Highest.

So, a few thoughts about this, and about purgatory...

1. It completely undermines the work of Christ as sufficient for salvation. The Book of Hebrews is clear - His sacrifice is enough; we don't need Masses on earth or prayers in heaven.

2. The Bible is not clear about what happens to those who die before Jesus returns and the Last Judgment - we are 'asleep', but what does that mean? As early as Tertullian most of the Church Fathers had some pretty funny ideas about what happened after death. (I don't think there is anything there to justify purgatory but there are common place references to some form of remembering the dead which I find disturbing and confusing.) Having just finished the book of Revelation I'd rather stick with the few things Scripture is clear about and leave the rest up to God.

3. Our society and culture doesn't like tackling the issue of death head on anymore. We'd rather not think about what happens when we die. We are all the poorer for that.

Moving to the left

Having had time to think about Obama's triumph, I've been chewing over Trevor's comment on my last post.

I've always used Micah 6: 8 as a good biblical foil in thinking through political issues:

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Being horribly reductionistic justice has been the war cry of the right where as mercy was the preserve of the left ... and humility has no place in politics!?

With this in mind I think Trevor is on to something. When I was first becoming aware of politics (in the UK in the early 80s) Christians voted Conservative. As far as my parents were concerned sexual ethics and abortion were the deciding issues - justice trumps mercy, as it were.

But the times they were achanging. As I became a teenager, church youth groups were increasingly concerned with compassion to the poor and loving the stranger - mercy came to the fore. The right of centre Conservative party was considered to be individualistic and selfish. This gained momentum until finally the Tory party imploded and Tony Blair swept NuLabour to power in 1997. I was at Theological college in 1997. By then most Christians at college seemed to support Labour. Mercy trumps justice.

Are we seeing that now happen in the US? (Or am I just enjoying saying that Britain leads America in something?)

The western world is fed up with the Republican party at prayer. They are seen as being anti-gay, anti-women's rights and extremely hypocritical. All justice, no mercy and definitely no humility.

The message is clear - the political climate is changing. As usual that is both a good and a bad thing. No longer can Christianity be used as a pragmatic way to win votes. We cannot, no must not, appeal to the instinctive right wing agenda of justice unless we visibly demonstrate mercy at the same time, and all of this with a humble attitude. People will not listen to our position on abortion without seeing our care for pregnant teenagers. Our stance on homosexuality is easily dismissed without visible compassion shown to the gay community.

The bottom line is that votes are not cheap - the only way people will listen to us again is if we live the gospel we preach.

Baracking Obama

There seems to be a trend in Western Politics. The politically conservative party gets in for a long time and gets so unpopular that any change is greeted with open arms.

NuLabour in the UK, Kev07, Barack Obama.

Questions, questions.

- Did Obama win the election or did McCain lose it?

- Does this also represent a backlash against the right-wing Christian moral majority?

- What impact does the answers to these previous two questions have on the world wide Christian church?

I'll do some thinking and post later.

But in the meantime, anybody got any thoughts?

The earth is the Lord's

This is something that has been bothering me ever since we came to Australia. At this stage it is just random musings but I'd be interested to know what Australians think about this:

"We'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on Gadigal land."

So starts every school assembly at Petersham Public... and pretty much any formal gathering I've been to in the inner-west.

But not in church.

We never acknowledge Aboriginal claims to the land when we meet on a Sunday. Why not? Now I can see issues in that actually the land belongs to God and is merely entrusted to any human being as a steward. However, surely there could be ways to acknowledge this. For example we could start services sometimes with Psalm 24:

The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it...

or do you think that would be seen as yet another snub to the Aboriginal people?

What do you think people read into the fact that we don't make any reference to this issue? Does the silence speak even louder than saying something?

New Ways to Live

Okay, here's another challenge (as well as coming up with a one sentence summary of the book of Revelation) - how about coming up with a new version of Two ways to Live?

2WTL is a great tool which I have used on many occasions but I think it is time to come up with something else. 2WTL is simply the gospel so it is not that we need to change that or improve on it. What I mean is that we need something that weds systematic and biblical theology together and tells the story of the Bible as it does so.

