Set Apart In Christ

A Theology of Worship

2012-01-24T22:07:00.000+11:00

It is a reality of life that we all make assumptions. There’s no getting past that fact. What is important is to identify our assumptions and test them using an appropriate theological method. Before moving on to more specific issues relating to Christian worship, which I’ve previously identified as something I intend to write upon this year, I need to summarise a significant theological assumption of mine. I recognise that this impacts much of my thinking and my own approach to worship, but having thought through many of the implications of this assumption I would like to suggest that I find it appropriate. Here it is:

I assume that the purpose of life is to live in relationship with God, humanity and all of creation.

This is based on an understanding of God as primarily a relational God. This is observed both in the Trinity and in the way God has revealed himself throughout history. The Triune God created from within the Divine relationship in order to extend that relationship towards creation. Sin disrupted the relationship between God and his creation, but also within creation itself, in a way that humanity cannot possibly restore on its own. Even though this relationship with God is disturbed (but not yet destroyed) the faithful party (God) continues to remain faithful and never abandons his people. He continuously pursue humanity because of his love and desire to restore the relationship he created them for, even while they are disobedient. Whilst God justly disciplines unfaithfulness, even so he graciously extends himself towards the completely underserving in order to restore the relationship to where he intends it to be.

Hope in the ruins

2012-01-20T10:21:00.003+11:00

Last year I had the opportunity to visit Ireland. It was a fantastic few days that I spent with a friend of mine, Robert Birnie. Robert’s a minister in the Wesleyan church and we’d met during our studies at Nazarene Theological College in Manchester. There’s something about Robert’s Irish sense of humour that just seemed to ‘click’ with my own Australian one that meant that we became immediate (and I’m sure lifelong) friends.

I’ve been to England a few times now for study and I love visiting cathedrals and old churches there. Maybe it’s because I love to think of worship as transcending time and space. It’s bigger than me and the 100 or so people physically present with me in one given moment. When we gather for worship we join with Christians throughout all places and all ages (past, present and future) to worship one God. Visiting these historic buildings just gives me a very tangible reminder of that theological viewpoint on worship.

What is going on in worship today?

2012-01-18T08:30:00.000+11:00

“What is going on in worship today?”

This is the question with which Constance Cherry begins her 2004 article “My House Shall Be Called a House of… Announcements”. It’s a question that I frequently ask myself as well. Cherry’s article is challenging reading, not just because of the provocative title, but because of the evidence that she presents. No, it’s not a comprehensive study, and so we shouldn’t build an entire thesis upon it. However, it’s possible to ponder its conclusions seriously and so apply ourselves to some serious “worship reflection”.

Cherry makes it clear that she is operating on the assumption that “the way we spend our time is an indicator of what we consider to be important.” I think it’s a fair assumption. If we enjoy reading, then we will spend a fair portion of our time reading. If we think time with the family is important, then parents will spend time with their children. You get the picture.

Faster, Higher, Stronger

2012-01-12T08:30:00.000+11:00

Happy New Year!

2012 is, of course, an Olympic Year and so I’d like to issue an challenge in this first post of 2012. It’s inspired by the Olympic motto – “Citius, Altius, Fortius” which is translated “Faster, Higher, Stronger”.

A Christmas Message

2011-12-22T12:44:00.000+11:00

I'd just like to take the opportunity to say thank you to everyone who has participated in some way, shape or form on this blog throughout 2011. To those who've provided guest posts, people who've commented, those who've shared it with others through Facebook and Twitter, to everyone who's signed up to this site or just read anonymously... a HUGE thank you to you all!

Read more »

Booth College Summer Seminar

2011-12-15T12:24:00.000+11:00

I wanted to let you know of the upcoming Booth College Summer Seminar happening in January, 2012. Seminars will take place in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

The special guest at this years Seminar is Dr Ken Collins. He will be speaking on The Practical Theology of John Wesley.

More information, including online registration, is available at the Booth College website.

You can also purchase some of Ken Collins books on John Wesley through the Booth College Bookstore.

I hope to see you there.

Your first congregation

2011-12-14T12:01:00.000+11:00

The ongoing influence of John and Charles Wesley is unquestioned, and exponentially growing. Their contribution to the Christian church is well attested and we should be grateful for these two men of God. But whenever we speak of John and Charles we must keep in the back of our minds someone else, for as the old saying goes, “Behind every great man is a great woman.” Well, behind these two great men is undoubtedly one of the greatest women of Christian history, their mother, Susanna Wesley.

Much has been written about Susanna, as a mother of 19 (not all of whom survived childhood), the wife of a minister who was skilled in many things, but distinctly lacking aptitude in others, she was left at times as the sole carer of her children. What is significant, though, is the way in which she sought to treat her children as her own ministry responsibility.

Scripture and Same-Sex Marriage

2011-12-06T13:42:00.001+11:00

At the recent Australian Labor Party conference held in Sydney a change of party policy was introduced to allow Federal members a “conscience vote” if an amendment to the Marriage Act is brought before Parliament to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships. To be honest, I think the change is inevitable. The wave of change is swelling towards the shore and no amount of standing ankle deep screaming at the ocean to “cease and desist” is going to avoid same-sex marriage being legalised in this country. It’s now a matter of when, not if.

I have to say, I’m not a “doomsday” Christian on this. I don’t think it’s going to cause society to crumble in a heap of moral decay. I don’t think it will tear at the very fabric of society, nor do I think that it will weaken the institution of marriage.

Who Is Called?

2011-11-29T09:54:00.001+11:00

A question that’s been on my mind lately has been this; "What is a Salvation Army Officer?” More specifically, what makes a Salvation Army Officer different from anyone else? Indeed, are they different at all (apart from the obvious red epaulettes)? I've observed an emphasis upon the "call to Officership”, accompanied by an attempt to understand the place of ordination within our movement. All of this has led to, I would suggest, an ever increasing divide between Officers and Soldiers.

The problem here has been identified and analysed masterfully by Major Dr Harold Hill in his book Leadership in the Salvation Army: a Case study in Clericalisation. The problem is whether Officership is seen as a function within our movement or does “Ordination” and “Commissioning” somehow place Officers into a different "class" or even "caste". Historically and theologically we would align ourselves with the first option but more and more, at least in practice I suggest, we have begun to act like the second.

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the way we speak of the "call to Officership". The “call” is treated with deep reverence within The Salvation Army. Indeed the Officer’s Covenant, which all Officers must sign, starts with the words (in capital letters, no less) "CALLED BY GOD". Those who wish to apply for officership need to demonstrate throughout the application process that they have indeed been called and that this calling is evident in their lives. Cadets are also expected that their calling would be affirmed and confirmed throughout their training.

A Study Plan

2011-10-17T09:32:00.000+11:00

This Saturday 22nd October I will be in Manchester to graduate with a Master of Arts in Theology (Aspects of Christian Holiness). I started this degree in September 2008 and in the course of that study I also had to take on a new appointment (at the beginning of 2009), be a good husband and father, and look after myself throughout it all. I discovered fairly early on that I needed a good study schedule in order to achieve all that I needed to achieve, without any of my other responsibilities failing. There is no point in graduating with an MA if my marriage is falling apart, my kids don't know me, and my ministry was floundering. I had to maintain some measure of balance in my life.

I learnt this the hard way. I learnt this from experiencing extreme imbalance. This became abundantly clear when one night my wife said to me over the dinner table, "Let me know when you get back from visiting the study pixies." That was a big wake up call for me. I was present with my family physically, but mentally I was a long way away.... and it was obvious to those around me.

Read more »

Leadership: Getting the Balance Right

2011-10-11T11:28:00.000+11:00

Perhaps one of the most frustrating things is to be assigned a task and then to either be told every step of the way exactly how to do it or alternatively to be given no indication of how well you have done. I heard it said recently that leaders need to get the balance right in delegating authority and accountability. I have seen and been a part of situations where the balance has been out of kilt and I'm sure you will be able to identify similar situations.

Accountability With No Authority

Quite simply this imbalance can be summarised in one word - micromanaging. Personally I find is to be the most frustrating and disempowering way to be managed. In simple terms this occurs when the leader assigns a task and then insists on checking every minute detail along the way. The one given the task is not given any authority to make any decisions that matter but rather is placed in a situation where all they are doing is simply completing the task exactly how the manager wants it to be done.

I Did Not Vote No! - Guest Post from Tim Gittins

2011-10-05T10:13:00.001+11:00

I don’t know about you but I can’t help but notice all of the Facebook polls that are popping up recently telling me that someone voted "Yes" for something or "No" for something or voted for their favourite TV Character,… it seems that an endless number of polls are being created everyday on Facebook.

