PBC blog

The Shock (er)

2009-06-18T17:40:00.003+10:00

As promised, here is my first stab at a proper review of The Shack.

*** Spoiler warning - plot details will be given away ***

Essentially the book is a theodicy. "Why does God allow suffering?" is a question that Christians have asked ever since ... well, ever since there were Christians.

The book takes a long time to answer the question but does it by making God more human. Suffering and evil is outside of God's control but he can make good things come out of it.

Therefore the incarnation takes centre stage. All three members of the trinity are represented in more or less human ways. And the thing to notice is that Mack (the main character) finds Jesus the nicest and easiest to get on with. Instead of our preconceptions about God we need to realise that 'God' is more like Jesus than the other way round. Now there is some truth in this. Of course, Jesus reveals God to us and we need to look at him to understand God. And yet the Scriptures wrestle with the tension between the immanence and transcendence of God. He is imminent in the human person of the Son but he is also transcendent in the person of God the Father. The Shack goes full out to portray God as imminent with no (or very little) transcendence.

So, God emphatically does not punish sin (p 120), rather he cures it. That's PSA out the window then. God just got nicer and more cuddlier but smaller at the same time.

And when Mack brings the toughest question of all to God - where was he when his daughter was kidnapped and killed? - God was comforting his daughter apparently. This was, IMHO, the weakest part of the book. It seemed an attempt to make palatable the unpalatable. Sometimes human wickedness and suffering is so evil that all we can do is cry out, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?"

All in all the novel (in both senses of the word!) approach to the book makes it a tricky one to tackle. How do you deal with fiction that describes someone talking to the Trinity? When you have the very person of God talking to a man then revelation must be taking place ... or not as the case may be. In other words it is easy to forget what is at stake here. Wm. Paul Young is writing a doctrine of God. People are lapping it up because our culture (at the moment) wants a God like this - a much more human God.

The problem is he is not revealed like that in scripture.

(Maybe I'll come back later to look at the pop psychology in the book.)

Human Wrongs

2009-06-16T10:49:00.004+10:00

Most of you will be aware (thanks to Duncan) that the Federal Government appointed a Committee, chaired by Father Frank Brennan to undertake an Australia-wide community consultation on the protection of human rights.

Although the closing date for written submissions was on Monday 15th June, there is time to participate in the online consultation. The closing date for this is 26th June, 2009. Information can be found at the National Human Rights Consultation Website here

If you oppose a Bill of Rights for Australia, or want more information, you can sign a petition against a Bill of Rights here:

I've been trying to post comments to Frank Brennan but I can't even seem to login yet - I'm still waiting for them to send my password. Perhaps that should be the first right on the list ... all Australian's have the right to submit a comment on the National Human Rights Consultation?

Essentially I think it is all back to front. An emphasis on 'rights' is misplaced because it is inherently selfish. It encourages us to stand up for our own rights and the rights of our 'tribe' but it does nothing to change the human heart.

Instead the Bible talks about justice and compassion. It uses the languages of responsibility rather than rights. The only people who benefit from all this legislation are the lawyers (sorry Catherine :-) ) who make lots of money.

As Christians we should care passionately that all other human beings are treated fairly and with respect - for we are all image bearers of the divine. But that doesn't mean the 'rights' is the way to go. For a start such legislation immediately runs into problems when different rights conflict - so which rights are more important?

A common test case of this in the UK concerns human sexuality. At the moment it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation or on grounds of religion. But what if your religion calls certain sexual behaviour immoral? (as Christians and Muslims do)

Are some human rights more right than others? Are some human rights wrong?

The Shack

2009-06-15T16:23:00.003+10:00

Okay, so it has taken a while but I've finally done it.

I put it off and put it off, but finally it had to be done.

I've read The Shack.

I'll try and write a more thorough review later but for now here are my immediate reflex reactions...

I really, really do not like this book. As the old review puts it, "This book was both good and original, unfortunately the parts which are good are not original and the parts which are original are not good."

It's not just that there is so much bad theology in it, it is that it is so badly written. I know lots of people rave about it but, for me at least, it just didn't work. It reads like a primer for Emergent Christianity 101.

