Silver Street Mission

A thought about prayer

2011-10-12T23:42:00.000-07:00

I was talking to my Jehovahs Witness friend at the station recently. He was rather enthusiastic about the fact that he saw me handing out tracts in Marrickville at the weekend. "It is always a good thing when people make the Bible more widely known," he told me.

We had a chat about being positive about others' efforts to reach out, but I had to go, as my train came in.

However, I said that I disagree with the JWs on many points -- obviously -- yet have to confess that they have played a positive part in some of the development of my own spiritual outlook. I would have liked to say more.

I am a convinced trinitarian. But, when I was converted, I knew, "God loves you, Jesus died for you, believe it and live as a believer." I didn't know if Baptists believed in the trinity or not.

Bill, where I worked, was not a trinitarian. He belonged to one of the cults which believe that God adopted Jesus as his "son" as a reward for his obedience, and we all may be adopted as sons if we are baptised, believe the tenets of this cult, and obey throughout our lives. Bill took me under his wing and tried to persuade me of his views.

The harder he tried, and the more he urged me to read the Bible, the more I read it and found exactly what he hoped I wouldn't find. A Christadelphian made a trinitarian of me. To cap it off, he tried to use Church History on me: "If you believe in the trinity, you side with the Catholics, and look at the dreadful things they did to Arians at Nicea." His account was so outrageous that I was sure he was wrong. So I found a great Church History text by a leading scholar, and read the story. Yes: both sides did some nasty things, but not what Bill alleged.

As I read Latourette's History further, I began to understand what the parties were saying, and why. It was the cap on my conversion to trinitarian faith.

With that in mind, I return to my Jehovahs Witness friend. He is a good-hearted man, with a generous spirit. Is he a saved man? I don't know -- but I know that salvation does not depend on accurate theology.

This takes me to the question of prayer.

For many years, our church has prayed for the other churches in Marrickville and beyond. We don't ask if they are Protestant, or if they are evangelical. It is part of our prayer for revival in our area. We need revival, and, no doubt, so do they. If they acknowledge Jesus as Lord, we pray for revival for them and for us. We pray that, wherever Jesus is proclaimed as Lord, there will be a God-honouring, Holy-Spirit led, Christ-focused revival.

This means that our prayers are for Anglicans, Catholics and Uniting Church as well as for our own Baptist brothers and sisters.

More recently we have added another group. If they earnestly seek Christ, even in a confused way, even if their beliefs about him are erroneous, we pray for them to find him and know him as he really is. I suppose we think this way about the Jehovahs Witnesses, but that doesn't seem, to me, a good reason not to pray for them.

I wonder what would happen if we really did start praying earnestly for each other, even if we don't like each other's ideas?

Correcting misapprehensions

2010-05-17T13:53:00.000-07:00

Whenever a Christian festival arises, it seems that the Letters sections of newspapers and the blogosphere begin filling with debates over the relative merits of Christianity and Atheism. At Easter, for example, even a bishop or two got drawn into the debate in one of Sydney's newspapers.

As a "dissenting" evangelical, I belong neither to the atheists' camp nor to that of the bishops. I felt a certain privilege, being able to observe without having to participate. Several thoughts came to me as I watched.

One point raised was that Atheism can lead to systematic and systemic violence and abuse. This argument comes up regularly, and is a poorly-considered reaction to Atheist accusations that religion is divisive, and always leads to violence and war.

Of course, the Pol Pot, Stalin and (perhaps) Hitler regimes were atheistic and few would disagree that they were horrifically violent. Proponents of non-Atheist religious positions should realise that this doesn't, however, mean that Atheism always leads to violence. The error is that of confusing causation and association.

On the other hand, when Atheists make similar charges about religion, they should recognise that they are falling into the same illogicality. Violent people use religion or irreligion to legitimate their violence.

It takes only a little acquaintance with history to show that this is a weak argument.

A second area of discussion was over whether Atheists can be truly moral. I am interested to note that see fewer believers charging that Atheists must be immoral than I see Atheists assuming that this charge is a Christian position.

As I read the Bible, it seems to me that it supports the idea that religious people and irreligious people are roughly equally moral. After all, it declares that humans are created in the image of a moral God. By the same token, the Bible is also clear that we human beings are all equally failures when it comes to morality. This doesn't mean that the crimes of some are not more horrifying than the crimes of others. We generally consider murder a more evil crime than stealing a biscuit from the office jar. However, both acts are moral breaches, and the Bible argues that no one can claim anything like moral perfection.

Those Christians who think that Atheists are immoral are probably influenced by such Biblical statements as, The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' The Psalmist's point, however, is that those who think they can get away with injustice and oppression because there is no God to give account to are fools. This is not quite the same thing as claiming that Atheism necessarily leads to immorality.

A further point of debate is about charities and community service. I suspect that Atheists and Christians may tend to focus on different areas in this respect. Certainly, Christians seem to predominate in welfare-related services and I think that many Atheists are drawn to environmental causes, but I don't know if my assessment is supported by any hard evidence.

What is true is that both believers of various kinds and unbelievers do engage in community service. However, there is evidence that, at least in the case of the young, "...those with serious spiritual and religious beliefs were likely to donate more money, participate more in their communities and be more concerned about their society than their non-religious counterparts." (2007 research by academics from Monash University and the Australian Catholic University, reported in The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 Jan 2008.)

What we don't know is whether this tendency persists into adulthood. I don't think the research has been done in Australia.

A final charge laid by the Atheists was that Christians who participate in charitable works do it only to gain points towards entry into heaven, or to compensate for a fear of judgement.

I have no doubt that even some Atheists volunteer so as to gain a heaven they do not believe in. Everyone acts in large part on unconscious feelings and desires. However it is certainly no part of Evangelical Christianity to believe that good works contribute "points" towards gaining heaven or avoiding hell. The Bible -- particularly the New Testament -- clearly and consistently rejects the value of works done to gain God's favour or out of mere fear of punishment.

In fact, the orthodox Evangelical position is that eternal salvation is only available through repentance, giving up efforts at self-justification and trust in Jesus Christ for the gift of salvation. To seek salvation through our deeds is a rejection of God's loving gift, and, in fact, treats God as a whore who dispenses favours to the best payers.

The corollary of this Evangelical belief is that eternal life is already the possession of those who trust in Jesus Christ, and that working for the good of others is an appropriately loving response to the Christ who loved us and gave himself for us.

I don't think many Christians in other traditions would disagree to far with that position.

Talking about weather

2010-04-19T04:49:00.000-07:00

I was late getting off to sleep on Sunday night, because, having left the windows open for cooling, I found myself having to fend off autumn mosquitoes. Usually, the little monsters are leaving me alone well before March ends. How I wish we didn't have ancient windows that are unsuitable for insect screens!
The Weather bureau tells us that unseasonably warm, sunny days will continue in Sydney for the rest of the week, peaking on Friday with a top of 26 degrees, or about 4 degrees above average.
Some of my American and English friends mocked advocates of global warming during the northern winter because of the extreme cold they experienced. As I remarked then, weather is not climate. And, in Sydney this week, the weather is not the climate, either.
In fact, the expectation is that, sometime on Saturday, temperatures will drop quickly, and ANZAC Day (Sunday) will be quite cold in the morning, warming to a maximum of 23 degrees.
The cause of the change will be the movement of an intense cold front through Victoria and NSW, bringing rain and cool winds
.
On the climate side, Professor David Hand, President of the Royal Statistical Society, a participant in the review of the so-called "climategate scandal", recently concluded that the University of East Anglia scientists had behaved honestly and fairly and had not engaged in deliberate scientific malpractice. In fact, re-analysing the data, he concluded that it shows a clear warming signal.
However, Professor Hand was also critical of the scientists' use of inappropriate statistical methods, which have exaggerated some of the effects of warming. He rejects the infamous "hockey stick" curve which has been criticised by warming sceptics in the past. Hand was surprised that scientists working in the climate change field, where statistical analysis is so vital, had chosen not to obtain more assistance from professional statisticians.
The unfortunate comment by Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia, about a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures was accepted in the report as a mere reference to a statistical technique rather than a devious act to misrepresent data.
An earlier investigation had also concluded that the expression "hide the decline" was scientific shorthand for the act of discarding erroneous data and that, when Jones spoke of a "trick" he meant it was a neat way of handling evidence -- a fairly common use of the term.
One good result of the entire kerfuffle is that, regardless of the outcome of a third investigation focusing on Freedom of Information issues, it is unlikely that climate scientists will be as inclined to hoard raw data or attack their opponents as the East Anglia scientists obviously have been. But, most importantly, the investigations are reinforcing the argument that we are facing climate changes which are at least to a significant extent caused by human activities. And that's something to worry about and act quickly upon.

Catholic Sex Crisis

2010-04-06T15:08:00.000-07:00

As a young Christian, I had some involvement with the youth group of what we would now call "an ethno-specific church." That is, it was made up of people with a shared language, culture and geographic background. I saw something sad: the young people had nowhere to go. It was their parents' church and could never be theirs, because they had grown up English-speaking in Australia, with a mixed cultural background.

The majority of the young people left the church entirely, because that was the option they could see. A minority went to Anglo churches, but often integrated poorly. I had a suspicion that, for some of the parents, assimilation was a worse fate than apostasy.

What has this to do with the Catholic Church? The fact is that many Catholics feel they are in the same position. If they do not like, or do not feel they fit in the Catholic way of doing things, they have no clear path ahead. Unlike the Catholics, most Protestants feel that, if they don't like the Baptist way, for example, there are always Anglican, Quaker, Pentecostal or Uniting Churches, and that's just a start.

A religious group which lacks a clear exit path is dangerously close to being a cult.

With the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, many Catholics are disgruntled. German statistics already show a marked decline in Catholic Church attendance. But one must feel for those Catholics who want to leave but don't know where to go. It would be healthy for the Catholic Church to recognise that those who jump ship for another church aren't necessarily abandoning Christianity.

However, many will no doubt stay, and will be faced with the tensions between, on the one hand, wanting to tidy up and go on with business as usual and, on the other, going all out for radical transformation.

It seems to me that celibacy is a major factor in the crisis, though I don't subscribe to the "give them a legitimate sexual outlet and they'll forget about children" idea. Paedophilia is a deeply engrained thing, and tends to persist despite marriage. It is found in all walks of life, not only the Catholic priesthood.

The celibate priesthood clearly not only has room for those genuinely called to a celibate lifestyle, but also for many who, while not desiring sex with adult women, struggle against attractions in various other directions. The priesthood becomes a hiding place and concentration pool, where exposure is more easily avoided. Additionally, where a married minister finds most of his or her community within family, I suspect that Catholic priests are forced to find most of that community sense within their own circles. "Family blindness" is clearly a factor in how so many priests have protected each other.

I am concerned about this crisis, and sad for those affected -- the victims of paedophiles, and the ordinary, decent Catholics who are also victims.

But I am also hopeful. Nearly 50 years ago, the Catholic Church set out on a path of reform. It has been a bumpy road, but progress has been made.

Perhaps the current crisis will be a catalyst for further change. It will certainly tend to weaken hierarchical control and perhaps push Catholics to rethink some of the ways in which traditions -- such as celibacy -- have come to dominate church thinking at the expense of more critical issues. The church probably needs to brace itself for a period of chaos, but, out of chaos, positive change can come.

Let's pray for our Catholic friends.

Answering the vulture and the earthworm

2010-03-16T19:18:00.000-07:00

I was sad to see Senator Fielding on the ABC's Q&A panel together with Richard Dawkins. Senator Fielding does not have a good grasp on matters of fact outside his specific professional training, which clearly has little to do with science.