I want to confess to something – not to purge my soul – but to share a thought:

I did not vote “No” in the “Should Same Sex Marriage be allowed” survey.

In fact I have not signed any petition on the issue. I have not written to my MP or participated in any protests and every time I get an email in my inbox from the A.C.L (Australian Christian Lobby) and the word marriage is in the subject line – I delete it without opening.

Gregory of Nyssa - On Perfection

2011-09-19T20:38:00.000+10:00

It's clear by now that I'm very interested in Gregory of Nyssa, the Fourth Century bishop and theologian. My absolute favourite of his writings is On Perfection. It's been referred to Gregory's Christology, and this is because he goes to great lengths to display how the name "Christian" is derived from "Christ", and so the characteristics of a Christian are those that we see in Christ. Here is a selection of some of this work. I hope you see why I love his writing so much.
Read more »

Time for a change of appointment?

2011-09-16T16:30:00.000+10:00

OK.

Confession time.

Did you come to this wondering if I was about to reveal that I am about to receive a change in appointment? If so, I wonder if you've just emphasised the point I'm hoping to make here. That being, that I think the current system of appointing Officers needs to be discarded as it no longer remains best practice. In fact, the current system actually promotes gossip and voyeurism more than it does our mission objectives.
I'll come back to that momentarily.

Read more »

Gregory of Nyssa on Slavery - Audio Recording

2011-09-15T20:01:00.001+10:00

I presented at the St Andrew's Patristic Symposium on Gregory of Nyssa on the 14th September, 2011. My paper was entitled "'Neither Slave nor Free' - The theological foundations of Gregory of Nyssa's polemic against slavery". The recording of this is available here.

I would appreciate your feedback on this, particularly as I'm working on writing this paper up for publication.

Tough Questions - Guest Post from Vanessa Kohler

2011-09-15T09:00:00.000+10:00

Vanessa Kohler is a cadet at the School for Officer Training. She shared this last week in our worship time, and I've asked her if I could post it here.
____________________________________________________

By my very nature, I’m a bit of a question asker. I am the queen of questions. How do we do this? Why does this happen the way it does? Am I doing this right? One of the important things I’ve realised in my 2 years at the School for Officer Training is that the more I know, the more I realise I don’t know anything at all.

This has been a place where I have asked many questions. Questions such as

Did the creation story in Genesis really happen, or was it just a myth?
Am I really doing the right thing being here at the School for Officer Training at this stage of my life?
What kind of Officer do I want to be?
How do I know what is truth and what isn’t?
How do we do church?
Is there really a person called “Satan”, or is he something that has been constructed by the church and bible translators?
Who is Jesus? Really?
Who is Vanessa Kohler?

Book Review: Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity

2011-09-14T10:58:00.001+10:00

Markus Vinzent, Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament, (Surrey: Ashgate, 2011).

One of the critical aspects of Christian thought is the belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Belief in the risen Christ lies at the heart of Christian faith for, in the words of Paul, "If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain." (1 Cor 15:14). This is why Markus Vinzent's Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament will make waves of tsunami proportions throughout Christian scholarship. To be clear, Vinzent's research is not about whether or not Christ rose from the dead. Rather when, how and to whom did it become important to confess the risen Christ? Vinzent's answer to this question is, to be frank, startling:

Had Marcion [of Sinope]... not picked up Paul's letters and put them together with a Gospel, the Resurrection of Christ would presumably never have made its way into the Christian creed. The myth of God incarnate gave way, though only slowly and never fully, to the other myth of Jesus, the Risen Christ. (pg 2)

Storm the Forts.... 5, 6, 7, 8

2011-08-05T10:28:00.001+10:00

Someone showed this to me this morning, and in the light of my last post I couldn't resist posting this video here.

Oh dear.... Here goes

Winning the world WITH Jesus

2011-08-04T16:30:00.001+10:00

One of my favourite Salvation Army Songs is "Storm the Forts of Darkness" (Song 802 in The Salvation Army Song Book). It's a real battle song. I love the way the chorus moves from "fighting words" to "praising words", and the use of the word "Lamb" at that point I think is particularly important. I also love the fact that this tune used to be a "pub" song, but was "captured" (back in the days before copyright issues prevented such a thing) and the words changed for Army purposes. We used to do this frequently, and this is perhaps the best and longest surviving example. I like that it used to be "Here's to good ole whiskey, drink it down, drink it down" but then became "Storm the forts of darkness, bring them down, bring them down." Genius!

But, there's just one word in this song (in three specific locations) that I would prefer to be changed. It's a little word, but I think a change here would make this song even better. It's the word FOR. It appears in the last line of every verse - "And take the field FOR Jesus"; "And dare or die FOR Jesus"; "And win the world FOR Jesus".

What's the problem?

Read more »

International Conference on Patristics Studies

2011-08-02T23:02:00.000+10:00

The 16th International Conference on Patristic Studies is to take place in Oxford next week. Sadly I won't be there, but I'm sure it will provide another great insight into a fascinating time in Christian history.

The conference programme can be viewed here.
http://www.patristics.org.uk/

Also, there is a blog being run by Professor Markus Vinzent which currently has the abstracts for the papers being presented available. It's accessible here.
http://oxfordpatristics.blogspot.com/

If you're interested at all in Patristics, and you're able to attend, then this is the one to be at.

Do this, don't do that.... ah, the irony.

2011-07-25T15:17:00.000+10:00

This is a kind of postscript to my recent series on Salvation Army Sacramental Theology (which starts here). I want to provide a selection of quotes about Christ's words of institution - "Do this in remembrance of me" (1 Cor 11:24). These are taken from a particular commentary (which will be revealed shortly) because I find them… well… ironic. Not because of what they say, but simply because of where they have been printed. More on that in a moment. For, now, here are the quotes...

What is it like to be you?

2011-07-22T09:00:00.034+10:00

What is it like to be you?

What is it like to sleep on a park bench?

What is it like to be you?

What is it like to flee on a small boat?

What is it like to be you?

What is it like to be starving, with no food?

What is it like to be you?

"Dangerous" Degrees

2011-07-21T11:53:00.001+10:00

One of the interesting stories in Salvation Army history is about Samuel Logan Brengle. Through a series of events Brengle was attracted to the Army to the point of desiring to become an Officer within its ranks. Here’s how David Rightmire has recounted this story in his biography of Brengle, Sanctified Sanity (pg 18-19).

Brengle arrived at the International Headquarters of The Salvation Army in London on June 1, 1887, to a lukewarm reception by William Booth. The Founder was not impressed with this new recruit, believing him to be of the "dangerous classes" (i.e. a man of education and culture) and hence unable to submit to Army discipline. Sam expressed his belief that the Holy Spirit had not only sanctified him, but had led him to offer his life in service within the Army. Brengle convinced the General of his sincerity by expressing his desire to join the ranks in order to minister self-sacrificially to the poor, stating: "I knew my only way up to heaven was by going down to the lowest of the low." He had passed his first test but was sent to be interviewed by the Chief of the Staff, Bramwell Booth. Once again, Brengle was labelled a member of the dangerous classes and warned not to waste his time in joining an organisation that he would probably leave in a year or two. Not to be rebuffed, the candidate persisted until Bramwell agreed to let him in on a trial basis.

More on same-sex marriage

2011-07-17T17:50:00.002+10:00

How do I write further on this topic? I have been completely overwhelmed by the response I have received to my last post, On same-sex marriage. As I write this follow-up post the first one has just past 800 views. My blog has never seen traffic like this before, and I have been completely humbled by that.

Read more »

Upcoming Events

2011-07-16T15:31:00.001+10:00

There are a few events coming up which you might find interesting to attend.

Firstly, the Coutts Memorial Lecture will be on in both Sydney and Brisbane again this year. Lars Lydholm, a Salvationist from Denmark, will be speak on the topic "Human, Holy and Divine - the same thing? Reflections on modern Christology". Admission is free!

Sydney - 28 July, 2011 at 7:30pm
Booth College Conference Centre,
120 Kingsland Road
Bexley North, NSW 2207
Click here to RSVP via Facebook

Brisbane - 31 July, 2011 at 3:00pm
Carindale Salvation Army
202 Gallipoli Road,
Carina QLD 4152
Click here to RSVP via Facebook

The Sydney lecture will also be livestreamed at this link. Enter as a "guest".