2WTL is great at teaching the doctrine of the gospel systematically. But it doesn't give the plotline of the Bible and therefore people today will tend to pick and mix the bits they like. Also, in a culture where biblical literacy is plummeting we need simple evangelistic tools that also teach something of the story of God's historic dealings with humanity - i.e. not just in the abstract.

If you want an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about then here are the titles of talks that Don Carson usually uses at Uni. missions:

1. The God who makes everything: Genesis 1 & 2
2. The God who does not wipe out rebels: Genesis 3
3. The God who legislates: 10 Commandments + bits of Leviticus
4. The God who becomes a human being: John 1: 1-18
5. The God who declares the guilty just: Romans 3: 21-26
6. The God who is very angry: Revelation 21-22
7. The God who triumphs: Revelation 21-22

Do you see how he teaches the same systematic points as 2WTL but that he puts them in the context of salvation history - telling the story of God's great rescue plan in biblical order?

So, the gauntlet has been laid down. Who can come up with a new version of 2WTL that explains the gospel by telling the story of the Bible?

The Task ahead

The heart of atheism appears be in the inner west. Residents of Camperdown, Erskineville, Enmore, Newtown and Annandale are more likely to shun religion than any of their other Sydney neighbours.

That's from Linda Morris writing in the SMH here.

Looks like it's time to roll our sleeves up and start praying and sharing the gospel with the people of the inner-west.

There is one thing that did make me smile in this though - presumably their research included Moore College in Newtown too!?

The End of the Book

This is really for PBCam.

So we've finished the book of Revelation and on Sunday we tried to come up with a one sentence summary of Revelation.

Why not add your summary as a comment to this post - there will be a great prize, in heaven, for the winner!?

Merchant Bankers

Despite the crash at the end of the last Millennium the world is found weeping and wailing again. The current global financial crisis should not suprise anyone at PBC though - especially PBCam. Our studies in Revelation have prepared us well for this. Indeed chapter 18 has special relevance:

The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment.They will weep and mourn and cry out: "Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!" (Revelation 18: 15-17)

My point is not that Washington or Sydney is the prostitute city of Babylon. Rather look at the response of the Merchant Bankers - this is what Paul would call 'worldy sorrow' (2 Corinthians 7: 10). They are mourning because they have lost all their money, not because their greed has been exposed. They are sorry that they got caught, not repentant of their sinful idolatry.

Let's pray for some genuine godly sorrow in the face of this disaster. May we actually learn something from the boom-bust of capitalism ... 'cos we obviously didn't last time. As I said to the guy who cut my hair on Friday, "It's only money". I won't repeat what he said.

Son of Scripture Teaching

Okay, thanks for all the comments to the SMH article. This is where I'm up to with this:

• SRE lessons are supposed to be provided by Schools.
• This is not state funded - we pay for it ourselves.
• We live in a secular country and so we have no 'right' to compel the reluctant to learn about Jesus Christ.
• If they want their children to learn about Islam, Humanism, Bahai or whatever let them provide the teachers and organise it themselves.
• We have a great opportunity with those who are interested.
• General apathy in Australian society means that churches are likely to be the only organisations (or at least one of the few) to be able to deliver SRE on a regular basis.
• The only way to communicate to a Post-Modern society is to preach to it. People will not accept our presuppositions. There is no view from nowhere (as far as they are concerned); but that means that everyone should have a fair-go at communicating 'their truth'.

So, let's support our SRE teachers in the fantastic job they do. Don't waste time on comparative religion or other contemporary sensibilities. Simply teach those who want to come the gospel. The level playing field means that it is just our story and our truth. However, in so doing all these young people might just meet with Jesus Christ who is the way, the life and THE truth.

Let's pray for those who go into Petersham, Lewisham and Summer Hill Public Schools, and those who go to Dulwich Hill High School. What a great job they do - thank God for them!

Scripture Teaching

Thanks to Greg for drawing my attention to this article in today's SMH.

snotty article about Scripture lessons

Now I'm after help from all of you out there (yeah, both of you!) because I don't know the legal position of Scripture classes. So please put me right.