I was sad, too, to hear Professor Dawkins' cheap shot at the senator, as having the intellect of an earthworm. It is this kind of abusive arrogance which gives him -- and, by association, atheism -- a bad name. Dawkins writes eloquently and ignorantly about religious matters, which reveals, not that he is intellectually defective, but that he is lazy in assuming that a junior Sunday School understanding is sufficient to make him an expert. Not unlike Senator Fielding's position with science, really.

I have a growing concern that we Christians often tackle atheism inappropriately.

If I were a Muslim, I would definitely be troubled by Dawkins and his ilk. If I were a Jew, I would at least be uneasy. Neither religion has strong grounds to argue against atheism except on the grounds which atheism itself defines. It is hard to win an away game.

Of course, Dawkins has a point. Religious people can't provide proof of God's existence in the terms he demands. More accurately, science is incapable of determining whether or not God exists -- much like the question of the Higgs-Boson particle. This does not mean that God does not exit. It only means that God's existence is a question is outside the realm of science.

This is not, however, fatal to the question. There are many areas where science can contribute little. It can't tell us if Julius Caesar existed. At best, it may help sort through the evidence.

So why do Christians try to do battle in areas where Christian arguments tend to be weak, and atheist ones strong, yet ignore areas where the tables are turned?

It seems to me that we need to turn our focus back onto Jesus. Let's develop our arguments from a Christological base rather than a philosophical or a merely scientific base.

After all, there is a strong New Testament theme that Jesus makes the unknown, inaccessible God known.

John 1:18 tells us, No one has ever seen God; but God, the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

In the 12th chapter (verse 41ff) we see that, in respect of his vision of the exalted Lord in the temple, Isaiah saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.

John perhaps rounds it off with his quotation from Jesus, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father."

Similarly, the writer to the Hebrews tells us (Heb 1:3): The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

Paul, too, writing to the Colossians (1:15) describes Christ as ...the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

There is therefore a clear New Testament assertion that God the Father himself is beyond our direct knowledge or observation, but that Jesus is the revealer of God.

This suggests to me that teleological, ontological and such arguments are something of a waste of time for those who would convince those who argue that no case can be made for God's existence.

While this doesn't mean that there is no place for philosophical points, they are more of a further hint at God's existence than primary ingredients of a case. If a person wants to "see" or "see evidence for" God, surely the place to start is Jesus.

The question, then, is, "How does Jesus reveal God?"

The answer is that Christians are convinced that the attitudes and actions of Jesus show us something about the attitudes and actions of God. If we would know God's attitude to the outcasts of society, look at how Jesus treated them. If we want to know God's attitude to ethnic outsiders, look at Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. If we want to know about God's judgment, we will find more when we see Jesus attacking hypocrisy, exploitation and fruitlessness than we will learn merely from reading about the Israelites and the Amalekites in the Pentateuch.

I do not often find comments I find useful to repeat in the writings of Rev Fred Nile, but I believe he hits the mark in a recent newsletter:

"If you want to know if there is a God, start with Jesus Christ, who will reveal the truth about Himself and His Heavenly Father."

I'll say, "Amen!" to that.

URGENT: Genocide on the Thai-Burmese Border

2010-02-23T11:52:00.000-08:00

I just received this news flash from Geoff Pound, a journalist working in the Middle East. Time: Tuesday 23 Feb 2010, 5:30 pm Thai Standard Time. He didn't give the source of the quote below:

"...I received a call from one of our leaders from the Nyaung Lay Bin District of the Karen State (Kawthoolei) requesting urgent help and assistance (food, medicines, clothing) for the 3000 plus IDPs [Internally Displaced People] who are running for their lives as the Burma army soldiers attacked and burnt down their villages and shooting them on sight."

"This is clearly an act of genocide, the Burma army soldiers attacking, shooting on sight and killing our innocent people, driving them out of their villages, destroying their crops, burning their rice barns or stores. This similar Burma army military operation took place in many ethnic (Arrankan, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Karenni/Kayah, Karen, Mon) areas."

"We are calling for the International Community, the UN, US, EU, China, Russia, Japan, India, Asean Community to halt all the Burma Army military operations against our ethnic nationalities IMMEDIATELY."

Cults

2010-02-12T06:01:00.000-08:00

A VISIT to Silver Street Mission in Marrickville from John and David Ayliffe on Sunday 14 February will help us understand the problem of cults in our world and in our country.

For 16 years, David was involved in a cult headquartered on Sydney’s northern beaches. During those years, he was alienated from family and friends, lost vast sums of money to the cult, and was entirely devoted to a destructive lifestyle under the control of a woman who claimed to be Christ.

Cults surround us. For several months the manse received regular calls from a young man who had left the so–called Sydney Church of Christ (no links with Marrickville Church of Christ which is, like us, an ordinary evangelical church.) He had been so abused by this cult that he could’nt trust another church, yet he really wanted a genuine faith.

Sometimes we are so accustomed to a cult that it seems little more than slightly off–beam. Yet a closer look reveals the classical features of groups like the Waco–based Branch Davidian or some of the sexually abusive groups reported recently.

Some of the features of cults are:

• Strong, centralised control

• Isolation from former associates including

family and friends

• Financial control, often requiring income

to be signed over to the group

• Strict lifestyle control

• Elevation of a secondary source of

authority (eg., founder’s writings,

traditions, pronouncements of a “Guru”)

over the Bible and its revelation of Jesus.

• Severe penalties for trying to leave the

group, including disassociation from

family, loss of money or housing

Groups like Mormons and Muslims have been criticised for relying on authorities outside the Bible; Scientologists (who reject the Bible) and Muslims penalise attempts to leave their circles.

Some cults adopt names similar to those of mainstream churches so as to hide their real identity. An elderly lady with poor hearing and eyesight was taken in once by the Mormons, because their name, Church of Jesus Christ (of the Latter Day Saints) resembles Church of Christ. She got out when they asked her to sign a document committing her to tithing.

The underlying problems with a cult usually begin with a leader’s damaged sense of self, often caused by childhood abuse. For example 4th Century Arians went far beyond the idea that we are God’s good creatures, damaged by sin, and thought that we are rotten to the core. So, they taught, nothing human could ever have real contact with God.

Where did Arius get those ideas?

We look forward to what David and John have to tell us.

[10:30 am, Silver Street Baptist Mission, cnr Silver and Calvert Streets, Marrickville. All welcome.]

iPad

2010-01-28T02:41:00.000-08:00

The iPad: does it have wings? I guess that Apple hopes it will fly out of the shops, anyway. Some people are saying that it is an iPhone on steroids.

There are specs are at
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/165759,the-apple-ipad-the-specs.aspx

Apple certainly knows how to build up expectations. There's been talk for months. I thought that it might be Apple’s way of getting around the restrictions under which netbook computers suffer. There'd allegedly been a bit of Microsoft-Intel skulduggery with the aim of keeping Linux off netbooks: certainly the specifications for these little devices had been set very firmly by parts and systems suppliers.

Apple has always had one advantage: their current OS is based on Free BSD, a Linux-like UNIX clone. albeit with a nicer interface. If Apple had created a “tablet”, which would not strictly be a netbook, it would be hard for either Intel or Microsoft to dictate the specifications. And Apple had certainly resisted the netbook bandwagon.

And then Apple surprised us all. From the specifications, I was clearly wrong to think that way. The tablet doesn’t use the BSD-related OS and, in a sense, the device comes in below the netbook specification, though not by far. To compensate, it offers greater portability, more responsive hard drive and Apple style.

The following table shows the iPad specifications compared with the approximate specifications of a typical netbook:

	NETBOOK	iPAD
Processor	1.6 GHz Intel Atom*	1 GHz Apple*
Monitor	7” – 12”	9.7”
Weight	1.6kg (typical)	0.7kg
Hard Drive	160 GB (typical, electro-mech)	16 – 64 GB (SSD?)
Connectivity	802.11g/n, Bluetooth, (3g)	802.11g/?, Bluetooth, 3g
Operating system	Win XP Home/ Linux	iPhone
Battery life	under 10 hrs	probably over 10 hrs

* Because the two chips have different architectures, the difference between the two may be less than the clock speed suggests, but it is probable that the Apple chip would process a little more slowly than the Atom chip.

It will be interesting to hear more as more details are released. Things not mentioned in this table are lack of USB ports or a CD/DVD drive. This is a very different beast from the notebook computer - like netbook.

However we are still waiting to see the first models arrive in Australia, and will get a better picture by then of how these devices might be used -- or whether they are a device that comes with limited features and stacks of hype.

* * * * * * * *

Since writing this, more features have been reported, as at

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/12-key-features-the-ipad-lacks-20100128-n1ae.html

For all the hype, this is a very limited device...

Christians and climate change

2009-12-30T23:34:00.000-08:00

I am fascinated and horrified that evangelical Christians are numbered among those who deny climate change or attribute it to non-human factors.

SIN AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The Bible declares that a high proportion of the ills besetting the environment have an origin in human sin. This is declared at the Fall (Genesis 3) and reaffirmed in places like Romans 8. Even when we do not clearly see the link, a straight-forward reading of the Bible suggests that the link is there.

Furthermore, most of the signs of the return of Christ are environmental. The sun will not really darken and the moon turn to blood. But, from an earth-bound perspective, that is how it will appear. We are all aware of how, for example, volcanic eruptions or bushfires have caused the sun and moon to appear dark, and often reddish.

Burning up of grass and drying of rivers -- these, too, are environmental disasters.

Despite the fact that human sin contributes to environmental damage, God's mandate that humans should have dominion over the creation has never been abrogated. It is just that, in our efforts, we fight an uphill battle.

GIVING THE WORLD A BREAK

There is also a clear command that the land is to have its rest -- sabbaths and jubilees -- to allow it to recover. God said (eg. Leviticus 26:34) that, when his people refuse to listen to him and remain hostile towards him, he will scatter them, lay their cities waste, and let the land have the sabbaths it has missed. This theme is also taken up in 2 Chronicles 36:21.

One evidence of this hostility is in greed: when we put money-making above God's command (as when people fail to give the land its rest) we worship mammon rather than God, because it is impossible to serve two masters.

IDOLATRY AND LAND-USE

In fact, the Bible has far less to say about abortion, homosexual activities, single-parent families and so many other bug-bears of so many conservative evangelicals than it has to say about idolatry, unjust trading, accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor and other forms of economic and social unrighteousness. Yet we Christians far too often assume that these things are beyond God's interest!

COME OUT AND BE SEPARATE

So, when Christians fall in with the world and criticise environmental activity because of its economic costs, they fall in with the world's idolatry and mammon-worship.

I have been around long enough to remember when even non-Christians criticised Soviet-style communism for its assumption that all motivation is ultimately economic (whether or not that criticism was true is beside my point.) Since Reagan and Thatcher, the West has moved to abject mammon-worship and the assumption that economic motives dominate.

It is time for us evangelical Christians to return to our Biblical roots and stand against the world and its ways.

Vanunu

2009-12-30T02:19:00.000-08:00

Mordechai Vanunu is under arrest in Israel. He is charged with contacting "a number of foreigners" -- something he was forbidden to do as a condition of his release in 2004 from an Israeli prison (http://www.smh.com.au/world/vanunu-arrested-for-alleged-foreign-contact-20091229-liv1.html)

Vanunu worked in the secret Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona and, in the 1980s, came to Australia where he befriended people at St Johns Anglican Church in Darlinghurst, a Sydney inner suburb. One who spent a lot of time with him was Rev. Dave Smith, now at Holy Trinity, Dulwich Hill. Eventually Vanunu became a Christian.