Read more »

On same-sex marriage

2011-07-14T12:53:00.001+10:00

I’m a married to a loving wife. I’m a white male living in middle class Australia, with two kids, two fish and a cat. I live in an inner city suburb of the largest city in Australia, Sydney. I was born in Australia (Adelaide, no less, but that still counts) and have lived here all of my life. All of those factors combined put me in a position of power. Power I didn’t choose, or fight for, but power I’ve been given nonetheless. Add to that the fact that I am an Officer in The Salvation Army, which as an institution has earned a powerful voice in this country and my position of power is enhanced dramatically.

I don’t have to fight for my voice to be heard. I don’t live on the margins of society, and by and large I’m not prejudiced against, except perhaps that I’m not allowed to become a member at a one of those "women-only" gyms… not that I really want to.

St Andrews Patristic Symposium - Program

2011-07-09T16:05:00.001+10:00

Since my last post I discovered that the program is now available too, which includes more details on speakers and their respective dates. I'll be speaking on 14 September.

See you there.

St Andrews Patristic Symposium

2011-07-08T17:04:00.001+10:00

I'd like to let you know about St Andrew's Patristic Symposium which is coming up in August and September. The last two years have focussed upon two of the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen, so naturally this year is looking at Gregory of Nyssa. Needless to say, I'm quite excited about this. I've had a paper proposal accepted for this and will be speaking on the theological foundations of Gregory's polemic against slavery, often considered the first outright Christian condemnation of the practice. Here's the flyer for more information. Hope to see you there.

Fear

2011-07-07T09:33:00.000+10:00

This morning I was meditating on Psalm 118:6 "With the Lord on my side I do not fear. What can mortals do to me?" During the time I spent contemplating this verse (particularly the words "do not fear") I felt the need to write. I grabbed my journal and in a few minutes a poem had formed. I don't consider myself a wordsmith, rather I'm finding the process itself to be spiritually cathartic. I hope others may find it beneficial too.

Fear

The crippling vice of tension,

gripping at my soul.

Desperate to stop my progress,

to weaken my resolve.

I feel my muscles tighten,

my mind, it turns to mud.

But hear the voice of Jesus,

his comforting words of love.

"Do not be afraid. No matter

what the world may say.

Do not listen, either, to

your own voice of dismay.

For I am Lord of all;

in charge of all you see.

And I am with you always,

your enemies bow to me."

Salvation Army Sacramental Theology - Part 5

2011-07-05T00:31:00.002+10:00

This post follows on from Part One, Two, Three, and Four in a series on The Salvation Army's position regarding the sacraments. This will be the final post in this series.

I start with a few cautions for us to consider.

The "Prophetic" calling of The Salvation Army - Of late there has been a particular emphasis on our "Testimonial" role on the possibility of a Christian life lived "without sacramental ritual". The big questions for any prophet are (a) are you really saying what God wants you to say, and is that supported by Scripture, and (b) what evidence do you have to support such claims. In response to (a) there is probably more support for an observant position than a non-observant one, and for (b) there have not been any other denominations adopt a stance. Sure, they respect us and admire us, but no one's joining us. Our prophetic role is either ineffectual, or needs closer scrutiny.
Who's decision was this? James Pedlar has closely compared Salvation Story (1998) with the latest Handbook of Doctrine through a couple of posts, including a very interesting table. All of these can be accessed through his blog here. One significant shift has been the change in language at one particular point. In Salvation Story it reads: “Early in our history, The Salvation Army chose not to observe specific sacraments as prescribed rituals.” In the Handbook of Doctrine it reads: "Early in our history, The Salvation Army was led of God not to observe specific sacraments, that is baptism and the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, as prescribed rituals." Again, is there support in Scripture for this claim? I join with James on this particular point and suggest that a little more reticence should be displayed here before jumping to such a conclusion.
Let's be careful about our "sacramental songs" - Whenever this topic comes up in Salvation Army circles inevitably someone says "My life must be Christ's broken bread, my love his outpoured wine." I'm actually a little sick of it. For two reasons; (a) it normally stops the conversation and so stops people from actually "thinking" about what they're saying and (b) what have we done with Christ's words here? He was the one who said "this is my body" and we go and say "actually 'No' Lord, my life is your broken bread, thank you very much." Is there not just a tinge bit of arrogance in those words? I certainly respect General Albert Osborne and his genuine attempt to encourage Salvationists to live a life that demonstrates Christ's love for others, but when we use these lyrics as the crux of our sacramental theology, we have a significant exegetical problem. The astute might notice that I said "songs", too. I always wonder why "O Boundless Salvation" doesn't get more mileage when we discuss this? "My sins they are many, the stains are so deep... Thy waters can cleanse me, come roll over me." Sounds a little like baptism to me.

Salvation Army Sacramental Theology - Part 4

2011-07-01T12:36:00.003+10:00

This post follows on from Part One, Two and Three in a series on The Salvation Army's position regarding the sacraments. In the last post I summarised the commonly stated reasons for the Army's non-observant stance. I've not gone into much detail for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this ground has been very well trodden by several other authors and so I don't see much benefit in travelling the same ground again. Secondly, and more importantly for me, I'd rather focus upon the rites that are a part of our worship. This is more often than not a significant omission in discussions regarding the place of the sacraments in The Salvation Army. This is what I'd like to discuss in this next installment. Firstly, though, a story...

Read more »

Why did you join the Army?

2011-06-29T17:19:00.000+10:00

I find that when I start investigating some Army history I always find a little nugget of gold or two... Here's another one of those from a book called Drum Taps by Elizabeth Reeves Swift (pg169-170). There's no date for this one, sorry, but it seems to be a late 19th Century publication. This is quoted as it is written, and it's an attempt to capture the Scottish accent of the "Salvation Lassie" being interview here. I think it's got a lot to say about the significance of testimony in the early Army.

"And did no one object to your going to the Army instead?"

"Ay, when I joined it. My minister came efter me, an' asked why I didna' come to kirk [church] any mair? I tellt him 'at I got mair good at the Army. 'But they talk aboot theirsel's,' he says 'an' I preach Jesus.'

"But I wasna sae; the Army folk tellt what God had dune for them, and so I kent 'at He could do it for me. I understood the sairmons, but the talk was too high; religion seemed on'y to preach aboot, an' as if no one could live it. But when I went to the Army an' heard lasses 'at I knew testify, an' saw the change in their lives, I knew 'at the God who saved them could me. I knew all the plan o' salvation as they talked; it was the same doctrine I'd heard in the kirk, on'y the Army puts it plainer, an' sae ye can live it - it's a practical religion."

It continues...

"Why did you join the Army?" I persisted. My lassie pondered a little before she spoke again.

"For a chance to work," she said slowly, at last. "It's a live religion. It's not only goin' to the meetings, but they expect you to live out the religion at home, an' everywhere, an' beside that, to be always doin' something for other souls. I'm willin' to do anything for them. If stayin' home quietlike an' prayin', would get these lasses to go anywhere an' get saved, I'd like that fine, but it winna. So I do what will. An' what got me in will get them yet."

PowerPoint - 1891 style

2011-06-28T16:11:00.000+10:00

I've been preparing for a lecture on the characteristics of The Salvation Army and stumbled across this interesting quote from The Salvation Army - Its Origin and Development (London: Salvationist Publishing and Supplies, 1945), 60. I find it interesting because what's described here we would consider normal now (at least in locations that can afford data projectors). But this is describing 1891. They were way ahead of their time.

The system of special Memorial Services, introduced in connection with the passing of the Army Mother, has been wonderfully blessed. The first of these services was held on the first anniversary of Catherine Booth's death, in the Agricultural Hall - then one of London's largest buildings. It was impossible for the speakers to be heard in so large a hall, so each part of the service was indicated by large illuminated signs. Thus the audience of some 15,000 was able closely and unitedly to join in all the songs and prayers. Scenes from Mrs Booth's life and messages both from her writings and from those of the Founder, were displayed on a great lantern screen. A similar service was held in connection with the promotion to Glory of the Founder himself.

Fascinating stuff.

Bizarre Phrases...

2011-06-22T00:20:00.000+10:00

There are a few frequently heard phrases that I just don't get.

"Common sense". Since when is it common?
"Getting some exercise". You don't get it. It's something you do. Well, apparently some people do. I wish I could just get it, but I don't (nor do I do it for that matter!)
"Losing your virginity". You lose your wallet, or your car keys, or even weight. Your virginity... that's given away (or tragically stolen for some).
"Jesus loves me, this I know. For the Bible tells me so."

This last one strikes at the heart of what we understand the Bible to be and do. Frankly... it doesn't talk to me. It doesn't do anything. It's a book. Paper and print. That's all.