I thought that it was mandated by the government for all schools to provide scripture, but that they only had to do it if there were churches etc. who were willing to do it.

Therefore there seems to be a double-edged sword here. True, if Muslims, Hindus, Humanists, Atheists want to provide Scripture I can't see why they would be prevented from doing so. However, doesn't the article give the game away that many schools do not provide scripture at all ... and therefore if churches were to approach them offering their services the Principals would be technically disobeying the law.

Help me out here. What am I missing?

Persuasive arguments

I've just been given the opportunity to sit and reflect upon persuasive arguments. At an important Baptist meeting a whole lot of us had to sit and listen to people speak for and against the motion and then make a decision.

It was a fascinating example of people trying to summon up the 'killer' blow, administer the coup de gras, make the decisive plea. I won't get into the issue of the motion itself here (that is a post in itself) but rather think about the powers of persuasion used.

The two men who proposed the motion represented different generations. The were both agreeing with each other but their style was markedly different. The younger (middle-aged) guy had done his homework on his opponents. His approach was to allay fears, to present his proposal in a way that would win over those who disagreed with him. The voice of experience and years spoke next. He simply made an appeal. He stated their position clearly and forcefully.


I realise that this may be me becoming a grumpy old man but is this where politics and the media have led us?

I think there are two lessons to learn from all this:

1. In our modern world how you say something is as important as what you say.

2. There is an even more desperate need for integrity and honesty in how we present the truth.

"we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
2 Corinthians 4: 2

What is a 'real' man?

What does Biblical manhood look like in the 21st century?

That is a question that has been rattling around my head for a few weeks now. Mark Driscoll banged a drum. I went to a seminar by Don Carson which was on a similar theme. Everyone seems to agree that there is a crisis in masculinity, but what's the answer?

With this in mind I came across an interesting reflection on the US Presidential campaign on a BBC News site - Why rednecks may rule the world. The article says that 'rednecks' in America may be key in deciding the outcome. What struck me was the list of things that define redneck values. Here's one:

• A love of guns and tremendous respect for the warrior ideal. Along with this comes a strong sense of fealty and loyalty. Fealty to wartime leaders, whether it be FDR or George Bush.

The implication behind that scares me. Let's not be reactionary here. If one danger is that we let modern Australian society (influenced by feminism) determine what it means to be 'men', then the other danger is that we retreat into reactionary right-wing politics.

We do need men to 'front up'. We do need to recapture that 'warrior ideal' and sense of fealty and loyalty. But I also feel the burden of the stereotype that comes with the 'redneck' image - namely big guns, monster trucks and steak for dessert ... Rambo without the culture.

Instead let's build a new generation of Christian men - ones who are leaders, faithful and loyal - but who don't all look the same.

Double Driscoll

'Wally' has just plucked enough courage to leave a comment and it is a good one - thanks Wally - I agree with you but thought that you raise such an important issue that we must chew it over a little longer. (So sorry Wally, I'm not picking on you ... honest :-) )

What I've appreciated very much is Mark Driscoll's willingness just to say it how it is. He doesn't try and "dress up" the truth to make it more palatable...his confidence is in Jesus and His gospel.

It depends on what you mean by 'dressing it up'.

If you are referring to things like gushing about God's love and forgetting to mention his holiness and wrath then I fully agree with you.

If by 'say it how it is' you mean literally that all he did was articulate the truths of the gospel then I'd have to disagree.

There were two things that Mark did to make the message more palatable:

1. Humour - not so much jokes as observational humour. There is no doubt that people will let you get away with more if they are laughing.

2. Apologetics - Mark is very, very good at anticipating the questions non-Christians will have. In his talks he anticipates them and answers those questions. Again this is something he does to make the message more palatable.

Now, I want to make it clear that I am in no way criticising him for doing either of these things. I think he's great and have learnt loads from him. (Not least about parenting!) Mark is a great example to follow - but I fear what would happen if the lesson we took away was: just tell it like it is. Our job is preserve the gospel, and not to water it down; but our job is also one of contextualisation too.