He was troubled about Israel's nuclear ambitions and refusal to submit to International scrutiny. In 1986, he divulged the story and supplied his own secret photographs to a UK Newspaper. He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli agents. The Israeli plan was to say that he had returned to Israel of his own free will, but his kidnapping was seen and photographed, including a message Vanunu had written on his hand revealing that he was a victim of kidnapping.

What was intended to be a secret arrest and trial became very much more public, but Vanunu remained in Israeli custody for 18 years, much of it in solitary confinement. Christian support has been very much part of his survival.

Because of his conversion as much as for divulging the Government's actions, Vanunu has been demonised by the Israeli public. He has been re-arrested several times since his 2004 release. His current crimes seem to have included meeting a Scandinavian girlfriend, staying in a hotel rather than his usual place of residence, and having a letter from the US among his correspondence.

The public needs to be aware of this so that Israel is unable to take action

There is a further issue to consider. Over many years of being a Christian, I have met a number of evangelicals whose attitude seems to be, "You can't criticise Israel. They are God's people, and their return to Palestine is prophesied. Do you want to oppose God?"

I have seen many instances where Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled in the recent history of Israel. But it remains true that persecution, racism and violence are so much part of contemporary Israeli life that it well deserves the description "rogue nation."

In Biblical times, Israel frequently faced God's judgment for injustice and unrighteousness. Yet they remained God's people, continued to have a role in God's saving purposes, and were eventually restored to the place of blessing when they repented.

God's people -- Israelites or Christians -- need to hear the voices of prophets and respond to them, or they will hear instead the taunts of their enemies.

Meanwhile it is vital for those of good will, regardless of their religion or race, to refuse to support injustice and unrighteousness from any source, because to support it is to participate in it.

Evil Santa

2009-12-29T04:50:00.000-08:00

If there is one Christmas song which bores into the brain and wreaks havoc, it is Santa Claus is coming to town.

I was thinking about Santa Claus, and the origins of the story in the 4th Century Bishop of Myra (Turkey), Nikolaos. Nikolaos became best known for giving gifts of money to three young women whose impoverished father could not afford their dowries. Without dowries, they could not marry, and they faced possible futures as prostitutes.

It struck me that these girls didn't in any way deserve this gift. It was entirely a matter of grace on Nikolaos' part.

I also thought that it was clearly an act of disinterested love. He had the girls' best interests in mind, and acted accordingly.

It is also clear that Nikolaos wanted nothing in return. As it was an act of grace and love, it was not something from which he stood to gain anything.

Contrast this with the Santa Claus of that song.

"You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town..."

This Santa Claus rewards and punishes, giving to those who perform as he desires, withholding from those who don't. The punishments extend beyond good and evil, and include undesired feelings. Those who express sadness or anger are also likely to lose out.

"He's making a list
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town."

"He sees you when you're sleeping

He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!
O! You better watch out!
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town"

There is no escape from this all-seeing eye. Can't sleep? He's got a little list, and you might be on that.

Contrast the Bible's picture of God:

God commends his love to us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

Regardless of what you or I have done, or will do, God still loves us and his gift is still there.

This seems to me to be much better than the evil Santa of that cheery song.

Scientology

2009-11-19T03:39:00.000-08:00

Jacob Saulwick, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald on November 19, 2009, reports that the Church of Scientology potentially faces an enquiry following a series of accusations in Parliament against the group by Senator Nick Xenophon. Kevin Rudd expressed concern about Scientology, but will examine letters tabled by the Senator before further considering an investigation.

Senator Xenophon will move for an enquiry on the basis of these letters. The Greens support the move, which would include questions of religion-based tax exemption enjoyed by Scientology, and various aspects of consumer protection and OH&S legislation in relation to the group.

Scientology sources say an enquiry would waste of time and money, arguing that former members of religous groups are prone to unreliable accusations.

Accusations include --

Charges going into hundreds of thousands of dollars to remain in the church.
Routinely obstruction of ordinary medical treatment (but not abortions) for church staff.
Pressure on female staff to have abortions, including "forced abortions''.
"Confinement and torture'' of members.
Obstruction of police investigation of a death
Inaction over reports of sexual abuse by its members

Allegations of questionable practices by the Church of Scientology go back over many years, and the group has faced investigations in a number of countries, though it has been recognised as a bona-fide religion in Australia. It is reportedly risky to criticise the organisation, with some claiming they have been threatened with litigation for posting complaints or accusations.

At this point, however, the letters in Senator Xenophon's possession remain unsubstantiated allegations, and the Government has three options: to enquire whether the charges have any substance, to decide that the charges have no substance, or to remain agnostic on these questions while awaiting further complaints, if any.

The Scientologists' arguments that an enquiry is not worth having, either from the point of view of cost or from the point of view of alleged unreliability of the complainants, do not hold water, though.

To dismiss a complaint merely because it came from a former member of an organisation would be both illogical and contrary to the principles of justice.

Even if, on average, people who withdraw from a religion are particularly prone to bias, that says nothing about the reliability of any individual complainant. Furthermore, if one complainant out of the eight who have approached Mr Xenophon can establish a substantial case, that is sufficient to justify appropriate action, while to deny a hearing to a genuine complainant because some other complainants are unreliable witnesses would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

The Scientologist response is also puzzling considering the gravity of the charges. If they have no substance, surely to attack the credibility of accusers rather than to request a speedy enquiry in order to clear the organisation's reputation serves only to increase suspicion of the Scientology organisation.

Letter from Rodrigo de Rato

2009-11-13T03:06:00.000-08:00

Rodrigo de Rato has just written to me. He works for the International Monetary Fund, as Managing Director, no less, of a section charged with pressuring banks to pay out monies owed to beneficiaries of wills, winners of lotteries, and creditors under contracts.

Like all such well-established officials, he has an e-mail address where I can contact him at any time -- it is with live.com, as one would expect. No hotmail or gmail here! i am so glad that the MD has such a personal interest in me as to write directly; though he would have instilled even greater confidence in me had he used my real name, and not addressed me as undisclosed-recipients.

The more paranoid among us who stand to receive vast sums might be tempted to question the occasional infelicitous sentence or strange capitalisation of a word, but there is no need. No less a personage than Mr Ban Ki-Moon (UN Secretary General) is involved, and my $12,500,000 will be wired to me, or delivered in a wheelbarrow, from the most trustworthy JP Morgan Chase bank.

I wonder how many of us undisclosed-recipients there are who are all owed precisely $12,500,000? Very interesting...

But, lest I still hold some concerns, his letter assures me, "Note that the above fund has been cleared from terrorist or fraud related activities." I am already breathing more easily.

Of course, sums of money this large can't be just transferred willy-nilly around the world. I have to provide "...full name, direct telephone numbers, contact address, Occupation and age for reconciliation with information forwarded to the bank by this office." And I will have to pay a $US550 insurance charge as well. No doubt those who pay up will find there are delays, and additional charges... and a couple of burly Nigerians at the door if they make a fuss.

Sadly, these rats catch too many people, and the simple underlying reason is greed. People think, "Here is an offer of undreamt of wealth! I may have no right to it, but these people will give it to me, so who am I to argue?"

In their haste to make off with the loot, people fail to notice the gigantic warning signs all over these scams. Then they get their fingers burnt, and some TV current affairs program plays violins while telling the story of the battlers being robbed. But who mentions that it is a case of amateur thieves being done by professionals -- and not particularly clever ones, at that?

The mediaeval Catholics listed greed as one of the seven deadly sins; like all sins, it certainly turns around and bites us when we yield to it.

I hope Mr de Rato slips into his own trap one day and gets squeezed until he realises that he needs to rethink his life's goals.

Meanwhile, feel free to delete his e-mail if he writes to you.

GLOBAL WARMING & COPENHAGEN TREATY

2009-11-10T03:05:00.000-08:00

Some people are getting tied in knots over the Copenhagen Treaty. One e-mail I have received is addressed to those who are "thinkers and not just sheep." It suggests that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is about to sign the Treaty on our behalf, and appeals to readers to "...google (sic) Lord Monckton and read all about world governance and what that will mean for Australians."

The conspiracy to which they direct us is in Lord Monckton's head, when he tells us that Obama (Rudd isn't far behind) is poised to sign away US sovereignty to some yet-to-be-created One World Government with vast enforcement powers against any who wish to withdraw.

The writers also appeal to us to give our friends Professor Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven & Earth as a Christmas gift, and allege that global warming theory is a religion, being fed to an unwitting public.

Monckton may have been Thatcher's Science Adviser, but that only confirms complaints from the science community that science was brought into a parlous condition during those years. Perhaps I went too far in comparing him with Erich von Däniken, or Dan Brown with his Da Vinci theories, but he certainly played fast and loose with the Copenhagen process. Yet it is such a typical method for those who wish to mislead: insert a comment here or a heading there, read two passages which don't belong together, or use bold type to create visual links where there are no logical links… Even Plimer is worth more attention, and that’s saying a lot.

The argument against Monckton
Here’s why Monckton’s argument is mischievous garbage…

(1) No one really knows what the final treaty will look like: that’s why the leaders are meeting. They will have various draft documents as guidelines, but there will be a lot of discussion and debate before a final result is achieved – assuming that one is achieved anyway. The various drafts (of which the one Monckton refers to is but one) are similar to Union Ambit Claims: they cover a lot more ground than the final paper will. The idea is to make sure that participants don’t miss something important, and have some idea of what is possible and what is not.

(2) What will be signed cannot be binding on any Government until it is ratified by that Government. No single leader can unilaterally cede sovereignty, except in a dictatorship; and what dictator would do that? This is why there are Constitutions.

(3) Governments are notorious for signing treaties and then failing to ratify them, as well as for ratifying them and failing to act on them in good faith – as many Third World countries are well aware when it comes to commitments to overseas aid by the wealthy countries.

(4) It is hardly conceivable that a majority of countries would ratify (through their Governments) a treaty which gave them no withdrawal option – and, to date, there has been no indication that any party has been considering a binding treaty of that kind. It would be unprecedented in the modern world.

Historically, countries have withdrawn from treaties without greater penalty than loss of international standing. At worst, individual nations might institute some kind of trade embargo or severance of diplomatic ties to a recalcitrant nation.

(5) Monckton’s only true suggestion is that a treaty will involve some kind of ceding of sovereignty: as all treaties do. Such ceding can go no further than the terms of the treaty as ratified by the parties.

How negotiated settlements work
The situation is like what might happen in a conflict between neighbours, except that it is carbon dioxide and methane rather than stones being flung.

Assume that my neighbour is troubled by my habit of throwing stones across the fence at his windows when he plays his stereo loudly.

To ease negotiations, he and I go to the pub and nut out an agreement. But my wife has told me, “Make sure you tell him he can’t play any kind of music after dark!” Similarly, his wife's instruction is: “Tell him not to bang the fence with a stick when we are having parties, either!”

At first each of us is horrified at the other's conditions.

So we talk it over. In the end, I agree that classical music is OK after dark, but no heavy metal. He agrees that I can bang the fence up to three times in an hour if he runs the stereo too loudly. That is, he agrees to cede sovereignty to some extent over music, and I agree to cede sovereignty to some extent in respect of banging the fence as well of as throwing stones.

But I certainly have to go home and get my wife’s agreement before we all shake hands over the fence, and my neighbour will need to sell the final agreement at home, too.

Final comments
Monckton is a peer, and therefore a member of the House of Lords. He should have some idea of how Government works. If he doesn’t, he has no right to go about, claiming expertise; if he does, he is mischievous to make these statements.