I remember getting caught up in the hype surrounding Sophie's World when it came out. The idea for Sophie's World was very clever - a similar 'story' approach to philosophical history - but it soon became tedious. Along with the story there were (what seemed like) quotations from a textbook on the history of philosophy. The Shack feels like that too. The fact that it is dealing with immensely painful and emotional issues (coming to terms with the violent murder of a child) is used to mask the shallow nature of the writing. Complex issues are raised, sometimes trite and simplistic answers are given. At least Sophie's World had some substance to it.

Most chapters were entirely predictable in the questions they posed. The Shack does one thing well - it reflects our culture. If you want to know what modern man dislikes about Christianity then read this book. This is what bugged me most of all. It felt like an apologetic for pomo Christianity. There were regular sops to conservatives ("of course will still believe that") it's just that what we believe doesn't mean what it used to. It's the insistent pleading of an immature teenager, "Come on Dad (or should I say Papa!?) we still believe the same gospel ... I can't demonstrate that it is the same gospel, I just 'know' it is!"

This is Theologylite.

Oh dear.

I'm not normally this sledging in my book reviews. Still, it really got to me.

I'll do some more specific analysis later when I've got time. Hopefully that will be a bit more dispassionate.

The Church & Money

2009-06-10T16:00:00.002+10:00

As we have seen in Malachi God's people have always had an uneasy relationship with money.

The article in the SMH today simply highlights it again.

As usual it is not hard to detect some media bias. The Rev. John Cornish was clearly interviewed simply to put pressure on Peter Jensen. It is easy to imagine a reporter sitting at his desk trying to come up with another 'angle' on the current recession ... "ummh, something about Sydney Anglicans being evil always stirs the pot a bit..."

Nevertheless it does make us think. Again.

Was the Anglican Church wise or foolish to play the stockmarket like this? Personally I think that the answer to that question is ... neither. The least the third servant (in that famous parable) could have done is put his Master's money on deposit in order to collect interest. Sydney Anglicans have been very creative in the past few decades in finding ways to see God's kingdom grow. They are to be applauded for their initiative and courage. On the other hand all of this reminds us that money and influence do not grow the kingdom, God does by his Spirit. The $100 million loss should remind us of that.

God has been humbling the Western world through the recession. That includes His Church by the way.

The Frog and the Prince

2009-05-26T10:49:00.002+10:00

A big thank you to The Brothers Grimm and to Abi & Sophie for sharing this story with me at bedtime last night.

Gold ball meets girl. Girl loves ball. Girl loses ball. Frog offers to get ball if girl promises to love him and marry him. Frog gets ball. Girl breaks her promise. King makes girl keep her promise. Girl kisses Frog. Frog turns into hansome prince. Girl kisses him again. (Cue girlish giggles ... "they're in lurve!") THE END.

The King frowned. 'If you make a promise you must keep it,' he said sternly... she could almost hear the voice of her father saying, 'A promise is a promise,' so she moved towards the frog, closed her eyes and waited for the kiss.

Malachi would love this story. What a tale for our society - when the Princess keeps her promise and kisses the frog they all live happily ever after.

I, like all Frogs, love that story. In fact I might read it to the children on Sunday morning.

Idolatry exposed - the Emperor's new clothes

2009-05-15T13:08:00.004+10:00

It is only when idolatry is exposed to the light of day that we see it for what it is - pathetic, hopeless and ultimately meaningless. This time it wasn't the Emperor who was wearing no clothes but most of the Cronulla Sharks team.

The thing that is most striking about this sad event in a hotel room is just that, it is so sad. The media loves this kind of sallacious gossip. After all it combines it's three greatest loves: sex, celebrities and sport. However, if there is anything good that come out of this it is the unmasking of sex as an idol. Sex has been robbed of its power. It's like a bucket of cold water.

To quote again from Christopher Ash:

"The essence of idolatry is subjectivism. An idol is an object of worship that is no object, for it owes its existence to the subjective imagination of its worshipper, who is also its creator."