Now before you go and stone me, let me qualify this statement. The reason the Bible is "Sacred Scripture" is because the church has found it to be a way that God has revealed himself to his people. The Bible hasn't done this in and of itself, God has. The Bible is the tool in the hands of the redeeming God, used for his purposes. Even in the oft quoted 2 Timothy 3:16; "All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."; it's not the scriptures that do the teaching, etc, but the teacher, rebuker, corrector and trainer. It's a tool for those purposes. A sacred tool, yes, but a tool nonetheless.

Why is this distinction important? Well, let's rephrase number 4 above in the light of this. "Jesus loves me, this I know. For God himself tells me so." Christianity is not Bibliocentric, but Theocentric (Christocentric if you want to). It is not centred on a book, but in a relational, self-revealing God whom we have come to know primarily in the person of Jesus Christ. That God is revealed through that Book, but only because he reveals himself through that Book, as the Spirit inspires our shared reading of that Book. The word of God is the word of God because of God, not because of anything in the words themselves. It is him that we have relationship with and him who confirms to us that he loves us - not the book.

It's a subtle, but I think a very important distinction. Otherwise it's possible to make almighty claims about the Bible and suggest that it is saying what is in fact our interpretation. Perhaps even going so far as to suggest that our interpretation is "guaranteed"...

No one would ever do that, though, would they?

The Fork

2011-06-15T19:13:00.000+10:00

I thought I would have a go at some poetry. I don't know if it's any good or not, but something tells me it's less about being good, and more about just having a go. So here goes... I call this "The Fork".

Read more »

Salvation Army Sacramental Theology - Part 3

2011-06-11T13:12:00.001+10:00

This post is a continuation from Parts One and Two in a series covering The Salvation Army's position regarding the sacraments. In this post we summarise the explanations commonly given for both the original decision, and for the Army's choice to maintain it's non-observing stance. This is based on research I did for my Honours dissertation, where I listed these reasons under seven headings. I've subsequently added an eighth, for reasons I think will become clear. Here they are, in no particular order.
Read more »

Salvation Army Sacramental Theology - Part 2

2011-06-03T16:55:00.002+10:00

This post is a continuation from Part 1 on The Salvation Army's position regarding the sacraments.

In this post we consider the decision itself, as it was found in the War Cry of 17th January, 1883. It was, just prior to this date, William Booth's New Year's address, perhaps suggesting that this was the mark of a new phase in the Army's life; a kind of New Year's resolution, if you will. The original article has been reprinted and made available again in Robert Street's Called to be God's People (Pg 135).

Read more »

Keep going!

2011-06-03T10:29:00.000+10:00

I stumbled across this poem by Michael Leunig. I like it because of its simple profundity.

Enjoy!

How To Get There

Go to the end of the path until you get to the gate.

Go through the gate and head straight out towards the horizon.

Keep going towards the horizon.

Sit down and have a rest every now and again.

But keep on going. Just keep on with it.

Keep on going as far as you can.

That's how you get there.

Salvation Army Sacramental Theology - Part 1

2011-06-01T11:27:00.001+10:00

A distinctive part of The Salvation Army's self-understanding has been the decision taken to discontinue practising the dominical sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist in any form within Army worship. This decision was made by William Booth and published in the War Cry of 17th January of 1883, and means that, along with the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Army is one of two denominations to take this stance officially. Many others in practice share this position by virtue of the infrequency of their partaking of the sacraments.

Read more »

A Pre-Rapture Prayer

2011-05-20T09:59:00.001+10:00

Dear Lord...

Well, it's May 20, 2011. Rapture Eve. There's been plenty of excitement building. Expectation abounds. Christians all throughout the world are packing their bags, saying goodbyes, and waiting like little children on the night before Christmas; wondering what tomorrow will bring.

Cloudy with a chance of firey hail?
Read more »

Animals - What are they for anyway?

2011-05-18T16:13:00.001+10:00

Special guest post from Dr Glen O'Brien

__________________________________________________________

Mark Twain once said that human beings have a lot to learn from the higher animals. Investigation of interspecies spirituality and animals as religious subjects is new territory for most of us. But increasingly scientists, including psychologists, have begun to investigate such questions as whether animals dream, wonder, contemplate death, are conscious of themselves and others, have a sense of right and wrong, shame, loyalty etc. that go beyond the usual explanations of such things as purely instinctual responses devoid of what we humans call “reflection.”

Remember the Fallen

2011-04-25T11:39:00.001+10:00

It is a very significant and highly unusual Easter this year in Australia and New Zealand. For the first time ever Easter and ANZAC day coincide with one another. I find it incredibly ironic that the date of Easter, the most important day in the Christian calendar, is determined each year by an astronomical event. It goes something like this... the weekend closest to the first full moon which comes after the Autumn (southern hemisphere) or Spring (northern hemisphere) equinox; that date being March 21. A couple of years ago we had the earliest Easter for over 100 years. This year it's quite late, with Easter Sunday on April 24. The next day, April 25, is a day of special significance to Australians and New Zealanders. It is the day we remember those who have fought in conflicts, not just WW1 and WW2, but all conflicts and peace keeping efforts we as nations have been actively involved in. It is a day when we remember the fallen.

The date goes back to 1915 when, due to a monumental stuff-up, ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) troops landed at the wrong spot; Gallipoli - a small beach on the coast of Turkey. Heavily outnumbered and never having the high ground, there were massive casualties on both sides. Whilst it was a military disaster, for Australia; a relatively young nation with federation only occurring 14 years earlier, it was the time when we consider ourselves to have "come into our own". Great respect was one between both sides, and there is a deep respect between Australia, New Zealand and Turkey resulting from the bravery of all involved.
Read more »

It's all fun and games until someone loses a tooth!

2011-04-24T18:56:00.002+10:00

Yesterday was one of the most bizarre and most horrifying of my life.

We've spent the last week taking some well earned time off and enjoying the last week of the school holidays with the kids. We decided to treat them to an outing to a kid's play centre nearby, affectionately known in our house as 'the bumpy slide'. We've been to several of these over the life of the girls, but this was a new place for us. When we arrived we were really impressed with this one. It was clean and tidy, the equipment all looked relatively new and in great condition, and the staff were friendly and attentive. We unleashed the kids and let them loose. They knew what to do.

The kids were having a great time. After about an hour or so Megan and I were talking through our plans for the rest of the afternoon. Little did we know that none of them were going to happen. One of the pieces of equipment at this particular centre was a large jumping castle. It had the same shape as this one pictured here, but different pictures on it. At one point Annabelle (our youngest) was climbing on the wall at the front, which made me nervous (in this picture the part where Nemo's dad is patting Nemo on the head). So I got up out of my chair to tell her to hop down and play safely. Just as I did so Brielle (our oldest) appeared from behind her, having just come down the slide part of this jumping castle. Something was drastically wrong. She had "that look" in her eye, and was screaming. As a parent, you know that look very well, and somehow categorise cries and screams by priority levels. Well, this scream was a 10 on that scale. As I got closer to Brielle I could see she was holding something. I didn't recognise it at first, but my first thoughts were (a) it's a compound fracture of her finger and this was a bone (b) she's landed on some piece of plastic or otherwise and it's now imbedded in her hand. It was my wife who identified it - "It's her tooth!" She told us later that she had bounced down the slide and her face hit the netting above the slide. Incredibly, the netting got caught under her tooth and ripped it almost completely out. Brielle, in the shock of the moment, felt her tooth in a completely unusual position, and thinking it was the wobbly tooth in her mouth, pulled at the tooth and it came out.
Read more »

A Split in the Trinity?

2011-04-05T09:52:00.001+10:00

Recently there have been some discussions amongst my online friends about the nature of the Trinity following a statement made by a visiting lecturer to Asbury Theological Seminary. I wasn't at the lecture, but from all accounts the suggestion was made that, as Jesus cried "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46) on the cross that there was, at that moment, a split in the Trinity. You can read more on the details of the lecture and some responses at both Jeffrey Rudy's and Isaac Hopper's respective blogs.

Of course, for anything to do with Trinitarian theology Gregory of Nyssa, as one of the Cappadocian Fathers, will have something important to say. Whilst he doesn't address the issue of a split in the Trinity with regards to Jesus on the cross, he does address the suggestion of a split, albeit under a different guise. Gregory in On the Holy Spirit is addressing the suggestion from Macedonius that the Holy Spirit was just "a divine energy diffused throughout the universe: and not a person distinct from the Father and the Son." (Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit, in NPNFV (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co, 1892, 315-325), 315, n1). It's clear that Gregory disagrees with this suggestion, but whenever we disagree with someone else's teaching the question always arises "do I or don't I seek to address this? Is this a significant problem? Is this a hill I should die on?" For Gregory the answer is clearly "yes".