Personally, looking at what he has said, I think he is pitching propaganda to the US's strong representation of dispensational fundamentalists, many of whom are convinced of the impending implementation of a single world Government. While I share some of their beliefs, I have to add that, for a variety of reasons not worth going into here, they are particularly vulnerable to Monckton's kind of misinformation.

It is one thing to dispute the validity of climate change science; it is another to use misinformation and to manipulate paranoia in order to gain political support.

Some responses to Hitchens

2009-10-05T04:17:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens has recently been in Sydney, appearing on the ABC's Q&A program, and being interviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald, as well as being a speaker in the recent Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

I have responded mainly to the interview in the Herald, addressing some of Hitchens' errors and those of his followers:

ILLOGIC

First, Hitchens argues from particular wrongs committed by some religious people to a general blanket condemnation of religion. This is a breach of simple logic. It is in the same class as the false syllogism, "My dog is black, therefore all dogs are black."

Yes, some religious people do evil. And some doctors are paedophiles. Is medicine evil? Religion is a framework: how people use it varies. Paedophile doctors can use the internet as a framework for a paedophile circle. Is the fault in the framework, or in how people use it?

There is probably some truth in the idea that some religions are more prone to harbouring a particular kind of evil than others are. Catholicism's tendency to attract paedophiles possibly indicates that a celibate priesthood provides a good disguise for such people, while Islam's early spread through military campaigns almost certainly fuels the terrorists who hide within that religion. Some forms of Protestantism are influenced by the belligerence of people like John Knox and are prone to intransigence and argumentativeness. But even these concessions do not demonstrate that all religious people are like that, in fact they weaken Hitchens' arguments even further.

IS ATHEISM A RELIGION?

In the various discussions of Hitchens, debate arises over whether atheism is a religion or not.

As a teenager, I was a theist in that I believed it most probable that God exists, but it had no consequences for how I should relate to him, to other people, or to the environment. Therefore I was a non-religious theist.

So it is true, but disingenuous, to claim that atheism is not a religion, because "Hitchkinsism" - and most modern atheism - is a far more worked-out philosophy than the mere atheist statement, "God does not exist." This is clear from the writings of people like Hitchens and Dawkins (hence "Hitchkinsism"). They believe that atheism is at the heart of saving the world, socially, environmentally, intellectually... They believe that atheism must conquer all other worldviews. They believe that their brand of atheism is the key to unlock world peace, and that believers must be removed in order for this to happen.

LEGITIMATION OF PERSECUTION

It troubles me that followers of Hitchens, Dawkins and other radical atheists push these negative descriptions of believers so fervently. And their leaders don't ever seem to correct their calls for the removal of belief with any kind of appeal for toleration of the kind I regularly see from, say, Christians, when talking of atheists.

I hasten to add that most atheists I know are unlikely to murder believers in their beds. They are, like most believers, moral people. In fact, it is mainly those of a Hitchensesque bent -- strident atheists -- who use against religious people, particularly Christians, similar arguments to those used against Jews 70 years ago. It may seem mere intellectual debate to describe believers as war-mongerers, unintelligent, paedophiles, suicide bombers, circumcisers of females and so on. But it is actually far more sinister.

From a sociological viewpoint, what they are doing is isolating a group or groups in order to define them as non-persons. And history demonstrates that this is often the prelude to violence against the isolated group. Good people will deplore the violence, but, "...after all, these people sort of bring it on themselves." Aggression towards believers is legitimated by this use of language.

The movie, The Fisher King, demonstrates how legitimation works. Geoff Bridges' shock jock character didn't pull the trigger, he just made it possible for a deranged shooter to justify his own actions.

We all must take responsibility for our words and accusations, the more particularly if we have a wide audience.

RELIGION AND ETHICS

Hitchens claims that religious people believe that religion is the sole key to knowing right from wrong.

Contrary to Hitchens, this is actually (from an evangelical Protestant point of view) a mark of false religion and erroneous thinking, St Paul specifically addresses it in his letter to the Romans. Some Jewish Christians in that church considered themselves superior to Gentile Christians because Jews have the law. Paul points out that the law does no more than make us aware of our failure.

Let's think about this false view. If God, the creator of all, is the source of morality, then human beings should have an innate moral capacity. It is part of our human nature quite apart from whether or not a person believes in God. Empirically, we can see that unbelievers mostly act ethically, and so do believers. The reason is that it is built into us. In addition, we know that society goes better if we do right rather than wrong.

So it is in our own interest to act ethically. Doing good is good for ourselves and those close to us, at the very least. And how can self-interested action gain us heavenly rewards? That idea treats God as a celestial whore, dispensing favours to the one who does most good, to the one who is the best payer. Trying to gain heaven through doing good is just plain unethical!

Hitchens should admit, though, that religious thinkers have often been at the forefront of ethical thinking. Jesus, for example, corrected his Pharisaic co-religionists by pointing out that the mere fact of refraining from an evil deed when one really wants to do it does not make a person truly holy. Christianity was moving towards an anti-slavery position even before Lanfranc (Bishop of Canterbury) tried to repress it in around 1100AD, or the Quakers (about 1650) decided to disfellowship any member holding slaves.

But the bottom line is that Christianity is not about doing right to gain points with God. It is about how a loving God has stepped in to rescue from despair, failure and destruction all who, acknowledging their sin and failure, repent and trust in Jesus Christ's finished saving work.

CHURCH, STATE AND ATHEISM

Hitchens is reported in the Herald article as arguing that Church and State must be separated. The link between the Church of England and the English Government is certainly a lot closer than the links between any church and the Australian Government, nevertheless, I mainly agree with him.

I hasten to add that total separation is neither possible nor practical. Believers live within and participate in their States.

To remove their voting rights or to prevent their holding Government positions or being elected to Parliament would be undemocratic and probably lead to civil war.

To prevent religious people from commenting on social and political issues would rob the State of vital information for the running of Government, just because churches, synagogues and mosques are in touch with what people think, what is happening in their communities, what the vital issues are.

To force religions out of welfare, education, health care, and half a dozen other fields would cause the collapse of the institutions in these fields, many of which are run by religious bodies.

However, I point out that the Anabaptists, from their beginnings in 1525, tried to live out radical separation of church and state. In England, the Baptists, in 1612, began campaigning, through pamphlets, preaching, and other methods, while the Quakers (1640s) followed the Anabaptists. That great scholar of The Enlightenment, John Locke, in his post Glorious Revolution (1688) writings perhaps did little more than copy his religious antecedents.

The missing link — to bananas

2009-09-29T20:00:00.000-07:00

I decided to add the following to my earlier post about science and religion.

Humans and chimpanzees have over 98% of their DNA in common. But we also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas.

A writer in New Scientist magazine recently remarked that this fact does not make humans a kind of advanced banana; nor does it make humans a kind of advanced chimpanzee. Since the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial” in the 1920s, there has been a serious breakdown in relations between science and religion, but much of the debate has been as silly as arguing whether or not humans are bananas.

Humans, apes and monkeys all share “building blocks” from the bin marked Primates. However, these blocks are assembled differently between humans and chimpanzees. So we share a family resemblance because God has been remarkably economical in reusing components in the making of humans; yet we are also uniquely human and not just "Chimps version 2.0".

This has theological implications.

Although there is clear evidence of biological processes which led to the appearance of humans, it is also clear that humans have always been humans: similar to, but different from the apes.

So science is right to categorise us as being in the same group as the apes; Christianity is right to insist on our uniqueness as God’s creation.

But, most importantly, we are capable of rational response to God, something quite different from biology; and it is that, supremely, which most makes us human.

Observations concerning Genesis

2009-09-27T23:35:00.000-07:00

I've been watching, and avoiding participation in, a Facebook discussion about interpretations of Genesis. My avoidance is because I believed that the discussion would have been inappropriate to the particular context.

So I decided to provide a more fitting context as well as broadcast my views, such as they are, more widely than to my Facebook friends. I am opening the topic for discussion rather than attempting to provide a definitive statement, because I am not sure that we can really do that.

My first observation is that a person's salvation does not depend on his or her views about the creation. Salvation is soleley on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ. I make that observation because some of the talk I hear almost suggests that you can't be saved if you don't hold to six-day creationism. And that is a heresy. We need to be very clear about that. To require something of a person other than trust in Jesus is to subtract from his finished work, and that is grievous error. I also point out that there never has been an agreed consensus about how to interpret the creation accounts, which is quite different from, say, the doctrine of the Trinity.

My second observation is that the early chapters of Genesis are open to many interpretations. Six-day creationism is entirely possible and was held for centuries until questions were raised in the 19th Century about how this book fits in with scientific observations. More recently, Bernard Ramm has suggested (on the basis of analysis of the Hebrew) that the days of Genesis are not literal 24-hour periods, but merely a schema to describe how God both formed and previously shapeless and empty creation. The point to remember is that these are both interpretations. Neither says that Genesis is irrelevant or that it should be discarded. They seek to understand the text. That is something we all must do.

My third observation is that science and religion deal with different questions. Science deals with "what?" and "how?", religion deals wih "who?" and "why?" Science can't, for example, tell us about God, because God, by Judaeo-Christian definition, stands outside the creation. If he could be directly detected or subjected to testing, he would be less than God. On the other hand, the Bible can't really provide all the evidence needed to get anywhere near full answers to the big scientific questions. It is not that kind of book.

My fourth observation is that the Hebrew of Genesis seems very literal and then suddenly subverts the literalism, such as by having God remove "a rafter" or "a beam" from Adam's side to make Eve, or the use of almost barn-yard language about the Spirit of God in chapter 1. It doesn't mean that the passages are not largely literal, but it does mean that caution should be exercised.

My fifth observation is that young earth varieties of creationism fail to provide convincing answers to the complexities of scientific data from a range of disciplines. Everywhere you look, the data points towards an old earth, with life forms coming and going in an amazing variety. Those who hold to this group of interpretations seem to believe that those who hold evolutionary views essentially reject the idea that God did it. This is a serious misrepresentation of the position. For example, one way of understanding the creative process is that, in the most minute changes of molecular chemistry, God did it. For example, the fusion of two chromosomes -- reducing the 48 in apes to the 46 in humans -- is one of the mechanisms by which we are differentiated from apes. Analysis of the structure of the DNA reveals that a fusion has taken place. Is there any reason to suggest that this is not the work of God? Some of the anti-evolutionary views circulating these days verge on the heresy of deism: the view that God started everything going and either left it to its own devices or only gives it all a push every now and then.

My sixth observation is that what can broadly be described as theistic evolutionary theories have difficulty in accounting for death and decay before the Fall. They may, themselves, also fall prey to a kind of deism of their own if they fail to recognise the tiny steps by which change occurs.

My seventh observation is that "Intelligent Design" is not answer to the science-v-religion debate. Because it relies on the idea of a Designer, it ultimately falls foul of the same problem noted under my third observation, that an observable divine Designer would be less than God. It is entirely appropriate for people from a theological or philosophical perspective to seek evidence of design in the creation and feed that evidence into an understanding of God, but it is not a question which science should consider or is capable of considering.

My eighth observation is that vocal minorities on the various sides of the debate seem more interested in gaining power and sole recognition than they are in exploring questions of truth. They are often led by people with limited theological or scientific credentials (some with limited credentials in both fields) who are happy even to threaten and bully those with whom they disagree in the hope of obtaining capitulation and agreement. That is a far from Christian approach and should be resisted.