No one comes out well from this story. In our world obsessed by sex, stories like this strike a different chord. We are constantly bombarded by the message that sex outside of marriage brings fulfilment and happiness. The message is SO loud and SO powerful that most Christians feel they are fighting a rear-guard action. We try to hold to a Biblical morality but deep down we envy everyone else.

This story is a wake up call. We are not the ones trying to pretend were satisfied. Immoral Sex only has the power we give to it. Have the courage to expose the hollow nature of this idolatry. To stand up and say, "they've all got no clothes on!"

Prayer is generally a good thing

2009-05-06T18:51:00.002+10:00

The highlight (for me) of the SMBC biennial preaching conference has been John Woodbridge's lectures on the Church History of Revivals.

His historical analysis has been astute - he has read primary texts widely and yet is able to see patterns and trends.

One of the major themes has been prayer. God does great things when his people pray, and pray believing that he is able and willing to answer their prayers. Amazing that. It is almost as if there is a connection between God's people praying and God answering their prayers!

My guess is that prayerlessness is the first sign of practical atheism - we pray (short) prayers in church services ('cos thats what you do) and we say grace before our meals, but we do not pray as if we really believed that God is able to revive his church and transform our city.

Married to Jesus?

2009-05-02T18:07:00.007+10:00

I've been reading Marriage - sex in the service of God by Christopher Ash. (So have Duncan and James BTW so please feel free to ask them about it! )

There is some great stuff in it but one aspect made me think about marriage as an analogy for Christian faith. After all both the OT & NT frequently make this analogy themselves - marriage is supposed to be a picture of the covenant love that God has with his people, that Christ has with his church.

"The distinction between marriage perceived as a status following an event and marriage perceived as relational process is of great pastoral importance. The marriage 'one flesh' union is an ethical imperative (we ought to grow in it), but it is first a divine gift (Guroian 1987:88). There is a parallel here to the New Testament ethical calling to the Christian to 'become what you are'; the status and security of being adopted into the family of God is the foundation upon which the ethical life of the Christian is built. This safeguards grace as the principle that infuses all Christian living. It is the same in marriage: we enter a state in which security has been pledged without conditions, and in this safe state we live out the calling to which we are called, to build a relationship of growing sacrificial love. But when we focus on the gradually deepening (or evaporating) relational intimacy as the locus of marriage, paradoxically a terrible insecurity is engendered. This is how it is with an extramarital affair; it all rests on the current condition of an ever-fluctuating relationship. Graham Greene conjures up this insecurity in "The End of the Affair" as his 'hero' ruminates about the way that passionate desire when the lovers were together can go hand in hand with fear when they were apart. He speaks of loving her obsessively, 'And yet I could feel no trust: in the act of love I could be arrogant, but alone I had only to look in the mirror to see doubt. . .' (Greene 1951:2.08). Sceptics speak mockingly of 'living in an institution' and of a mere 'piece of paper', but those who engage in sexual relations outside this institution often yearn for the security it brings. To live outside is to live by works, to be constantly on best behaviour, to be only as good as the last time. To live inside is to live in grace, responding freely to unconditional pledged love, not to have failure and personal inadequacies drive us to paralysing despair."

(Marriage - sex in the service of God, Christopher Ash, Regent College Publishing, 2003, p 74-75)

I'm sure you can see the link that Ash is making. He is moving in the other direction - he has marriage in his sights and uses divine covenant love as a starting point - but I'm interested in moving the other way. Our relationship with Jesus develops in the context of a change of status. The moment we believe we are justified by faith. Our status is now righteous in Christ. That security enables our relationship with him to flourish and thrive. So, as we saw in Romans, Justification Sola Fide is not 'cheap grace'; it is not an excuse to carry on sinning, rather it creates the right conditions in the garden for true faith and godliness to grow.

The Resurrection on Facebook

2009-04-21T10:26:00.002+10:00

An interesting article in the SMH today about Facebook being used as evidence.

The bit of the article that struck me was this:

These digital collections are so convincing to a jury, fed a constant diet of television forensics, that a Sydney University law professor, Mark Findlay, believes it is leading to cases being increasingly won on circumstantial evidence. "You are going to see a trend in trials away from oral evidence to documentary trials," Professor Findlay said. Such a trend was concerning because documentary evidence was easier to fabricate than that provided by a witness, he said.