There is a danger lest through our silence error may prevail over the truth, and so the rotting sore of this heresy may invade it, and make havoc of the sound word of faith. (ibid, 315).

Jesus: Truly and Properly Human?

2011-04-01T00:02:00.000+11:00

One particularly fascinating theological discussion relates to the humanity of Jesus. It's an important discussion, and tends to revolve around this question "What kind of human was Jesus?" The difficulty with answering this question is twofold. Firstly, the problem that Gregory Nazianzus highlighted long ago;

"For that which he has not assumed he has not healed; but that which is united to the Godhead he has saved" (Letter 101)

In other words, if Jesus did not become completely human like us then all that he achieved is ineffective and so a waste of time and energy. Humanity remains in the condition that it has been in since the Fall and we need an alternative saviour to either "top up" what Jesus didn't (or wasn't able to) achieve, or have another go at it all. Clearly this will not do.

Read more »

How do we read the Bible?

2011-03-29T07:18:00.001+11:00

Special Guest Post by Chick Yuill. This was posted by Chick recently on his Facebook page, and is reproduced here with his kind permission.

This year we celebrate the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible. And this week two things have stimulated my thinking in relation to Scripture.

Men and Women

Firstly, I read an email from a young woman who has joined the Christian Union at her university only to discover that a woman is not allowed to do the weekly talk. Neither is she allowed to stand for president of the CU because they believe she would not have 'the necessary authority'. I responded to this by describing it as 'gender bigotry masquerading under the cloak of biblical loyalty'.

An eventful honeymoon... 11 Years On

2011-03-27T08:01:00.000+11:00

I posted this last year, and repost it today as the 27th March is the 11th Anniversary of this event.
_______________________________________________________________________________

It's been 10 years since the disastrous events of my honeymoon and in that time I've told this story plenty of times, but have never actually sat down to write it out. I thought that since it's now 10 years since my diagnosis I would take the time to write out what happened to my wife and me on what was supposed to be a celebration of our new marriage...

So here goes...

Read more »

Book Review: Helps to Holiness

2011-03-25T19:56:00.003+11:00

Samuel Logan Brengle, Helps to Holiness. London: Salvationist Publishing and Supplies, 1955.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Samuel Logan Brengle (1860-1936) is a name familiar to Salvationists all over the world and rightly so. His name is synonymous, in Army circles, with "holiness teaching" largely because of his writings on this topic, but also because he was, in fact, a holy man. Every year Officers are selected to attend "Brengles" at which holiness teaching is high on the agenda. It is with a great deal of respect that I offer this critique of this particular book, and whilst it will become very clear that I do not agree with all that he says, it is because I respect him and his legacy that I, in fact, do this. We do not respect any writer in anyway if all we do is accept what they say uncritically. We must engage with what has been written; applauding that which is worthy of such, similarly but offering correction when it is necessary. For Christians (and for me as a Wesleyan), this means testing what has been said through the lens of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience.

So, here goes.

Read more »

Free Seats

2011-03-21T14:09:00.004+11:00

During some time I spent in England in 2010 I happened to come across a shop that sold old maps. It was a very small shop with lots to see throughout. Maps from all over the world, and of varying histories, were displayed on the walls, and others were available to pick up and hold and purchase. There were some incredibly detailed and very old drawings. My fascination with history was enthused and so I spent a good hour looking around.... then I discovered a small staircase leading upstairs. There was even more to see.

The upper room held different artifacts, though. Here there were clippings from old newspapers and books. Many of them were fascinating drawings of historical events, some cartoons, and others of a more serious nature.

Then I found it. An absolute gem of a picture that I knew I had to have.

Read more »

Eternal Conscious Punishment - To Hell With It!

2011-03-11T20:36:00.001+11:00

Special Guest Post by Matt Cairns

It was a relatively quiet night at work until I walked into a hearty discussion between two of my work friends. One, a sincere Christian, and the other, a sincere agnostic. My Christian friend was trying, somewhat in vain, to convince my agnostic friend about God's existence and the consequences of not living God's way. Then came the line that seems to be the sticking point - “I refuse to believe in a God who would torture you forever just because you don't believe in him”. My Christian friend tried the whole it's God's justice line but it seemed a deal breaker – she just wasn't going to buy it. But it got me thinking. Do I believe in a God who would torture someone for all eternity just because they choose by their own God-given free will not to believe in him? It had been something I had been wrestling with for a few years but my friend’s conversation bought it to a head – I needed to know what I believed and here are my conclusions.
Read more »

Love wins? I hope so!

2011-03-09T23:33:00.002+11:00

In the last 10 days or so there has been some significant discussions taking place in the bloggisphere and twitterverse, particular since Rob Bell's publishers released a tantalisingly worded preview of his upcoming book. The negative responses posted by those who immediately wanted to label Bell's theology as universalism (particularly John Piper and Justin Taylor) meant that "Rob Bell" began to trend in Twitter. The other reaction has been to the book itself. It hasn't even been released, but as at today it's number 13 on Amazon.com's Top 100 list. As one other author commented "I wish Justin Taylor had labelled me a universalist too".
Read more »

St Macrina's Deathbed Prayer

2011-03-04T10:40:00.001+11:00

This would have to be one of the most beautiful prayers I've ever read. I hope you agree. It is from Gregory of Nyssa's Life of St Macrina. Macrina was his older sister, and clearly from this hagiography (account of the life of a holy person) she was a woman whom he greatly respected. His other work On the Soul and Resurrection is portrayed as a dialogue between Gregory and his sister upon the death of their brother, Basil the Great (one of the other so-called "Cappadocian Fathers"). There it is Macrina consoling the younger brother, Gregory, through his grief.

Of course, this prayer is Gregory writing after the fact, and so it's likely to have been embellished somewhat, given his great respect for his sister, and that grief always colours our recollection of events (either for good or for bad). Still, it's a beautifully poetic piece of writing, laden with Biblical imagery and theological significance and yet it remains strikingly timeless.

Read more »

Rob Bell... a universalist?

2011-02-27T17:09:00.000+11:00

Today I was surprised to see that Rob Bell was trending in Twitter. Normally the "top ten" of the twitterverse is reserved for the likes of Justin Beiber et al. You know, the people that all the kids are into these days... But, Rob Bell? How did that happen? I had to find out... One click, and inspecting just a few tweets revealed why. That theological dirty word has been thrown at someone again like the proverbial "mud" and as always, it's stuck... universalism. Rob Bell is a universalist. Well, that's what we think he is at least. He must be if he titles his book "Love Wins", doesn't he?

I've posted on this topic before here, and received some interesting responses at that time. Again, I'm not a universalist myself, but I wish I was. I wish that everyone "made it in the end'. I'm certainly sympathetic to theologians who propose universalism as the way things will end. I think God might even be sympathetic as well. The theologian that most interests me, Gregory of Nyssa, was a universalist, and even suggests that the devil himself will be redeemed "in the end" (I've posted on that before here). It certainly takes some bravery, at the very least.

So, what's the problem?
Read more »

The Priesthood of All Believers?

2011-02-21T17:08:00.001+11:00

The theological concept of the “Priesthood of all believers” is one that is thrown around frequently. This statement suggests that those in full-time ministry, and in my denomination this means Officers, do not undergo an ontological change upon being ordained and commissioned. Rather their being commissioned as Officers (or ordained as ministers in other contexts) provides a framework for a new “role” within the church. The associated responsibilities of that role are therefore to be undertaken under the authority of the community of faith. The way one enters into that “role”, in The Salvation Army context, is through the Officer’s covenant – grace-based and enabled, and affirmed by the community of believers. However, there is a significant problem in our day and age. Luther is given most credit for the employment of this phrase, but we’re in an entirely different context to him. So can we still refer to the “priesthood of all believers” today in a way that is faithful to his meaning? I would like to suggest that we cannot. Here’s why.

Luther was in a setting which required him to go to the extreme polar opposite on many theological issues just to make his point heard. For example, within his doctrine of sanctification he speaks of “two kinds of righteousness” – the actual righteousness of the believer, and the “alien” righteousness of Christ. The word “alien” used by Luther here is deliberately extreme. The mediaeval theology that he was wrestling against suggested that it was possible for a person to somehow be “righteous enough” in order to be justified (classically known as works-righteousness). Luther’s point, based upon his reading of Romans in particular, is “No, you need a righteousness that is not your own”; i.e. an “alien” righteousness – the righteousness of Christ, and this is imputed (counted as theirs, but not actually theirs) to the believer through faith.

Free Funerals for Asylum Seekers.