My ninth observation is that strident argument on these topics unnecessarily obstructs communication of the gospel with people of a scientific bent. Ultimately, we want them to trust in Christ. How they end up thinking about creation is very far down the line. The current heat of argument serves to drive them away and harden them against the Lord who died for them, and God will not hold us guiltless.

Personally, I suspect that Bernard Ramm is on the right track, but I am concerned that the good news of a God who created us, who loves us and who sent his son for us sould be recognised as far more important than working out an integration of Genesis with scientific creation theories.

The one position I do reject is Scofield's, though I respect his effort to relate science and the Bible. There is no evidence at all in the Bible for a dinosaur-destroying cataclysm and recreation between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

A letter to John about the Bible

2009-08-26T20:39:00.001-07:00

G'day, John!

Your dad tells me you have been discussing the Bible with your friends.

I'd suggest that you get hold of The Lion Handbook of the Bible and look around for anything else on the history of the Bible. There's also a good overview of the arguments for Christianity called, from memory, God Actually, by an Australian author, which might be useful to have.

THE OLD TESTAMENT
It is helpful to consider the history of the Old Testament separately from that of the New. The Jews used to destroy tatty scrolls, so, until the mid 20th century, the earliest available Old Testament scrolls dated from the 10th Century. In 1949, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, so we now have first-century evidence for Old Testament texts.

One important fact from the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries is that what this desert sect used around the time of Jesus is scarcely different from the present-day Old Testament. The differences are the kinds of thing you would expect in anything hand-copied.

This discovery is not as world-shattering as you might think, because there was already independent evidence for the Old Testament in such things as the Greek Septuagint translation of about 200BC, and odd quotations elsewhere (some even in the New Testament) which probably reflected a Hebrew tradition rather than the Greek translation. Still, it is good to get direct confirmation.

However, it is hard to be sure about the early history of the Old Testament. There are a few markers along the way. We do know that, in the 8th Century BC, a Bible scroll was discovered in the Temple during a clean-up. Apparently the Bible hadn't been in use for some decades at that time. How much of today's Old Testament the scroll contained, we don't know, but it was probably the Pentateuch.

There is also clear evidence that parts of the Old Testament originally existed in separate documents which were later joined together. For example, the early chapters of Genesis almost certainly existed as four different documents at one time. Scholars call them, J, E, P and D (Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomistic.) For example, Chapter 2 is Jahwist, because it uses the name Yahweh (Jahweh) for God, whereas Chapter 1 is Elohist, because it uses the title, Elohim, for God.

Many other parts of the Old Testament show evidence of having been compiled from earlier separate writings. For example, the Psalms were clearly written by a number of authors and later compiled into a hymn book.

Some Christians are embarrassed to find evidence of an editor's hand, and that embarrassment plays right into the hands of critics, like Muslims who claim that the Koran was dictated word-by-word to Mahomet. We believe that the God who inspired the original writers is powerful enough to guide the hand of an editor as well. Some books, like the Pentateuch (the first 5 books) have to have been edited, because Moses could not have written about his own death!

It is likely that the Old Testament as we know it appeared in three stages: first, the Pentateuch, which was lost but rediscovered in the Temple in the time of the kings, then the Psalms were added followed by the earlier prophets; finally, the books such as Daniel and Esther were added.

Remember that the Old Testament was written on scrolls, and, in the first century, these scrolls mostly contained one book, or two or three short ones. The “codex” form (book form) was not invented until around the end of the first century, and may well have been a Christian invention, as an easier way to carry the Bible around,

So the Old Testament is not really a single book.

Of course, the Catholics and Orthodox are suspicious of Protestants for omitting the Old Testament Apocrypha. These are writings found in the Septuagint, and used among Alexandrian Jews around 200 years before Christ, but not found in the Hebrew Bible. At the time of the Reformation, Christians still argued about exactly what books should be in the Old Testament, and Protestants settled on the Jewish tradition rather than the Greek one.

NEW TESTAMENT
The history of the New Testament is somewhat simpler. All the books were written between the mid-40s and the end of the first century (not too many people still argue that Revelation and some other writings appeared in the mid-second century.)

Many scholars date the New Testament books to the mid first century, with some, like Bishop John A.T. Robinson (who was far from being an Evangelical) arguing that every part of the New Testament was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

Robinson argued that the destruction of the temple was seen by early Christians as proof that, when Jesus died, that superseded the need for the Temple sacrifices, yet not one New Testament writer even mentions that the Temple was gone. He also finds some other internal evidence for early dating of the New Testament. However, not everyone agrees with him.

I think that Mark is definitely pre-70AD, and Matthew and Luke are probably from the same era, but John may be from around 80 AD. Matthew almost certainly comes from an Aramaic original, written perhaps 10 years before the Greek version. I also think that Hebrews was written before 70 AD. The writer spends well over half the book contrasting the Temple practices with Christianity, yet never once mentions that the Temple has been destroyed.

We know that Paul's letters to the churches are also pre-70AD, but maybe not his letters to Timothy and Titus. Revelation is probably also from close to the end of the 1st Century, say, 90 – 100 AD.

In the early days, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas and a few other books were possible candidates for inclusion in the New Testament alongside the books we have today, but they were never widely accepted. During the second century, there were also many Gnostic writings like the recently discovered Gospel of Judas. The Gnostics combined some Christian teachings with ideas from Greek philosophy and/or Eastern religions. These were rejected by mainstream Christianity, and only ever found favour among Gnostics. None of them were based in history like the Gospels are.

Muslims often put forward the so-called Gospel of Barnabas as being the original book of the Gospel, and say that the four records of the gospel found in the New Testament are corrupted writings based on that source. However there is no known Greek text for it, and it seems to have been written in Spain in the 16th Century. It was probably written to support Muslim claims that Islam is the true successor to Christianity. Remember that Islam was very strong in much of Spain until the later 1400s.

One very strong support for the New Testament as we know it is the Gothic translation by Wulfila in the latter fourth century (about 380AD). There is no complete copy these days, but there are several partial copies which contain only books found in today's New Testament. If other books had formed part of the New Testament of the time, it should be expected that some parts of these books would have remained in the Gothic Bible.

People like Dan Brown argue that Constantine, at the Council of Nicea in 325AD, reinvented Christianity, forcing the omission of several books and rewriting others. The grain of truth is that Constantine paid for 50 copies of the New Testament to be made and provided to various churches, and that a collection of Gnostic writings was burned during the Council.

However, there are several reasons why Brown is wrong.

* Constantine hosted and opened the Council, but played no part in it, as he was not yet baptised, so could have no role in a Church council. The written records of the Council, made while it was being held, show this.
* The argument was who Christ is, not about the content of the New Testament. All parties agreed on what writings they disagreed about. They argued over how to interpret it.
* There were over 300 bishops and others at the Council, and it would not have been possible to push through a change in the New Testament.
* The Arian party (followers of Arius: they lost the argument) continued to have their own churches without any great conflict. When Wulfila (himself an Arian) produced a New Testament translation which any Gothic-speaking Catholic could have accepted, Arian bishops funded him. Because the Goths were outside the Roman Empire, no one had to be afraid of Government disapproval.

In the 15th and 16th Centuries, there was a growth of learning, and many old manuscripts were found. This was one of the foundations of the Reformation as well as of modern Biblical studies.

New translations were made from the Greek and Hebrew, and scholars began compiling and comparing the manuscripts. Obviously, manuscripts will contain errors, such as repeated or omitted words, and, occasionally, a writer will quote something similar from memory instead of checking the original, or will mishear what someone has dictated. The more manuscripts we have, the more able we are to detect and “repair” such errors.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, even more manuscripts became known, and we now have a better idea of the original manuscripts than ever. The King James Version/ New King James Version are largely built on the older compilations of Greek texts, and New English, New International and other recent versions rely on later scholarship. However, as the translators of the New King James Version admit, none of the variations between the different texts would alter any basic Christian doctrine.

Anyway, grab some of those books from Koorong, and see what you can find.

Cheers,

Peter

An unwelcome Turning Point

2009-08-22T00:08:00.001-07:00

An inquest is just finishing in Sydney into the death of Rebekah Lawrence, who became highly distressed after attending a four day seminar run by a group known as Turning Point. During and for several days after her course, she displayed symptoms of psychosis. On her final day alive, she became abusive towards fellow workers, took off her clothes, and plunged to her death from an upper floor of her workplace.

Psychologists and psychiatrists in evidence before the inquest have been very critical of the techniques used by Turning Point, particularly when staff lacked training to deal with extreme reactions to the experience. It has also emerged that Mrs Lawrence is not the only person to have suffered an extreme reaction after a Turning Point seminar and end her life.

Adele Horin's article in the Sydney Morning Herald, You can't change habits of a lifetime in a weekend of self-help classes (22 August) contains a lot of wisdom about "self help" groups like Turning Point, but misses some important issues.

As T.S. Kuhn and several others have pointed out, most change does come through a crisis, often described in terms of conversion or paradigm shift; there is a period of confrontation with and resistance to the new, followed by a stage of brokenness where a person undergoes re-orientation, and then the person enters the new understanding and altered behaviour patterns.

As a born-again Christian (Goulburn Street Open Air Campaigners, 1962) I am well aware of how this works. Conversion may alter one's orientation in a flash, but the transformation may take a little longer. I suppose that the scientists who, in a crisis-type paradigm shift, abandoned the phlogiston theory of heat in favour of modern molecular energy theories still had to do a lot of work on what that actually means in practical terms.

Adele mentions the transformations which born-again Christians go through.

She writes, "To experience ''a permanent shift in the quality of your life'' as Landmark promises is theoretically possible after a single mind-blowing weekend, I suppose. After all, born-again Christians are transformed after an even briefer encounter session with Jesus. But real transformation, say from being an angry person into a calm and considered one, mostly takes years of committed effort, the acquisition of specific skills and self-understanding - and even then success is not assured."

What she does not pick up on is that, while groups like Turning Point have adopted many of the practices of American evangelism -- and it is clear that she is not attempting to draw comparisons here -- there are some very basic differences.

Most evangelical churches today have been influenced by psycholgical and sociological theories and have modified their practices accordingly. So I find it useful to think back to how things were around the time I was converted, when most every day, garden-variety Christians still saw psychology as anti-Christian mumbo-jumbo and hadn't even heard of sociology.

The little Baptist church which I began attending around the time I was converted did not have members with a highly analytical mindset. But we had some rough theories about conversion.

First, we were a little suspicious of the sudden convert. After all, Jesus said that the seed which springs up rapidly is most likely to die off rapidly, because it has no depth of soil. Yes, there were out-of-the-blue conversions which lasted, but they were rare.

On the other hand, we did expect fairly significant changes in a convert. If you were converted, then things must necessarily change. We relied on a mistranslated verse: If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature, the former things have passed away: everything has become new. A new convert was not just someone who had repented and believed, but was transformed into a new mode of existence. That had to show!

The reality is that this verse, accurately translated says something like, If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation... that is, it is not so much that I have changed my kind, but that I have begun living in a new realm, with all the attendant difficulties and adjustments which face anyone who moves to unfamiliar territory. Once again, a process.

We were also adept at noticing people "under conviction" -- going through a struggle about whether or not to commit to Christ. That is, we knew that the conversion experience was the culmination of a process.

The second thing is that we knew that even the dramatic, life changing conversion needed support. That support was not an endless round of evangelistic services, though the Sunday when someone did not come to a personal faith was rare. But much of church life revolved around getting together for a social night or the monthly fellowship tea, being part of the choir or spending Saturday in a working bee at the Protestant Homes. A changed lifestyle, a changed community and encouragement to look outward as well as self-assess all remain part of the healing process.