Leaving aside the punctuation of SMH jounalists, this raises profound questions about the way we view the historicity of the gospels. People often say that we can't trust the oral and written tradition on which the four gospels are based.

'If only Jesus had lived in the 21st century and then everything could have been captured on film!'

Actually recent developments make it easier to fabricate evidence. Professor Findlay thinks that eye-witnesses make for a much better case. Findlay is arguing for the historicity of the gospels ... but he probably doesn't realise it!?

Easter every day!

2009-04-13T16:43:00.004+10:00

I've been thinking about the Church's calendar recently. I remember my old Pastor telling me that he preached Christmas one Sunday a year and Easter for all the rest!?

And yet, especially in our Biblically illiterate age, isn't it good to 'teach' the Christian calendar? For example, Good Friday is a day when we particularly reflect on the death and suffering of Jesus; whereas Easter day is all about the resurrection. Likewise a case could be made for Pentecost (the Holy Spirit) and Harvest (God as Creator), simply to weave the key aspects of Christian doctrine into the regular pattern of our lives and worship.

I don't think I'd ever want to be tied down into a formal lectionary throughout the year but I am coming round to thinking that some regular theological rythymn to the year would be a good thing.

How does it work?

2009-04-01T17:57:00.005+11:00

I've almost finished N.T. Wright's latest book Justification: God's plan and Paul's Vision. For those interested it is his latest on the NPP (New Perspective on Paul) and is a response to John Piper's response to him on the NPP. For everyone else it is all about justification in Paul's teaching and how we become righteous in Christ.

As expected it a great book. Wright is a fantastic writer and handles Scripture very well.

However, it is not so much that I disagree with Wright, more that I often don't get what difference it makes.

For example, when he is critiquing the traditional reformed understanding of imputation - that is that Christ's righteousness is seen as moral 'merit' which is credited to us by faith - he has this to say,

"It is not the 'righteousness' of Jesus Christ which is 'reckoned' to the believer. It is his death and resurrection. That is what Romans 6 is all about." (p 205)

That confuses me. Wright is right (well he would be!) about what the text says. But where does that actually get us? The question Reformed theologians have been wrestling with for the past 500 years is how the believer is counted righteous by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

What does it mean to say that Christ's death and resurrection is reckoned to the believer? Yes, the cross is ultimately a mystery. Certainly, all atonement models should bring with them a healthy helping of humility - we tread on holy ground and shouldn't presume to fully grasp the 'mechanics' of the gospel. And yet (ISTM) the traditional Reformed view is perfectly consistent with Wright's view himself. For most of the book I've sat there nodding, but thinking, "So what?" Surely Wright can only over turn the Old Perspective if he can show that it is inconsistent with the Biblical text.

The Aussie Lifestyle

2009-03-19T17:29:00.004+11:00

Well, it is only 9 months after my birthday (roughly) but I finally got to enjoy my birthday present. Emily and I enjoyed the Sydney Bridge Climb on my day off this week. (I gave the climb to Emily for her birthday this year so that explains the wait!?)

It was amazing - what a way to learn about the Bridge and enjoy the awesome view of the city. Did you know that the entire bridge is supported by four joints? That would make a great illustration in a talk of the centrality of Jesus ... unless James Oosterveen gets there first!

Anyway, enough of my rambling. During the 3 hour trek we got talking to a couple on holiday from the UK. They were very interested in the fact that we had moved out here - you could tell they liked the idea. It didn't take long for Paul to utter the immortal words I've heard countless times from Brits ... "well, it is a great change of lifestyle."

When we told non-Christian friends back in Cheltenham that we were moving to Sydney everyone rationalised our decision as a 'lifestyle choice'. Apparently Aussies are more physically active outside, do more sport, are friendlier and thus Sydney would provide a healthier environment for our family.

I suppose this is related to 'Sea Change' - just like the ABC show - it is popular for people to escape the rat race of consumerism and materialism and settle down in the country or on the coast. Sometimes it is even put as the 'spiritual' option.