2011-02-16T21:44:00.003+11:00

One of the darkest days in recent Australian history had an even greater impact because it was captured on film. On December 15, 2010 a boat full of refugees crash into rocks on Christmas Island, which lies to the North-West of the mainland of Australia. Tragically many of the people on board did not survive, including children and babies. I know that many people in Australia were shocked by the images that were shown on our TV screens. We watched, along with the helpless bystanders, in disbelief at what was transpiring.

Of course in the days to come questions were asked about what could have, or should have, been done to prevent this tragedy as society angrily sought someone to blame. Was this due to Government policy? Where was the Navy? So on and so on, the questions kept coming.
Read more »

Moving ahead... with your help

2011-02-12T09:07:00.000+11:00

This blog, setapartinchrist.blogspot.com, has been up and running now for just over two years. In that time there have been over 4000 individual page views from an audience all over the world. This has been greatly encouraging to see. I hope the ministry of this site continues to expand as we post on issues that are interesting, challenging and contribute to God's mission in and for the world.

In order to move ahead I've firstly changed the web address for this site. It is now located at www.setapartinchrist.com. Why not bookmark this new site in your favourites? Also, you can choose to "Follow" this site by clicking on the button on the right hand side of this screen.

You can also help this site expand in the following ways...

Me and my crazy cat, Dash

Suggest topics or questions for consideration or debate
Submit a post. I would love to have guest contributors here.
Comment on posts as they occur to contribute to the discussion
Pray for me and this site.

You can contact me by emailing adam@setapartinchrist.com

Thanks again for your ongoing support.

God bless
Adam

Are we on the verge of a crisis?

2011-02-10T20:20:00.000+11:00

It was pointed out to me recently that there are fewer and fewer musicians in The Salvation Army than 15 - 20 years ago. It's a complicated scenario, but I would like to suggest one contributing factor to this. I suggest that this is the collateral damage of the Worship Wars. I don't need to describe to you what happened during the 90s in particular when whatever was "old" was considered "bad" and so abandoned for the "new and relevant" worship and mission tools. Part of what has been lost, or is being lost in the vast majority of corps is brass bands. Now, I don't want to open up old wounds, nor "take sides" in a dead debate from last century. That's not my agenda here. I just want to highlight what we lost when we abandoned banding on a large scale in The Army.Read more »

Video of the announcement of General-Elect Linda Bond

2011-02-01T17:18:00.000+11:00

Here are some videos of the announcement of the 19th General of The Salvation Army, Linda Bond.

Long version (25 mins)

Short version (2 mins)

Enjoy!
Adam

Livestreaming announcement of the General

2011-02-01T03:03:00.001+11:00

Live stream no longer active...
Go to this post for access to the videos
Thanks
Adam

The Role of the Preacher

2011-01-31T21:58:00.002+11:00

I was in the car today and happened to have one of "my" channels on because no one else was with me. You know what I mean. Whenever my wife and/or kids are in the car these are the channels I'm not allowed to listen to because they don't play "good" music... at least in their opinion. I have two such stations that normally play a selection of classical, operatic and jazz (the latter being the option I'm normally hoping for). Today there was an interview with Australian Opera conductor, Antony Walker. Who's he? Well, to be honest I don't really know. I've never heard of him before, and I wasn't really listening attentively, but I did pick up one comment that I found really interesting. Talking about the role of the conductor he said this

As an opera conductor I have two main tasks; one is to help the singers sing as well as they possibly can, and two, to be the composer’s advocate, and I take that role very seriously.

Who knew that conductor's did more than just wave their arms around?!?!
Read more »

Footage from 1954 High Council

2011-01-29T23:47:00.000+11:00

Some more footage from High Councils of the past. No sound on these, but in the first clip you will see inside the High Council of 1954. In the second General-elect Wilfred Kitching exits to great those waiting, shortly after the retiring General Albert Orsborn greets the new General.

Clip 1

Clip 2

Enjoy!
Adam

Video footage from the 2nd High Council

2011-01-28T17:01:00.000+11:00

A step back in time to when Evangeline Booth was elected General of The Salvation Army. Fascinating stuff.

High Council 21st Century Style

2011-01-28T10:13:00.002+11:00

1954 High Council

Looking at the latest update from the High Council is mind boggling. The stats on how many people are accessing information about this important event are incredible. Keep in mind that the High Council has only been going for just on a week now, and yet there are thousands of people all over the world engaged in online discussions about it.

Read more »

Hook, line and sinker

2011-01-28T00:26:00.001+11:00

Arguably Gregory of Nyssa's most famous contribution to Christian theology, next to his involvement with the other Cappadocian Fathers in the solidification of the doctrine of the Trinity, is his famous "fish-hook" theory of the atonement. It goes a little something like this...

Humanity is enslaved to sin and the devil by their own free choice to turn away from the Good (i.e. God) and towards evil. God could free humanity arbitrarily, but this would deny his own justice, since it was the free choice of humanity to be enslaved. The slave-master (even if it is the devil) must receive a payment for the slave.

What would he accept in exchange for the thing which he held but something... higher and better in the way of ransom. (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, NPNF 5, 493).

The High Council

2011-01-21T09:35:00.002+11:00

Tomorrow sees the commencement of the 17th High Council of The Salvation Army to elect the 19th General of The Salvation Army. For those unaware there is only ever one active General in The Salvation Army, and technically (since General John Gowans) Generals are the only officers to have an (R) signifying "retired" after their name. Further, this is the only place within the Army where voting is permitted. Gowans believed that officership was for life. Generals are elected for a period of five years, but are not permitted to go past the age of 68. Gowans and Larsson were two whose terms were shorter than the 5 year period due to their age. It is possible at the end of their 5 year term for the General to be extended, if enough support is given from Commissioners throughout the world. This occurred for General Eva Burrows back in the early nineties; her term being extended by 2 years.
Read more »

Gregory of Nyssa on Social Justice

2011-01-18T10:44:00.003+11:00

Happy New Year! It has been some time since my last post as I've been enjoying some time off with the family. I pray that 2011 will be a great year for you and your family and that the Lord will bless you and be blessed by you.

Issues relating to social justice have, in recent years, received a considerable amount of attention, and rightly so. We should all be concerned about issues of equality, fairness, justice and righteousness in our world, and the biggest shift in this regard is the accessibility that we each have to the solutions. Simple things, like the items we purchase at the supermarket can and do make a difference to real people living in unjust situations. I thank God for that.

One thing that may be of interest, though, is that issues of what I prefer to call "social sanctification" have always been on the minds of Christians (and indeed the people of Israel in the Old Testament). Admittedly, they haven't always known how to address the issues at hand, or worse, have chosen to ignore them; however, social sanctification has been spoken of and addressed throughout Church History. As always, Gregory of Nyssa is the person I'm most interested in. Below are two examples.

The first is from Gregory's fifth homily on The Lord's Prayer; specifically the line "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil." It's a lengthy quote, but worth reading and considering.

When we approach God in prayer, we ask that our debts may be forgiven us. But such words are ineffectual and do not reach the Divine hearing unless our conscience cries in unison with us that it is good to impart mercy. For if a [person] really believes that it is worthy of God to love [people]... [they] ought to confirm [their] judgment on what is good by [their] own works. Else [they] might hear from the just Judge words such as these, Physician, heal thyself. You ask me to love [people], and yourself do not give love to your neighbour? You ask to have debts forgiven, how can you strangle your debtor? You pray that I may blot out what is written against you, and you preserve carefully the acknowledgments of those who owe you something? You ask to have your debts cancelled, but you increase what you have lent by taking interest? Your debtor is in prison, while you are in church? [They are] in distress on account of [their] debts, but you think it right that your debt should be forgiven? Your prayer cannot be heard because the voice of [they] who suffer [are] drowning it. If you remit the material debt, the bonds of your soul will also be loosened; if you pardon, you will be pardoned. You must be your own judge, your own lawgiver. By the disposition you show to him who is under obligation to you, you pronounce the judgement of Heaven on yourself. (Gregory of Nyssa, The Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, ed. Johannes Quasten, and Joseph Plumpe, trans. Hilda C. Graef, vol. 18, Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Paulist Press, 1954) 80.

There is no distinction here between the "spiritual life" (as we might call it today), and its associated actions - prayer, worship, 'going to church' - and just treatment of others. Social justice and the true Christian faith are not separated here. They are intrinsically linked and impact one another.

The second quote comes from Gregory's commentary on Ecclesiastes. A word must be said here about the importance of the "image of God" in Gregory's anthropology (understanding of the human person). It is a significant driving thought and crucial to keep in mind as one considers this doctrine in his writings. The image of God is the gift of God to all people and distinguishes humanity from the rest of creation. It makes us special and is the reason we are given stewardship over creation. It is particularly evident in the freedom of the will. Again, a lengthy quote, but a good one. (Forgive me for leaving the exclusive language in this quote).