Also, we knew the value of one-on-one support. A weakness was an unwillingness to refer people to counselling outside the church (not that much was available); a strength was that we recognised that everyone struggles and needs a friend from time to time. Knowing that you are being prayed for and will probably be asked next week, "How are you going?" is a powerful incentive to keep on the path!

Sadly it seems that too many of these self-help groups lack the broader insights that have informed churches for centuries. And the result is too many Rebekah Lawrences.

The Netbook Phenomenon

2009-08-13T17:10:00.000-07:00

I don't own a netbook, nor am I likely to in the near future. But I think that they are saying something about people's attitudes.

For those who are unfamiliar with these devices, they are tiny laptop computers. Where the average business laptop has about a 15" screen, netbooks have a screen half the size or slightly bigger. 12" is generally considered the upper limit.

But netbooks have other distinctive features. They generally have no CD/DVD drive, no more than 1GB of memory, and a not very large hard drive. Most use a single core processor running at below 1.7GHz. Most full-sized laptop computers have a DVD drive, 3 or 4GB of memory and dual core processors running at over 2.0GHz.

The idea behind the netbook is that it is capable of running basic programs (word processor, spreadsheet, basic photo editing) and, above all, of using the Internet. It is designed for travellers and people who make light use of a computer. And most are small enough to slip into a briefcase leaving plenty of room for a packed lunch.

The netbook phenomenon is important because it points to a shift in values.

People still go for the big, powerful computers, just as they still go for big, powerful cars. But a backlash is developing. People are beginning to realise that small works fine, that you don't necessarily need all the features and the "just in case" add-ons. Simple, straight-forward and, above all, portable, works fine. The Toyota Corolla offers some advantages over the Ford Fairlane.

Part of the reason is that extra power doesn't gain you much. In the 1950s, a Jaguar Mk VII capable of 160kph could cruise near that speed for hundreds of kilometres on the derestricted back roads, which was a great advantage over cars like my little Austin which struggled to reach 110 with a tail wind.

Today, the little 1.5litre sedan probably achieves 160 given a push, but only on the freeways is it permitted to reach 110 -- the same as the Jaguar driving alongside it.

Similarly, with computers, when the limiting factor is often disk speed or even the user's typing speed, how much processing speed do we really need? Is "grunt" more important, or a battery which lasts through the day? How often do we really need our CD drive?

With the netbook, the answer is coming down on the side of moderate speed, durable batteries, and plugging in a CD drive when it's necessary.

The netbook phenomenon suggests that, in technology, some people are beginning to accept E.F Schumacher's view that "Small is beautiful".

On the other hand, as the growth of netbook ownership is mainly as a second computer, we need to ask ourselves whether owning 1-1/2 computers is really the definition of smallness. Not that I should talk, of course.

When Jesus sent his disciples out, he told them not to take spare sandals or extra cash -- in effect, he told them to travel light, and discover that God is dependable. There is a radicalism in his approach from which we can all learn. His attitude coloured the early church's approach to poverty, where they sold off property to provide more resources to give to those who lacked. It was also very much the attitude of the early Franciscans, and a value prized by the evangelist, John Wesley.

Of course, for some people, the laptop and projector are part of the basic equipment; for others, that is mere indulgence. But the issue remains: are we acquiring and depending on goods because they are vital to what we do, or because we feel unprotected without them?

Top - Report of death exaggerated

2009-08-09T06:33:00.000-07:00

They are now saying that Noordin Top was not killed in the recent siege. Indonesian authorities have withdrawn earlier reports.

The threat remains.

As I said yesterday, though, the threat does not end with the removal of one terrorist, no matter how important to the project.

Keep praying for our world!

Top is dead

2009-08-08T02:24:00.000-07:00

ABC News reports that Indonesian authorities have confirmed the death of wanted Muslim terrorist, Noordin Top in a shoot-out in central Java. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/08/2650105.htm

I suppose that our first reaction is joy and relief that one of the leading terrorism threats has been ended. As someone who appreciates and values pacifism, but have never been able to make a personal commitment to it, I do believe that there are times when violence can only be stopped by violence. In a similar way, Christians were leading participants in the assassination plot against German terrorist, Adolf Hitler.

I don't think it is contradictory also to feel an element of disappointment, even grief, at this death. For all that I think Top had to be defeated, that any person has to be killed to end his career is an indication that we have failed to find a better solution.

Similarly, in the middle ages, when Europe and Asia Minor faced waves of invading Muslim armies, a Christian soldier who killed in battle, even defending the life of a fellow Christian, still had to perform penance for three years. The need for fighting was recognised, but the failure implicit in killing anyone for any purpose was also acknowledged.

This was in stark contrast to the Muslim belief that any soldier who died in battle would go straight to heaven without passing Go.

But I also wonder what has been achieved. Yes, Top is gone, and the leading explosives expert of south-east Asian terror is no longer able to ply his trade. But we must not delude ourselves into thinking that Muslim terrorism is drawing to an end.

Unlike the Communist terrorism of the 1960s and early '70s, the goal of Muslim terror is not easily satisfied. The Baader-Meinhof groups and such were looking for comparatively limited changes: changes in policy, release of certain prisoners, statements and acknowledgements.

Muslim terror has much broader and less achievable goals: the overthrow of all other systems until the world is under Muslim domination.

How do you stop your actions if your goals are non-negotiable and non-achievable? You either abandon the entire project, or you never abandon it. There is little middle ground.

I do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists, of course -- far from it.

But peace-oriented Muslims battle to be heard or to convince their more aggressive neighbours that there is an option withing Islam.

The problem is that people are more likely to change their positions through conversion than through modification of a viewpoint. So it is harder in some ways for a follower of violent Islam to change within Islam than for that person to convert to a different world-view which rejects violence.

Perhaps we Christians need to be more outspoken about the alternatives we can offer.

Gwen died the other night

2009-08-06T16:50:00.000-07:00

There was an item in the Sydney Morning Herald. An elderly woman had been killed when struck by a car at the corner of Illawarra and Warren Roads, a few blocks from where I live. She was, according to the story, crossing with a green light. The car which struck her trapped her underneath, and she was carried some 25 metres before the car stopped. She was dead when the body was retrieved, and unrecognisably disfigured.

I wondered who it might be. The woman's age was given as 70 - 80, and her clothing was described. I thought of some of the women in boarding houses around that area who dress similarly.

Then John, one of our deacons, told us, "It was Gwen who died the other night."

Gwen had been to our church once, on the last Sunday in July, when we had our Church Anniversary and fellowship lunch. I don't think she attended the service -- if she did, she wasn't there for much of it -- but that's OK. John had invited her. She lived near him, and he thought she would like the company and friendship.

I was busy after the service, packing things away, chatting to various people. Gwen slipped under my radar. But I found her later, passing along the corridor between the church and the hall, and I introduced myself. I sat with a different group of newcomers at another table, so I didn't talk further to Gwen, but other people did.

A few hours more than a week later, she was dead.

When that kind of thing happens, you ask yourself all kind of "what if?" questions. Would things have been different if I had done something different? I have to answer, "Things probably would not have been different."

But there are implications.

First, I think we did some things right. Someone found Gwen and invited her to a gathering. There are so many lonely people, so many who are at a loose end much of their time. It is always good when they are drawn in and welcomed in some way.

We included her without requiring any "payment". We work on a "donate if you can" system for our normal church meals, but it is never made a big feature. On this occasion, the meal was special, so there was no obligation to contribute.

But there were other aspects of not requiring payment. Gwen was a little lacking in social skills -- she probably hadn't had much reason to practice them for a long time. But she was still welcomed. She didn't have to "clean up" first.

But did we do anything wrong?

Perhaps so. I am unaware that anyone had actually shared the gospel message with her. Ours is not a church to buttonhole people and not let them get away without being evangelised first. But, as we had welcomed her gently, perhaps we should have found some gentle way of letting her know that God loves her, that Jesus died for her, that simple trust is all she needed to become a child of God.

Knowing John, if he ever reads this, I would not be at all surprised if he said, "Of course, I shared the gospel with her. I gave her a tract to read, and I talked to her." That's John. All I mean is that, if something like this happened, no one told me.

Above it all is an issue of the kingdom of God. We want people to belong, to have a family, a community, a "nation", a role in life, oriented around being God's kind of people. Obviously, they can't find that without being told of it. But, whenever we make life better for someone, whenever we ask them in rather than cast them out, whenever we include, we have revealed a glimpse of God's kingdom. We did something good for Gwen: when the next Gwen comes along, I hope we will do more.

More about Fiji

2009-08-05T06:02:00.000-07:00

Tensions between the 300,000-strong Methodist Church in Fiji and the military government continue to grow.

Kim Cain, of Ecumenical News International, writes that just singing hymns in Fiji could destabilise a whole government.

The Fijian Methodist Church's annual conference, which usually brings together up to 1000 church leaders for a week of discussion, celebration and singing, is the supreme decision-making body for the Methodist church.

However, the military government of interim prime minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama has attempted to stop the Conference from taking place in late August. Two top Methodist Church ministers and a paramount chief were charged with defying the Public Emergency Regulation over the conference plans.

Paramount Chief Ro Teimumu along with church president, Rev. Ame Tugaue, and secretary general, Rev. Tuikilakila Waqairatu, were granted bail on 23 July after being held in custody for two days. They were ordered to appear in court in three weeks.

Bail conditions included surrender of travel documents and bans on holding any meetings for 21 days. The two ministers are not to be seen in public or to conduct anything that might be construed to be a meeting.

It is believed to be the first time a Fijian government has clashed so openly with the Methodist church, which has a local reputation for moderation, conservative social values and harmony.

About one third of Fiji's almost one million people are Methodists.

In the days prior to the conference up to 10 000 singing Fijians normally gather for the nation's biggest social gathering: the Fijian choir hymn singing contest. Now church members say the government has also banned the choral feast, fearing it will lead to further political instability. But in a show of religious conviction and support for their church leaders that may have political reverberations for Bainimarama's fragile hold on power, it is rumoured that many more choirs plan to come to Suva to sing their hymns of God's power and might.

Ecumenical News International reports that between 20 000 and 50 000 Fijian Methodists plan to flock to the national capital, Suva, to ensure the hymn singing - and the church conference - goes ahead. "The tension is growing and there is a great deal of anger," an Australian church leader in regular contact with Fijians told ENI.

"People are concerned that it will just take a clash between a couple of angry young people and the military for violence to erupt, he said. "While there may be only two roads into the area around the airport and the military may think they can control the area, many are concerned that 50 000 people will be beyond their capacity and then they may resort to violence," he stated.

Meanwhile Methodist church leaders are reported to be finding alternative leadership structures to deal with the muzzling of their president and general secretary, whose strict bail terms prevent their from talking to more than one person at a time.

At this stage, the church is determined to hold its annual conference. ENI has learnt that many church members will still attend the location of the conference, even if church leaders call the gathering off. Radio New Zealand reports that Fijian church leaders fear that the government monitors their electronic communications - telephone and email.

As the stand off between the church and the military grows, the national assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia, which includes former Methodists, has pledged its "prayerful support" for the Fijian church, sending an envoy to Suva as a sign of support for the Methodists.

This is a situation calling for the prayerful support of Christians world-wide.

This blog is adapted from an article in Insights, the official publication of the Synod of New South Wales and the ACT, part of the Uniting Church in Australia. Last modified July 28, 2009 and republished by Rowland Croucher on Facebook.