It's laughable though, isn't it? Since a strict philosophical definition of materialism refers to a world view where this physical world is all that exists, then surfers are just as materialistic as fashion victims; farmers as much computer geeks. In the short time we've lived in Sydney we have grown to love Australians and this country, but the lifestyle swap is materialism for materialism.

Jesus used a Greek word for 'change of lifestyle' - in Greek it is metanoia. We are more used to the word repentance. This morning I was reading Jeremiah. How relevant are his words:

"My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water." Jeremiah 2: 13

How true for the people of Britain and Australia. We have forsaken God, and we have looked for him in possessions and experiences. They are broken cisterns, the water they hold does not satisfy and leaks away before our eyes.

We are Australian

2009-02-23T15:34:00.004+11:00

Now that the memorial service has happened I think we can begin to get some perspective on the terrible tragedy that our nation has faced. The bushfires in Victoria have been awful.

Musician Bruce Woodley wrote the song "I am Australian" 22 years ago. While out of the country last week, Bruce was rung and asked to pen two new verses and perform the stirring song at the memorial service for the bushfire victims.

Look in particular at the lyrics of one of these new verses:

There are so many heroes
who’s stories must be told
they fought the raging fires of hell
and saved so many souls.
From the ashes of despair our towns will rise again!
we mourn your loss
we will rebuild
We are Australian!

I watched some of the memorial service and was saddened by how shallow it seemed. Yes, it was great to see how traegdies like this bring out the best in some people. There was a great spirit of 'mateship'. However, there was no hope. Well, no hope apart from trust in ourselves. As a nation we were called to worship at the altar of positive thinking.

Just look at the words of Bruce Woodley's verse above. At first glance it seems full of hope. But look carefully. On what basis? I realise that arsonists started the fires but, in general, the whole point of natural disasters is that we cannot stop them happening. We might limit the damage but we cannot prevent them occurring. Albert Camus wrote an essay called The Myth of Sisyphus, based on the original story from Greek mythology. In the final chapter he compares the absurdity of man's life with the situation of Sisyphus, who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a rock up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. Apparently if this devestation happens again, it's okay because we will just rebuild and start over. Such sentiment only brings hope if we are actually heading somewhere, achieving something. If this life is all there is then Bruce is actually writing a song about the absurdity of human existence.

More significantly did you recognise the allusions to the Christian gospel? The fire-fighters are compared to Jesus who really fought the fires of hell and really saved people's souls. Once more Woodley's song collapses under the weight of its own rhetoric. No one assumes he believes hell is real, so what is he saying? He is comparing something horrific and very real, with something even worse but (allegedly) not real. It's like a scene from Edmund Blackadder - "So let me get this straight. You're saying that something which you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else which you have never seen?"

Let's pray for the people of Victoria as they rebuild. Most of all pray that they will build on solid ground, and not the shifting sand of Woodley's song.

'the worst natural disaster ever'

2009-02-10T23:47:00.003+11:00

What is a Christian response to a disaster of this magnitude?

Most of all pray. Then pray some more. When terrible stuff happens make like a Psalmist and stop talking about God behind his back and start talking to him instead.

Here are some jumbled thoughts going through my head at the moment:

Worst natural disaster? But if it was started by arsonists then how is it natural?

Worst natural disaster ever? What about all the Aborigines who died through small-pox etc. when the Settlers arrived?

Pastor Danny Nalliah? says that it is God's judgment on Victoria for passing abortion legislation

Oh dear. While it is true, according to Romans 1: 18, that God's wrath is being revealed against godlessness in our present age, Jesus also made it clear that there is not always a direct consequential link between sin and suffering in this age. (See John 9.)

Therefore these terrible fires do act as a warning of God's righteous judgment but not in the way that Pastor Danny means. In a society full of sinners, those who play with fire get burnt. At this moment we should be looking to the arsonists. Besides, shouldn't it be the Victorian parliament burning if this was God's judgment on those who passed the legislation?

The human story. All in all the bush fires in Victoria are the human story writ large in bright burning letters. We are terrible sinners and our sin (of arson in this case) has terrible consequences - it destroys all those around us. Humans are capable of wonderful acts of kindness. God's common grace is evident here too. It has been touching how quick the Australian public are to help out in times of trouble.