Driscmania

Well it happened. Mark Driscoll packed out the Sydney Entertainment Centre last night. It was great - 10,000 people hearing about Jesus.

Now, before I make any comment, for the record I need to state that I left home when I was 18, I got a job straight after Uni., and I got married at 27.

As a Preacher I always reflect upon what is it (humanly speaking - I'm not talking about the work of the Spirit here) that makes a speaker really good. Here are a few reflections on the great MD:


* He is very entertaining. I've watched several stand-up comics and he was in the same league - Ricky Gervais does a similar routine where pictures are flashed up on the screen to move the show along. This is not a criticism of Mark. It is a comment on our culture. In order to win an audience you have to be engaging.

* He engages with popular culture. Boy had he done his homework. I've lived in Australia for about 9 months now but he packed all that research into just one month! This communicates powerfully that the speaker knows about my life and his message connects with the real world I live in.

* He is simple and clear about the implications of the gospel. The jokes may sweeten the pill, but it is a bitter one of commitment and self-sacrifice.

* He is honest and self-effacing. It is very hard to present an uncompromising message without coming across as self-righteous. However, Mark was honest about his own failings and able to laugh at himself. That is very disarming.

* He quoted most of his Scripture references from memory. Like the Psalmist he has hidden God's Word in his heart.

* His message is all about Jesus. Not about religion, or lots of how tos. Just Jesus.

What are we doing to our kids?

Thanks to Gordon Cheng for noticing this one first - he must read his SMH early!?

SMH article about Michael Phelps and ADHD

Apparently Michael Phelps was originally diagnosed with ADHD and had to take Ritalin until he was 11. At that age he told his mum he wanted to stop taking the drug ... and look what the discipline of swimming has done to his hyperactivity!? 8 gold medals isn't bad.

It is a bizarre contradiction that in the western world of consumer choice we treat everybody the same. Instead of taking great care to properly diagnose problems we do tend to go for the blanket cure ... especially if it is marketed as a 'quick fix'.

When this happens everybody loses out. This is a very painful issue. Parents with kid's who have been correctly diagnosed understandly feel that they are being stigmatised.

Sometimes to treat everyone equally, we don't have to treat them all the same.

Good and Bad arguments

Tonight is the big show down. I mean we're talking even bigger than PBC Winter school - no! Yes bigger than WS!

TACKLING life's big questions head-on has become a feature of the IQ2 debate series, and they don't come much bigger than the existence of God and the creation of the universe. This is what the SMH has to say about it here

Early shots have already been fired over tonight's proposition that "we'd be better off without religion". A piece by Professor John Lennox in yesterday's Herald, in which he framed the topic in terms of competing world views, drew a sharp response from one of his opponents tonight, Professor Victor Stenger. "I want to correct some of the misstatements made by the Christian apologists," said Professor Stenger, who worked as an astrophysicist before moving into philosophy. "They deliberately misled the public by telling them that there are scientific arguments for the existence of God. "And they are basing this on an incorrect interpretation of the data and the theory." The Christian theorists, Professor Stenger said, wrongly claimed that the universe had to begin at a certain point and with a single cataclysmic event. "They'd like to make the flawed argument that everything with a beginning has to have a cause, and that's where they bring in the existence of God," he said. "Their arguments just aren't supported by physics - there are many phenomena which have neither a beginning nor a cause, and we don't need God to explain them. The purely material process of evolution by natural selection fully explains the development of life."

Obviously I'll miss the debate due to PBC Winter School but I'm interested in how it goes. Actually both of the heavy-weights have a point. Too often well meaning Christian apologists overstate their case. Professor Stenger is right in a lot of what he says. Christians too quickly jump on the bandwagon of the latest Scientific theory claiming it 'proves' God only to look foolish when new evidence comes in. A little humility and uncertainty is called for here I think.

However, that humility cuts both ways. Stenger is being disingenous in his response. What he means is that there is lots of stuff where we simply don't know how it happens (Scientifically). And then when he tries to claim that natural selection fully explains the development of life he is simply wrong. It's our current Scientific working hypothesis, no more, no less. Stenger is engaging in exactly the same overstated rhetoric. All he is saying is that it is possible to live as if God doesn't exist. I think somebody has said that before:

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14: 1

The problem is 'we don't really know' doesn't sell newspapers.