Carbon trading and Apocalyptic conditions

2009-08-04T05:56:00.001-07:00

There's been some discussion going on about global warming.

A friend remarked that carbon trading, in his opinion, is a farce, a global tax hike to reduce government debt after "years of uncontrolled spending." He sees the current Labor government as mainly to blame.

I responded that I believe carbon trading to be a farce, but not for the reasons he suggests. I see it as a licence for big polluters to keep polluting, which also shifts responsibility from the polluting companies to the third world where carbon sinks are cheap.

However, I can't see that carbon taxes have anything to do with tax hikes as a revenue-raising technique, particularly as they were mooted back when Australia was making quite a bit out of the mining boom, before the Global Financial Crisis struck. And, even if I expect these measures to be ineffective and more a sop to businesses than a genuine solution, surely they have everything to do with trying to ensure that we have a world fit to occupy when our children and grandchildren are trying to live their lives.

I told my friend that there is little hope of getting the developing world on board unless we are willing to take the first steps.

He then responded that climate change might be a natural earth cycle that nothing man does changes.

I can't see that that changes anything in terms of our response. Even if there is an underlying natural cycle, since industrialisation we have been pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

The problem now is that the world is entering a positive feedback cycle where greenhouse conditions run out of control. It’s the old Coke in the sun thing: heat a bottle of soft drink, and the gas comes out of solution. The same thing happens to greenhouse gases dissolved in ocean water or trapped in peat bogs and northern tundra. The hotter these get, the more carbon dioxide and othr gases are expelled and re-enter the atmosphere.
So, even if there is a natural cycle, what we do is now pushing it over the edge. We risk a run-away event.

All these things remind me of the plagues (desertification, locusts, run-away heat) in Revelation: people still didn’t repent, even when they saw others succumb.

Isn’t that human, and isn’t that happening now?

More about Madeline

2009-07-30T04:56:00.000-07:00

I wrote earlier about the death of Madeline Neumann, whose parents prayed as she died on the floor of their house. She was becoming increasingly ill with diabetes for some time before the end came.

I remarked,

"With the woeful state of public health care in the US, do people turn to "faith healing" cults out of fear that they will not be able to obtain proper health care through the system when they need it?"

I also suggested that the girls' parents' unwillingness to treat their daughter's illness as an ordinary human disease, their insistence that it was a "spiritual" issue, suggested that they didn't really grasp the idea of the incarnation. That is, they didn't fully recognise that God has come among us in the person of the human being, Jesus Christ. Theirs is an inhuman faith, as evidenced by the cruel death of the little girl.

It was reported today that the family was not linked with any denomination. It seems that they practised a private household religion. They called themselves "Full Gospel" Christians, but didn't belong anywhere.

Reading this, I am more than ever convinced that the parents followed a deviant form of Christianity. Their isolation is what you would suspect of people who have little concept of the value of others.

The great 18th Century evangelist and revivalist, John Wesley, remarked, "The Bible knows nothing of the solitary Christian." He is right. We need each other, and people who withdraw to their own house, cut off from others, directly contravene the saying of 1 John 4: 20,

...anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

Imagine if those parents had belonged to a properly functioning congregation. Imagine if there had been people around to comment on the little girl's illness before it got so serious. Imagine if someone had noticed that there was a problem in relationships and perhaps helped them resolve it and not let it get all messed up with the little girl's illness. Even a limited community is better than nothing.

A faulty theology is always intimately connected with a faulty understanding of human beings.

The sad death of a sick child

2009-07-29T14:25:00.001-07:00

Today's Sydney Morning Herald has a sad item (http://www.smh.com.au/world/mother-of-dead-girl-sickness-was-test-of-faith-20090729-e0eh.html) about a woman whose 11 year old daughter died of diabetes while her parents prayed. They believed the girl's sickness was due to a bad relationship between themselves and another couple from the church.

I am horified when I read such things.

I have seen a small number of dramatic healings after focused prayer in my 45-odd years as a Christian.

My brother recovered overnight from an infection which had been scheduled for scarring surgery the next day.
Our former church secretary was on his feet two days after surgery expected to keep him off his feet for ten days.
I began recovering from pneumonia the night when our church prayed for me at a specially scheduled meeting they forgot to tell me about.
A woman with diagnosed advanced bladder cancer was found to have no tumours when she presented for surgery the day after extensive prayer for her. She was not a believer herself.

Of course, we have prayed for people and been pleased that their recovery seemed to speed up, but that's not something you can measure. We still pray, trusting that the Lord who loves us will do something good.

Sometimes the "something good" has not been physical healing, but perhaps confidence to get on with life despite the illness, or a better diagnosis, or a seemingly coincidental link up with a different specialist.

Often the only thing we see is that the person feels supported, knowing that people care. I don't think that's an unimportant consequence.

But this news story is an example of lethally evil religious wrong-headedness.

First, why should the child, who had no role in the parents' conflicts, be the one who suffers? Surely the disconnect between supposed cause and consequences should have made the parents think twice!

Second, how could such serious symptoms be proportionate to the offence of bad blood between two families? Why didn't the parents ask themselves this?

Third, even if the relational problem underlay the child's illness, and the parents were convinced that dealing with it would have a bearing on their daughter's recovery,why didn't they contact the other family, make arrangements to meet and sort out the conflict, and take the child to hospital?

A faith which does not include trusting in other people, including professionals, seems to me to be a pretty hollow and meaningless faith for people claiming to be Christian, for all its appearance of "spirituality". Surely the whole idea of the incarnation is that God was manifest in a human being, and our faith is in that human being. Christian faith is not airy-fairy, but about a real human, coming into a precise period of history and being God with us. It is a human faith.

But I can't avoid going further and wondering what role the State itself has in this whole sad issue.

With the woeful state of public health care in the US, do people turn to "faith healing" cults out of fear that they will not be able to obtain proper health care through the system when they need it? I certainly see too many on the religious right in the US who are so vehemently opposed to universal health care that I do wonder where the bottom line lies: who stands to gain and who to lose if such a system comes in?

If my guess is right, that people take to religious answers when the state fails to provide basic common care, then the US itself has to take some responsibility for the death of Madeline Neumann of Wisconsin.

The buzz continues about Fiji Methodist arrests

2009-07-24T05:18:00.000-07:00

LOCAL NEWS REPORT

A full news report by the Fiji Times about the appearances of Methodist leaders and a local Chief in court in Suva appears at http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=126012.

GROWING ATTACKS ON METHODISTS

It seems that the Methodist Church in Fiji has been seen as a potential threat to the current regime for some months.

In a blog dated 24 January, widely associated with the Fijian Ombudsman, Shaista Shameem, an anonymous writer railed against Methodist leaders, describing them as The Snake in Priests Clothing, and saying,

"The Methodist Church is a sham. Its leaders (who spend time abusing young children) drive around in expensive vehicles while its members scrounge round for morsels of food. The very existence of this denomination raises serious concerns about the level of involvement the church has in politics and over time, the idiotic priests have stated that politics and religion should go hand in hand. We beg to disagree. People such as Tuikilakila Waqairatu should be strung by their feet and the people of this country should stone these heathens to death for their comments and actions which have led this country to the brink of a racial war. [My emphasis] The leaders of the church preach and promote racial hatred openly. Its members are then forced to give huge sums of money for the leaders benefits. We do not see this as a church of the people. We are certain that the leaders of the church have long given up their role as teachers of good and advocate everything the devil stands for."

On 27 Jan, the blog adds,

"We apologize to our readers that when we asked that Waqairatu be strung up by his feet, we had failed to add cult leader Manasa Lasaro to the whole affair. These two men should be strung up by their feet then set on fire for the world to see what happens when you try to commit seditious acts or incite racial hatred. [My emphasis] These men are not fit for this world and since they worship the devil in secret, they should be sent to his world accordingly."

THE GOVERNMENT LINE

The Fiji Government website (http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_15547.shtml) comments on this case:

"Government and Military spokesperson, Lt-Col Neumi Leweni, today said Government is firm about its decision to cancel the Methodist Church annual conference because the church is clearly pushing a political agenda rather than focussing on its core role of promoting spiritual development [...]

"The decision to defer the Methodist Conference indefinitely was borne out of the inclusion of political issues in the Methodist Conference agenda. This was a clear breach of the Public Emergency Regulation and also not a matter for the church to discuss.

"Government issued a permit for their meeting last week with conditions, and on the understanding that they will help find a way forward for our nation. “Government asked the committee to understand Fiji’s socio-political situation and assist in our nation-building initiatives that promotes, among other things, equal opportunities for all citizens in the country irrespective of race, colour or creed.”

“Instead the committee has chosen to continue to push its political agenda,” Lt-Col Leweni said.

He said some members of the church have now been taken in for questioning and will be released once the investigations are over.

"Also under investigation is Ro Teimumu for a statement released yesterday which could be termed as a form of incitement.

"Lt-Col Leweni said Government continues to appeal to the public to keep the peace and respect the rule of law."

TAIWAN MEDIA REPORT AUST RESPONSE

Meanwhile, the Taiwan News (http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1011649&lang=eng_news) reports, under the heading, Australian FM condemns Fiji church arrests, that the Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, said from Thailand, "We absolutely condemn what has occurred," Smith told reporters. "It does show a consistent course of conduct so far as Commander Bainimarama and the interim military is concerned. This is just another very regrettable example of the regime further isolating itself from the international community and further stepping back from democracy and civil and human rights."

The TN report says that Smith added that the move will further isolate the Pacific island nation's rulers from the international community.

TN reports that one of those taken into custody, the Rev. Manasa Lasaro, was also arrested in June for a sermon demanding freedom of speech.

Fiji Methodists Update

2009-07-23T21:14:00.000-07:00

The Baptist and Uniting Churches in NSW are now fully aware of the situation, and Church members are being circulated about the serious limitations on the religious liberty of Fijian Christian leaders. The Anglican Church has referred the matter to the Archbishop.

Baptists have been asked to take whatever action their consciences suggest, with the note that "Baptists have historically stood alongside all those who suffer on account of their religious belief/practice, and I would hope some decisive action might be taken by Australian Baptists in the face of the coercive actions by the Fijian authorities." (Rod Benson, Ethicist, Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT)

Whether Fijian Baptists are currently under pressure from the government is unclear. This situation was triggered by Methodist refusal to accept a Government ban on the annual Methodist Conference. This ban was imposed apparently out of fear that the widely supported Methodist Church in Fiji might form a base for opposition to the Government. (See earlier posting.)

There is evidence that some U.S. fundamentalists are strongly supporting the military dictatorship in Fiji, and some leaders in the current Government claim to be Christian.

So far, the President and General Secretary of the Methodist Church in Fiji have appeared in court in Suva facing charges under the Public Order Act due to alleged non-compliance with conditions of a Police Permit for a meeting of the Methodist Standing Committee. Why Police Permits are deemed necessary for a Church leaders' committee meeting is not explained.

The two ministers have been bailed  subject to travel restrictions and a conditions that they must not contravene the Public Order Act. Two others arrested with them were not charged.

The Chief of the Rewa Province was also charged under the same Act over a letter supportive of holding the Annual Conference.  The case has garnered considerable public interest in Fiji despite clamps on the media and on dissemination of information.

When the church gets political

2009-07-22T23:43:00.000-07:00

News has just emerged (http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/fiji-church-leaders-arrested-by-regime-20090723-dumg.html) that the Fijian dictatorship has arrested about a dozen Methodist leaders who had threatened to go ahead with the annual conference despite a Government ban.

Self-appointed president, Frank Bainimarama, claims that the conference is a political move and those within the Methodist leadership who make decisions are all politicians.