He who makes the property of God his own property [i.e. slavery], does he not transgress the limits of the power of his species, when he presumes to be owner of men as well as women? Does he not, by his arrogance, transgress nature itself, by regarding himself to be something else than those who are so ruled? 'I have purchased slaves and servants'! What are you saying? By condemning to slavery man whose nature is free and self-authoritative, you are setting up laws contrary to God, upsetting the very law of nature. Him who was made to be lord of the earth, ordained to rule, you bring under the yoke of slavery, thus rebelling and fighting against the very order established by God!... 'I have bought slaves and servants'! For what price, pray, tell me. What have you found, among existent beings, as an adequate price for this human nature? How much money have you estimated as the value of a rational being? How many obols [one-sixth of a Greek drachma, a very small coin] would you regard as a fair price for the image of God? For how many statera [a silver or gold coin] would you sell the God-fashioned nature? For God said 'Let us make man, according to our own image and likeness'. Him who is thus the likeness of God, having dominion over the earth, who has inherited full authority over everything that is upon the earth, who is it, tell me, who will sell him and who will buy him? Only God is able to do this. Or perhaps not even God. For 'God does not repent of his gifts', it says... For who can it be that added to your nature more authority? Neither age nor beauty, neither fitness of body nor superiority in virtue. Of the same origin as you are, biologically the same as you: both you who lord it over him and he who is subjugated to your lordship, are equally subject to the same passions of soul and body, the same pains and pleasures, the same mirth and anguish, the same joys and sorrows, the same desires and fears, the same diseases and death. (In Ecclesiasten. Oratio IV. GNO V. 334/14-338/8. cited in Paulos Mar Gregorios, Cosmic Man: The Divine Presence (New York: Paragon House, 1988), 134-136.)

I hope for those who are particularly passionate about issues relating to social sanctification that you may take from this quote assurance that people throughout Church History, including Gregory of Nyssa, are standing beside you in affirmation of your desire for equality, fairness, justice and righteousness throughout creation.

Gregory of Nyssa on Prayer

2010-12-22T17:29:00.002+11:00

This quote speaks for itself. It is from Gregory of Nyssa's first Homily on the Lord's Prayer

We must learn first of all that we ought to pray and not to faint. For the effect of prayer is union with God, and if someone is with God, he is separated from the enemy. Through prayer we guard our chastity, control out temper, and rid ourselves of vanity; it makes us forget injuries, overcomes envy, defeats injustice, and makes amends for sin. Through prayer we obtain physical well-being, a happy home, and a strong, well-ordered society. Prayer will make our nation powerful, will give us victory in war and security in peace; it reconciles enemies and preserves allies. Prayer is the seal of virginity and a pledge of faithfulness in marriage; it shields the wayfarer, protects the sleeper, and gives courage to those who keep vigil. It obtains a good harvest for the farmer and a safe port for the sailor.

Prayer is your advocate in lawsuits. If you are in prison, it will obtain your release; it will refresh you when you are weary and comfort you when you are sorrowful. Prayer is the delight of the joyful as well as solace to the afflicted. It is the wedding crown of the spouses and the festive joy of a birthday no less than the shroud that enwraps us in death.

Prayer is intimacy with God and contemplation of the invisible. It satisfies our yearnings and makes us equal to the angels. Through it good prospers, evil is destroyed, and sinners will be converted. Prayer is the enjoyment of things present and the substance of the things to come. Prayer turned the whale into a home for [Jonah]; it brought Ezechias back to life from the very gates of death; it transformed the flames into a moist wind for the Three Children. Through prayer the Israelites triumphed over the Amelakites, and 185,000 Assyrians were slain in one night by the invisible sword. Past history furnishes thousands of other examples beside these which make it clear that of all the things valued in this life nothing is more precious than prayer.

St Gregory of Nyssa, The Lord's Prayer, (New York: Paulist Press, 1954), 24-25

My strange cat can play the piano.... apparently!

2010-12-06T20:38:00.001+11:00

For some reason tonight my cat decided to join me at the piano. I'm not entirely sure why because he's never done this before, but he seemed to be quite comfortable. He joined me in a duet from "Cats"...

Enjoy!

Adam

The latest on my knee...

2010-11-12T16:24:00.001+11:00

OK... it turns out my previous post on my knee was somewhat optimistic. In fact, it was very optimistic!. Since posting that I have been the physio several times, and my GP who referred me for an MRI. I received the results of that today... So, I have:

Torn my ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament)
Have some fractures in my tibia and femur. These are small fractures related to the impact of the bones hitting one another and twisting.
Bruising in the bone.
Grade 1 MCL (Medial Collateral Ligament) sprain.

Needless to say, I will be off to see an Orthopaedic Specialist and surgery is inevitible. In the mean time, I'm not allowed to bear weight on my leg (particularly because of the bone damage), so it's crutches everywhere I go. I'm not allowed to drive either (because it's my right knee) which is frustrating and perhaps the most inconvenience. It's also a very busy time at work, plus commissioning is fast approaching.

I would appreciate your prayer support, for everything mentioned above, for my family who have to put up with my hobbling around now, and particularly for my longsuffering wife Megan. I don't think she realised when we said "in sickness and in health" that I would be "sickness" and she would be "health"! (See another previous post for even more detail on that!).

Further updates will come as I have them to hand. Thanks in advance for your prayer support.

Adam

Inerrent, Infallible, Inspired... Interpreted?

2010-11-08T21:55:00.002+11:00

I love Chopin. I love listening to his music, but I especially love playing his music. His Nocturnes in particular. There's something very satisfying about playing Chopin. He was a pianist, and every piece of music he wrote was for the piano, and so he "gets" what it's like to sit at a piano and wrestle with those 88 keys in front of you. He was a genius who knew how to get the most out of this instrument, and to challenge those who would want to call themselves a pianist (ever tried playing 12 notes at once with 10 fingers?). Perhaps what I like best, though, is the opportunity that playing Chopin gives me to really express myself through the music. It's like nothing else that I know and taps right into the depths of my emotions and indeed my soul. For me, it's very much a kind of prayer to play this music.

Anyone who plays a musical instrument well understands (or should understand) that it's so much more than just the notes on the page. In fact, the better one gets, the less it is about the notes on the page. Sure, they're important, like flour, eggs, water and oil are to a cake recipe. What's really important, though, is the way you put it all together. Get the mix wrong and it leaves a bitter taste. The way you actually play the notes, and emphasise one over against another, how you express the melody and tell the story of the music in a way that communicates to the listener, this is what's important when playing the piano and especially Chopin.

In my English speaking background we generally speak of someone "playing" a piece of music. This emphasises the "notes on a page" approach; the composer has written the piece and now it's just a matter of the pianist hitting the right keys at the right time in order to produce the desired sound. Generally, this is what you get from someone in the early stages of learning. It's very difficult to add emotion and "story" when you're main concern is "what is that note on that third ledger line again?" As I understand it, though, in French one is said to "interpret" a piece of music. This includes hitting the right keys at the right time and in the right place, but it also recognises that the pianist is very much "involved" in the process. It takes skill and practice to get to the point where you can almost ignore what your fingers and hands are doing and then pour your soul into the piece, but once you can do it, it is immensely gratifying. Connecting with the music, with the composer, with those listening, with God and indeed yourself through the music. This is interpretation.

There's some useful parallels with the study of the Bible here. I often read and hear discussions about the "inerrancy" or "infallibility" of Scripture - that is, how did the texts we call the Bible come to get into our hands, and how reliable are they? I don't know of any Christian writer who would suggest that the Scriptures are not "inspired" by the Spirit, but some would like to suggest that this goes as far as "dictation", where others would want to allow for much more room for the author's involvement in the writing process. It becomes even more bizarre in my mind when people claim that the "original autographs" were inerrant. That's a convenient claim to make given that we don't have the original autographs! Discussions about the "writing" of Scripture need to be balanced, I suggest, with an equal weighting on the "reading" of Scripture. In the same way that a pianist should concern themselves with the time a piece was written, who wrote it, what was the occasion, the intended audience and so on PLUS, how am I going to play this piece? What am I going to emphasise here? Should that cadenza be played fast or slow, or with more rubato? Similar questions should concern us as we seek to interpret the Scriptures.