The IQ2 series is sponsored by the Herald and the St James Ethics Centre. Tonight's debate will be streamed live on the Herald's website.

Not much Soap

"Great Britain may have been in lane seven and eight but, um, they seemed to be getting there for a country that has very few swimming pools and not much soap."

Aussie Olympic chief John Coates wades in after watching Rebecca Adlington win gold for Britain in the pool.

I first came across this Aussie view of Poms about six months before coming to Australia. Apparently we don't wash very often (outside baths once a week) and thus our personal hygiene leaves something to be desired.

Does anybody know where this 'urban myth' originates from? It probably won't surprise anyone to hear that the stereotypical Aussie male (a la Crocodile Dundee) is viewed in pretty much the same way by Brits.

Watchblogging

I learnt a new word today - watchblogging.

Apparently it is a pejorative term for 'heresy hunters'. I can see some truth in it. Evangelicalism does seem, even if inadvertently, to encourage a kind of reactionary response to culture. Hence lots of blogs set up simply to 'watch' the church and the world and to keep us informed as to what they've done wrong now.

As we have seen in the book of Revelation, deception is one of Satan's main methods of attack. Therefore watching out for false teaching is a good thing. Nevertheless, discernment implies sifting the wheat from the chaff, not just scorching everything!

So, my new month resolution is to try and to be positive about what is good as well as to criticise...

... here's something good about the Orthodox church - its corporate emphasis on the church, but not as an institution, as believers in Christ. A healthy corrective to western individualism.

Are you orthodox enough?

It is amazing what difference an O makes.

Forget the RC church - I know WYD made a big splash but I don't think that RC is really the future of the Western World. No, Orthodoxy (with a capital 'O') is the new black. I haven't noticed the trend so much in Australia but it is certainly catching on in the UK. In the past the Orthodox have kept to themselves, largely in ethnic groupings - e.g. Greek. My hunch is that, while that cultural isolation will continue, some Orthodox ideas will become increasingly popular.

Here are a few reasons ... and I might come up with more in future posts:

1. Orthodoxy is old. Note that the Orthodox don't like to be called Eastern Orthodox anymore - that geographically marginalises their claim to be universal. In our rootless post-modern world, ancient traditions are cool... especially when they are somehow 'new' and exciting while still being old (!?)

2. Protestants are trying to shed their 'modern' past (doesn't that sound weird) and Orthodoxy has all the pictures and smells they could wish for ... plus it is a step forward from where they are, as opposed to a step backwards to nassssty old Rome.

3. Orthodoxy is (well sort of) anti-authoritarian. There is plenty there that appeals to a western pluralistic world view.

4. Orthodoxy places a much greater stress on being rather than doing. It is not a very strident prosleytising religion and therefore it won't spread rapidly, but I think it's influence over western Christianity is going to increase.

I could go on. In fact I might later.

The bottom line is that Protestants have spent so many centuries fighting with the RCC that I'm not sure if we are ready to engage with this very different form of Christianity. Do we even know what the questions are to ask?

Rights and Responsibilities

Oh dear, the federal government seems to have got a bit confused over rights and responsibilities.

People thinking of moving in with a partner have been warned to read the fine print on a bill before Parliament that will treat de facto relationships in exactly the same way as marriage.

see here at smh

In the mad topsy-turvey world in which we live, people who have chosen not to get married (and accept the responsibilities that go with that) want to receive the rights of the thing that they have chosen not to do. You work it out. I can't.

Church is a dangerous place to be

It seems to be becoming a common place tragedy in America today. You can read about it here - a gunman goes beserk and goes into a church shooting.

One person was killed and several wounded when a man armed with a shotgun opened fire in a church in Knoxville, Tennessee, US television reported on Sunday.

How do we respond to such news? Well, what we looked at on Sunday can help us to make sense of this senseless event.

At PBCam we looked at Revelation 13. There we saw Satan's twin strategies of conquer and deception against God's people. The first beast was active in this tragedy - trying to intimidate Christians by force.