The well-established Methodist Church in Fiji is one of the few institutions capable of providing a base for opposition to the coup leadership.

We should -- must -- pray for, and, where possible, act on behalf of, the Christians of Fiji.

Republicans and evangelicals

2009-07-21T23:48:00.000-07:00

A friend recently referred me to an article, "My GOP: Too old, too white to win" by Bill Greener at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/07/20/gop_math/
Greener argues that the Republican party in the US is headed for disaster, unless it figures out how to be less Caucasian. It is not, he claims, a matter of revamping the "brand", but a matter of fundamental mathematics. "The numbers simply do not add up to the GOP prevailing in a national election any time soon," he writes.

There is no point in repeating the article: it is on line, after all. But the sum of it is that the party depends on older white voters, and they simply do not make up as large a section of the American voting public as they did, for example, in 1976, when non-Hispanic whites cast 90% of presidential votes. Last year, this group was down to 75% of voters.

Greener points out that Republican voters are increasingly in favour of policies unattractive to the minorities they wish to attract. For example, a Republican position on immigration might not be particularly attractive to Hispanic voters who will be thinking of its impact on friends and relatives who may sometime wish to immigrate.

He writes, "A recent poll shows Republicans, at the national level, are viewed favourably by fewer than 10% of all Hispanics." He calls this "a disaster."
The reason I have quoted Greener so extensively is not that I particularly favour the Republicans in the US. But many of the issues he mentions are issues Christians also face. Greener comments, "...debates about whether conservatives or moderates need more of a voice in the party strike me as completely missing the point. The debate, for now, should begin and end with asking and answering how it is that we can remain true to our basic principles and grow among these key voter groups that are needed to win elections." He might as aptly apply those sentiments to churches.

Far too often, we debate questions of whom to elect, and which doctrinal statement will be the norm, and forget that it is far more important to communicate a life-changing gospel message than to fine tune the machinery once more.

What kind of fine-tuning could we defer to a more convenient day, and what do you think we need to do to "grow among key voter groups"?

About writing

2009-07-21T04:57:00.000-07:00

I have been a writer most of my life, whether writing reports as a Town Planner, writing my weekly sermon, or editing The Australian Baptist magazine in the late 1980s.

When I became a "non-stipendiary pastor" in 2000, I was no longer meeting people around my town day by day, attending community meetings, and looking for different ways of communicating Christian faith. So I thought I should look for ways to communicate during the times which were available to me -- early mornings and late nights.

I write letters to the Editor, mainly of the Sydney Morning Herald. It's a place I regularly go and "meet" people like myself. I could try The Telegraph, or The Tribune, or any one of hundreds of newspapers and magazines, but I have mainly stuck in the world I know best. Not very "missionary" of me, but not everyone crosses all boundaries equally well.

I occasionally contribute remarks to on-line blog discussions. I also write this blog and try to post things on line from time to time (www.atsilverstreet.com)

I suppose that getting approval from readers has been one of the things which kept me going.

My first published letter in the SMH was a mock indignant one about Lorena Bobbitt and her creative use of a knife. Everyone was talking about the Bobbitts, and the verb, "to bobbitt", threatened to enter the language.

I argued that we were dismissing the pioneering work of Valmaila Loisi several years earlier, and suggested that it was either an American attempt to take over the culture, or a racist dismissal of the work of an islander.

The Letters editor at the time wrote to me that he had found it quite amusing.

So, like politicians who are encouraged by people voting for them, I got onto my computer from then on.

I am not a permanently serious writer of potted sermons. Life is about all kinds of interesting things. I have written about cults, I have written about public transport, I have written about the ethics of Section 94 contributions under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (my original professional qualification is in Town Planning) and even about milking cats.

Over this time, I have been learning. Sometime I get things kind-of right, other times I try something and mess it up. I have tried blogging a number of times and dropped out, but I have returned. A former workmate got me onto Facebook, Steve Hinch (@stevehinch) suggested Twitter to me... there are so many options today.

We all live with restrictions and limitations, but we live in a world where there are so many options available, there are few reasons why we should sit back and say, "I can do nothing to change my world."

There is so much you can do! -- it's a matter of putting your will to it and finding the options.

Religion in marriage

2009-07-19T23:33:00.000-07:00

Dewi Cooke writes in The Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/national/religion-less-crucial-in-wedlock-20090719-dpla.html, July 20, 2009) that more Australians are marrying outside their religion. The article is based on Monash University research which has found Christians have the highest rates of intermarriage, particularly with other Christian denominations. On the other hand, "emerging religions" such as Hinduism and Islam have the lowest.

Among Christians, Presbyterians (60%) are most prone to marrying someone of another faith, with Catholics down at 37%. Anglicans and Uniting Church members were a little higher at 41% and 43%.

Hindus and Muslims fitted in under the 10% level.

This does not necessarily mean that Hindus and Muslism are not good mixers, but reflects their more recent arrival in Australia. Succeeding generations may be more relaxed about intermarriage, according to researchers.

The newspaper report does not distinguish clearly between real inter-religious marriage (Christian and Hindu, for example) and mere inter-denominational marriage. A Presbyterian and a Baptist may see themselves as differing only in preferred style of worship service, for example, while the gap between a Pentecostal and a Muslim is necessarily vast.

With what Reformed historian, Martin Marty refers to as the "baptistification" of the church, denominational boundaries, never particularly strong, have weakened even at points such as that between Catholics and Protestants. This was once a very difficult barrier to cross.

Many more Catholics talk openly about their conversion experience or being born again, language previously often limited to evangelical Christians.

Evangelicals would often consider that experience a more important thing to share than a denominational label.

Another factor not addressed is the distinction between nominalism and genuine adherence to a faith community. An Anglican who attends church at Easter and Christmas may, in practical terms, be little different from his or her atheist partner, who doesn't see the point when it comes to God, but is willing to live and let live when it comes to believers.

Although the research is interesting, and may have implications for newly arrived religions in Australia, it does not answer many of the basic questions about faith in a secular society.

Church planting in Waterloo

2009-07-15T19:17:00.001-07:00

I don't think of myself in church planting terms. Someone described me this morning as "...kind, patient and understanding... filled with useless facts." I'm a resource person and more inclined to encourage someone to do what he or she has already felt called to do than to direct a person into a project.

I like the Quaker idea of the "bundle of responsibility." We all have a duty to find and fulfil that responsibility in life. If I can help you find that, well and good; but I am unlikely to try to tell anyone what it is.

And, last night, I was involved in the first night of what, I pray, might be the launch of a Christian fellowship, maybe even a Baptist fellowship, at Waterloo, a southern inner suburb of Sydney.

In 1998, the denomination considered encouraging our little church at Marrickville to close down so that the money could be used to plant churches on the expanding periphery of Sydney.

I considered that a crazy idea, and my opinions were justified when I plotted the "reach" of existing churches onto a map and found a large wedge south of Sydney where there was little evangelical and no Baptist work. It also happened to cover the Green Square urban renewal project. I argued that opening gaps in inner city work to expand on the periphery was counter productive.

I approached this as a Town Planner (my former profession), not as a church planter.

After many discussions with different people, I concluded that it was unlikely that any outreach would commence here in a hurry. But I was pleased when a couple with church planting skills tried to start something, and saddened when it failed.

But I can see a glimmer of hope. It is a team effort. Jan, who moved into Waterloo, is a true evangelist, able to say, "I was lost, but now am found." She brings her neighbours and friends to church, and she saw the needs and found some on-the-ground opportunitites in Waterloo. She also arranged for us to use the Department of Housing meeting room, and organised refreshments.

Jay and Mouy picked up my suggestion that we take fellowship out to our people instead of expecting them to come in to us, and interpreted that in terms of a roster to go to different locations.

I put together a program; Nick suggested that this might be the time to roll it out.

So we got there, the same people who have met for over a year in Marrickville, but it's a start. We met some people and told them what our plans were. We waved to one or two who looked in but didn't come in. We smiled at the chap who ducked in for a biscuit and dashed off again.
It's all relationship-building.

Maybe we will eventually need a real church-planter. Meanwhile, we trust God and depend on your prayers!

Where do the children go?

2009-07-14T07:27:00.000-07:00

RESEARCH by Australian researcher, Gary Morgan, reveals that Australian kids watched less TV in 2008 than in 2005, while internet use increased by 50%.

This is not surprising, considering how the multi-computer household has grown in that period, as computers have moved further and further into the realm of consumer electronic devices.

What is more surprising is that they are spending slightly more time in sport.

On average, kids spent 6.2 hours per week online in 2008 — more than two hours more they did in 2005. The study involved over 20 000 Australians aged between 6 and 14.

Norman Morris, of Roy Morgan Research says, “While much has been made of the fact that children today are less active and more TV focussed than they used to be, research proves that this is not the case. Kids are spending similar amounts of time using media and engaging in sport as they used to, but the activities and the media have changed.”

Perhaps because we feel responsible for kids, we often look critically at what they do, but we often react emotionally rather than on the basis of fact, and it is easy to be critical of perceived failings rather than appreciative of their achievements. Yet, when we see how passionate they can be about the environment, how pro-active socially, and how much they achieve in things like the Schools Spectacular, we can see how much there really is to appreciate.

Jesus' disciples tried to block children from coming to him; he rebuked them and encouraged a positive interaction between himself and the young. He was scathingly critical of those who might cause a child to stumble.

This report reminds us that kids are, by and large, not under-achieving obese slobs who do nothing but play video games in darkened rooms.

But this doesn't mean we should be complacent, either. There are fewer places for children to go to to climb a tree, play on a swing or just walk. Parents have less time for their children in their busy and economic-necessity-driven lives. Stranger danger is a far more pervasive fear than it once was.

The children are obviously willing; are we enabling them to make the most of their willingness?

Jesus was scathingly critical of those who might cause a child to stumble...

Marriage and happiness

2009-07-13T14:03:00.000-07:00

A recent Sydney Morning Herald article (http://www.smh.com.au/national/love-and-loathing--2500-couples-reveal-clues-20090713-dih4.html) says that, while age differences can be a good predictor of likely divorce, religious differences generally are not.

An earlier article on the same study suggested that living together before marriage is not a predictor, contrary to several other studies I have seen.

The irrelevance of religious differences doesn't particularly surprise me, though.

A Catholic friend once told me that, in 50-odd years of marriage, she had never once contemplated divorce -- though she had often considered murder.

The fact is that most religions discourage divorce, and encourage extra efforts to make the relationship work So it is to be expected that a couple having different religions would tend to struggle through.

However, what this study does not reveal is happiness in such a relationship. As a pastor, I am all too aware of the plight of the person who does not share a faith with her or his partner. The woman sitting alone in a back pew, or struggling with the kids while her husband sleeps in; the man who does what he can, but can't take too many responsibilities because his wife expects him home.

I am also aware of the difficulties that can occur when you have one of each in a congregation, of similar age and background, who might never do anything questionable, but it is clear that they sometimes wish that they were married to each other.

St Paul was wise to warn against being unequally yoked with an unbeliever, because, in a marriage, it can be a cause of many tensions and much unhappiness. It will also -- and this is probably Paul's main concern -- mean that the Christian partner is unable to devote his or her time adequately to ministering to others and serving Christ.

The fact that something may not fall apart doesn't necessarily mean that it really works.

Starting this blog

2009-07-12T21:01:00.000-07:00

Blogging of one kind or another is the go these days, and this is another of my attempts to make it work properly and communicate something about Jesus and what it means to me to be a Christian.

This is a first go on this site, and I expect to write more in future posts.

Love,

Peter