The Christian gospel. Only Christ makes sense of all this. Only the gospel makes sense of a scene like this one. Adam and Eve, created in God's image and yet fallen. The first Adam made to be good, but in desperate need of redemption by the second Adam. The worst natural disaster ever is known as the Fall. The best supernatural disaster ever is known as the Cross.

I found Jesus, and lost ten pounds!

2009-02-09T21:05:00.002+11:00

I know it's not really the title of a Christian dieting book, but it should be.

For example there's Gwen Shamblin and her Weigh Down Diet that sold more than a million copies, making her the bestselling Christian weight loss author of all time. Her second book, Rise Above, recycles the same thinness is equal to godliness theme and emphasizes submission to a scary extreme.

On Sunday morning we were thinking about feeding on God's Word and Greg asked a good question - shouldn't we distance ourselves from all these books on the market which view the bible as ... a diet manual ... a parenting manual ... a Scientific textbook etc.?

As usual, my response is 'yes, and no.'

There are two equal and opposite dangers to avoid here. Both dangers are extremely prevelant in modern Christianity.

1. The Manual approach - typified by the dieting book above. The bible is seen as some kind of textbook on every possible practical subject under the sun. Supposedly we can deduce good diet tips from the OT food laws and learn about controlled crying because 'no crying he made' ... er, that's from a carol anyway ... oh, well, never mind. However, the diet for nomads in the middle east is not going to be the same for us living where we do. Likewise, the bible doesn't actually tell us anything about different birthing methods.

2. The religious approach - is just as common. Here the bible is only seen as relevant to our religious life. God's word teaches us all we need to know about how to behave in church, how to pray, and how to evangelise. But wait a minute. Didn't Paul have a lot to say about greed? (Their gods are their stomachs!) Isn't the bible full of principles concerning parenting? (What about all those proverbs?)

Seems to me that we need to reject both approaches. The bible applies to all of life and we should be encouraging one another to apply it. But that doesn't mean that it is meant to be used as a 'one size fits all' instruction manual for these kinds of areas.

Which is a shame really. I was hoping I could make millions with my 'Drink more beer diet.' (But just remember that you heard it from me first.)

The elephant in the room

2009-02-03T14:14:00.002+11:00

Population.

John Feeny from the BBC discusses the question of global over population - here .

Is the environmental disaster we seem to be heading into due to too many people? These questions always come to the fore in a recession. It raises questions for any Christian:

What about Genesis 1? Aren't we supposed to be 'fruitful and increase in number'?
What about Australia? Is the water shortage just going to get worse with increasing immigration?
What about immigration? Do we really want Pommies coming over here to our churches?

Church is for sinners

2009-01-20T22:58:00.002+11:00

I came across a discussion of church discipline recently on a web forum and the penny dropped. (There isn't a one cent coin so I hope I'm safe to talk about pennies.)

As usual a popular position in the debate was that of the MYOB (mind your own business) camp. Some went further - church discipline was un-Christian since Church is for sinners. Apparently it is only the self-righteous who engage in this sort of thing.

But hold on a minute? Isn't the sign that someone admits they're a sinner repentance? The whole point of any church discipline is that it only becomes necessary when someone refuses to admit that they are sinning.

Repentance has come up a few times lately at PBC - from the lips of John the Baptist and of Jesus. It occurs to me that repentance needs to be specific. May the Lord guard us from that culture that says 'we are all sinners' in a general sense but never in particular. If I am a sinner then I must have sins regularly to repent of. Yes, that's right, specific actions and attitudes that are wrong. I quite often meet Christians who are sinners but never actually sin, or so it would seem.

What sin have you repented of recently? (I can think of two for me today.)

Mea Culpa

2008-12-15T12:20:00.002+11:00

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

2008-12-08T14:22:00.007+11:00

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

2008-12-01T10:24:00.003+11:00

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?

2008-11-23T13:49:00.002+11:00

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

2008-11-19T22:10:00.004+11:00

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

2008-11-09T15:20:00.002+11:00

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

2008-11-07T14:16:00.002+11:00

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

2008-10-24T11:49:00.004+11:00

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?