Then at PBCpm we learned a different lesson from 2 Samuel 1. The right response to sin is this world is grief. This is a terrible thing and, as we pray for those effected, we cry out to the Lord in anguish.

But both passages push us still further forward. To Jesus. He has fatally wounded the beast, he has decisively defeated Satan. Jesus is THE Messiah, THE Lord's anointed, the one who gives us hope for the future. For his kingdom we pray and we serve. Longing for the day when there will be ... "no more death or mourning or crying or pain."

When sorry seems to be the hardest word

So WYD is finally over, the Pope has left the building, and Sydney businesses are still arguing over whether they are dollars up or dollars down.

One issue that has been hanging over WYD was the dark cloud of abuse by Priests in the RC church. Pope Benedict XVI has obviously learnt from the impact of Kevin Rudd's public apology earlier in the year. Generally the event seems to have been great PR and the Pope's apology a good thing.

However, I use the term PR advisedly. It could be sour grapes (Baptist youth days don't get quite as much media coverage!?) but the 'sorry' doesn't seem very sincere when it is so stage managed. Even today when the Pope conducted a mass with four sexual abuse victims, the victims were carefully chosen and are anonymous. Melbourne man Anthony Foster, whose two daughters were raped by a Catholic priest when they were in primary school, was pointedly not invited. Mr Foster said the last-minute meeting with the as-yet unnamed victims was "sneaky, underhanded and disappointing" and was designed as a PR stunt. (According to the SMH.)

Now, if I was the leader of an international charity which faces billion dollar lawsuits I would choose my words carefully. And yet, and yet, is he truly sorry?

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

That's what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 7 verse 10. I don't know anything about what is going on behind the scenes at the Vatican... but it is still food for thought. What would godly sorrow, true repentance look like ... when sorry seems to be the hardest word to say?

Ratzinger Rules

"Ratzinger Rules". The message, spray-painted in red on the war memorial at Hyde Park overnight showed the Pope's historic visit to Sydney has even touched vandals.

It got me thinking about the last Working Bee when I had the job of removing the graffiti from the church walls. Vandalism like this is a pretty good picture of sin. We all want to leave our mark in life, and we don't really care about what we have to write over to do so. After all it is really about seeing me and what I've done. God has given us all gifts to use, but we don't want to listen to him, we want to show them off for maximum effect; we want centre stage.

Thank God for graffiti remover then. A super-strong solvent that washes it away. Wipes it clean so that we can start again.

Cardinal Pell's address was preceded by a welcome from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tonight. Mr Rudd said it was a time to speak about all that was right in Christianity and the church:

It was the church that began first schools for the poor, it was the church that began first hospitals for the poor, it was the church that began first refuges for the poor and these great traditions continue for the future.

Right on Mr Rudd. And as a church we can think of PACC and the Op Shop likewise. Good deeds done in the name of Christ. But don't forget the graffiti remover Kev, only Jesus can do that.

Paint them Ugly

Those who were at PBCam on Sunday will be interested in the following article in the SMH. It is all about parenting and is very relevant to the theme of Sunday's sermon.

Paint them ugly

Son of WYD

But what if you end up chatting to a keen, convinced RC? (Not just someone who is culturally RC but someone convinced about their faith.)

Well I think it is helpful to acknowledge our differences and also to admit where we get it wrong.

For example, many RCs will have been told that Protestants don't have to live good lives, they just have to 'believe'. And we need to take that on the chin. There is a popular misconception around that faith in Jesus is just about getting your ticket stamped for heaven and then you can get on with living your life how you want to.

So hold your hand up to that one. Just as there are nominal RCs so there are nominal Prots. Jesus does call us to live godly lives. As Tim Blencowe likes to say, "sometimes it seems as if our only theology of good deeds is that they are bad!"

This is where we get down to the nitty-gritty. Where does our righteousness come from? We believe that it is a gift from God, through Jesus - that it is imputed to us as we are united to Christ by faith. Since we are 'in Christ' we receive what is his, his righteousness.

