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.