RCs. on the other hand, believe that we are infused with this righteousness. In other words there is a co-operation here. God gives us an injection of his goodness so that we can be good in our strength.

Now, I hope, we can see why RCs think we don't believe in being good. However, that is a misunderstanding. We believe that faith does not include good deeds, but that it does produce them. "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works,which God prepared in advance for us to do." (Ephesians 2: 10)

Ephesians 2 is a great passage to read with a RC. We are saved by grace, not by works, but for works.

What a challenge all of this is for us! If our lives do not display God's glory in good works then we undermine the gospel. The acid test of WYD will be whether glory goes to Christ Jesus and whether good works come as a result. However, that is our test too. If our RC friends cannot see good works in us then we confirm all their prejudices.

WYD strikes back!

There is something else we can learn from the RC view of church - it is a corporate image. While we do not accept that the 'tradition' of the church trumps what the Bible teaches, there can be dangers lurking in the Protestant view too.


When we talk about Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) we do not mean (likewise as the Reformers did not mean) that my personal interpretation of the Bible trumps everything else. We come together as a body of believers and we study the Bible together.

We are proud of our Protestant heritage and quick to reject anything 'just because the church / tradition says so'. That is good and we must always go back to God's Word to see what that says... but did you notice the 'we' in the above paragraph?

It is a little too easy for Protestants to ape the individualism so prevalent in our society. We turn up at church and the Vicar says something we don't like, but that's okay because I don't think the Bible says that. I just accept the bits I agree with. I go home. Watch TV. End of.

This explains why PBC places such an emphasis on sermons and Bible study groups. These are deliberately corporate experiences (e.g. morning tea and pm supper) so that we have our own personal interpretations of the Bible challenged by others. We all have blind spots and church is the place where we help one another to follow God together - this is just as true for myself and Tim as for anyone else.

Of course, all this assumes that when we meet together we do so with the aim of getting to know God's Word better (in the Bible) so that we can better follow Him.

WYD

The countdown continues ... less than a week to the Roman Catholic World Youth Day (WYD) comes to Sydney.

To get our PBC blog off the ground I'd thought I'd do some posts on WYD. This is not meant as a 'pop' at Catholics but rather as a resource to encourage PBC folk to utilise this event for the gospel. Everyone in Sydney is talking about it. How can we turn these conversations towards Christ?

Okay, I'll start with some background. A couple of month's ago I went to a seminar at SMBC by David Shead (the Sheads used to be out in Slovenia with the Groombridges) about Roman Catholicism. Below are a mixture of his points and my musings:

• The Biggest issue for Roman Catholics = the church. You meet Christ in the church, you hear Christ speak to you from the church, there is no salvation outside of the church.

• Therefore while a Protestant might talk about what they believe, a RC will talk about the institution to which they belong.

Of course these are generalisations, but they are at least a good starting point. All of this is useful to bear in mind when talking to someone who comes from a Roman Catholic background. RC is much more of a cultural background than for us Prots. Therefore even those who no longer 'believe' will probably still identify themselves as RC. So, how should we tell them about Jesus?

• Don't over generalise - not all RCs are the same. It would really annoy you if people treated you like that!
• Don't criticise the RC church.
• Don't assume they know what 'they' believe. They may just turn up to Mass occasionally. If belonging to the institution is all that really matters then what they believe is not so important. (See above.)
• Don't just argue doctrine ... for the same reason as above.
• Introduce them to Jesus - focus on the gospels.
• Introduce them to your church ... no, really :-)
• Pray for them.
• Understand how tough it would be for them to think of themselves as anything than RC.

Howdy doodly

Hi everyone,

I thought it was a good idea to start up a PBC blog.

It has been suggested to me that it might be helpful if we (John & Tim) gave out regular thoughts on topical issues from a Christian perspective. Hopefully this would encourage us in our faith and act as a resource to stimulate gospel conversations with friends or at work.

The original idea was a 'thought for the week' in the church email, but I think a blog would serve the purpose better. This way we can get a bit of a conversation going too!?

So, let's get blogging for Jesus ... or something like that, anyway.

Yours in Christ,

John.