How do we approach the text? Are we concerned about the "words on the page", how they have been put together, or "what the author meant"? Or do we also need to consider what we do with those words on the page, how the apply to our lives (collective and individual) today, and, most importantly, what the Spirit is saying to the church through them now? Of course, the "words on the page" are important, and very necessary, and we should be concerned with what the author's original intention for the letter was. But the real music happens when we immerse our very selves into the God of those pages, when we seek to connect with the author and the Spirit who inspired that author (and indeed the editors and copiers), even over the span of thousands of years. We can share their same joys and sorrows, indeed we do share their joys and sorrows, as we encounter the same "stuff of life" and encounter the same God. The joy of ministry, of preaching, teaching, and studying the word of God comes through interpretation. As the Spirit of God speaks through this amazing text that he has spoken through for thousands of years into our lives, and through our lives into others.

What a joy! What a privilege! What Divine music!

To demonstrate some beautiful "interpretation" of Chopin, here's one of my personal favourites... enjoy!

Jesus Christ the Serpent

2010-11-03T23:41:00.002+11:00

What do you think of the suggestion that Christ becomes a serpent?

At first glance the suggestion will be shocking to most people. It's not a title that we're familiar with, and certainly not comfortable with assigning to our Lord Jesus. I can't imagine Darlene Zschech sitting down to compose "Shout to the Lord" and considering the words "My Jesus, My Serpent, Lord there is none like you!" It would have to take someone either incredibly deranged or someone with incredible guts.

Gregory of Nyssa makes just this claim. We need to state at the outset that Gregory is allegorising, and for us with our scientific mindsets and methodologies we find it difficult to accept this as a "valid" hermeneutical method. In the 4th Century, though, it was commonly accepted practice. Gregory is dealing with the passage in Exodus 7:8-13 where Moses and Aaron confront Pharaoh and in order to demonstrate that they come under God's authority they cast down the staff and it becomes a serpent. Amazingly, Pharoah's wise men and sorcerers are able to replicate this feat. Strangely, though, Moses' snake swallows the snakes of the wise men. For most of us this is just a strange addition to the story which we can rationalise away as having little to no significance to the greater meaning of the text. For someone who allegorises, like Gregory, these kinds of strange vignettes are exactly the verses to focus upon. These are the verses that must have a deeper, spiritual meaning since the surface meaning seems so strange to the naked eye. This is why Gregory has commentaries on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. You would be hard pressed to get a single sermon in a year in most churches from either of these books.

Gregory makes it very clear what he understands the serpent to represent.

The teaching is clear. For if the father of sin is called a serpent by Holy Scripture and what is born of the serpent is certainly a serpent, it follows that sin is synonymous with the one who begot it. (Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses, Trans. A Malherbe and E. Ferguson (New York: HarperOne, 2006), pg 40.)

Gregory then applies 2 Cor 5:21 to his spiritual interpretation of the text; "he became sin who knew no sin". This is where the claim of Gregory is startling

This figure [the serpent] therefore is rightly applied to the Lord. For if sin is a serpent and the Lord became sin, the logical conclusion should be evident to all: by becoming sin he became also a serpent, which is nothing other than sin. (ibid, 40)

Again, this is shocking stuff to read, but there is a point to the shock tactics. Here Gregory is making a strong assertion about the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Here it is

For our sake he became a serpent that he might devour and consume the Egyptian serpents produced by the sorcerers.(ibid, 40)

In other words, he became sin (the serpent) in order to destroy sin, as well as the father of sin - the serpent (Gen 3); which for Gregory and many others in his time was assumed to be the devil. In the Exodus narrative the serpent reverts back to the staff, and for Gregory the meaning here is also significant. Christ not only becomes sin, he destroys sin, and then by his resurrection restores humanity back to its original condition.

What I find striking here is the boldness of this method. We must keep in mind that whilst the fourth century was a time of political freedom (compared to persecution!) for the Christian Church it was also a time when the label "heresy" was thrown around alot within the Church. Gregory himself seems to have spent every other week refuting a particular heresy or responding to an accusation of one leveled against him. So in the context of such an environment to have the bravery to make a claim such as this shows, I suggest, a great deal of intestinal fortitude on his behalf. The shock factor may be comparable with someone in our day and age suggesting that Christ becomes a terrorist in order to destroy terrorism (I've not read such a claim, nor am I suggesting it as a valid metaphor, but simply suggest this for the purpose of comparison).

Now we can't just leave this amazing metaphor without also highlighting the fact that Gregory leaves us a little bewildered later in the same text. Further in the Life of Moses, picking up Paul's language in Rom 8:3 where Christ comes in the "likeness" of sinful flesh, he suggests that Christ comes in the "likeness of a serpent and not a serpent itself... Sin is the real serpent" (pg 116). Whilst the metaphor shifts slightly, the point he is making remains consistent. Christ became sin (or at least in the "likeness" of sin), destroys sin and restores humanity as a result.

[Humanity], then, is freed from sin through him who assumed the form of sin and became like us who had turned into the form of the serpent... The voice of the Lord teaches clearly that the serpent lifted up in the desert is a symbol of the mystery of the cross when he says, "The Son of Man must be lifted up as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert" [John 3:14] (Life of Moses, pg 116-117).

An update on my knee...

2010-10-31T12:27:00.001+11:00

Many of my friends would be aware that I injured my knee on Saturday, but others would not know all the details so I thought I would post a short update to let you know how things are going...

Saturday 30th October was the annual Gala Day at the School for Officer Training. A big part of this day is the annual Touch Football competition. I was playing for Miranda Mixed team and during the semi-final I attempted to side-step. My foot planted firmly and my lower leg followed but my upper leg shifted. I felt me knee joint move out and back into place. This was accompanied by an almighty "crack" which I'm assured could be heard by many others on the field and sideline. Of course, this ended the game for me. Fortunately, the team won and went through to the final.

I went to St George Emergency and was assessed there. After a few hours wait, and some Panadeine Forte, I was feeling a lot better. I was seen by a Nurse Practitioner who tried to move my knee in all sorts of directions. Remarkably, by this time I was not in much pain at all and the knee seemed to be very firm in the joint. It seemed that there was no major ligament damage, which was a great relief. It will take time to fully confirm that and so I'll have to be reassessed in a few days. Because of the "crack" we just wanted to make sure there wasn't a fracture and so I had a x-ray to confirm this. It came back clear and so it was just a matter now of treating it conservatively. It seems at this stage that it's just a bad sprain, but this can't be confirmed at this stage.

I'm in a bit of pain now, and it's difficult to walk, but my knee feels firm in the joint and not like it's going to give way.

I'm very grateful to those who helped on the day, particularly Michele White and David Wiseman. It's very handy to have a couple of off-duty paramedics there on scene immediately. Of course, thanks to my wife who patiently waited by my side for a few hours in the Emergency department. Also to mum who came back to look after the kids and get them into bed. Also, to everyone who carried my off the field, or into the car, I do appreciate your help and support. And to everyone who offered prayers and encouragement, it is greatly appreciated.

I'm confident it's not as bad as immediately thought. Having seen my mum's long journey with a knee injury I know some of what's involved in the recovery and know I don't want it to be that bad.

Finally, we decided to stay home this morning to rest, rather than attempt to go off to Church. In place, we had "Songs of Praise" church together as a family. One of the hymns on this morning was a great reminder of God's presence with us in the midst of pain, and I was really encouraged by it today.

Be still, my soul, the Lord is on thy side;

Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain.

Leave to thy God to order and provide;

In every change He, faithful, will remain.

Be still, my soul, thy best, thy heavenly friend

Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.

Every blessing
Adam

Gregory Of Nyssa: The Stages Of Holiness

2010-10-27T21:03:00.002+11:00

Ok, so the voice is really bizarre... even bordering on creepy... but the content of this short clip actually outliens one of Gregory's best paradoxes, "luminous darkness", quite well.

Enjoy

Adam

N.T. Wright: It's the most explosive thing it could be

2010-10-27T09:18:00.001+11:00

This is definitely worth a look. Also it's interesting to see Wright's new title in print.
Enjoy
Adam

Too much of a good thing?

2010-10-26T22:04:00.001+11:00

Is it possible to have too much of a good thing? For Gregory of Nyssa the answer is clearly "yes". Here's what he has to say:

Virtue is discerned in the mean [meaning 'average' or 'centre' here]. Accordingly, all evil naturally operates in a deficiency or an excess of virtue. In the case of courage, cowardice is the lack of virtue, and rashness is its excess. What is pure of each of these is seen to lie between these corresponding evils and is virtue. Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses, Trans. Abraham J. Malherbe and Everett Ferguson (New York: Harper One, 1978), 121.

Here we begin to see some of how Gregory would describe apatheia. Often this is understood as "passionlessness", but for Gregory it is slightly nuanced. That is, apatheia is the "proper use of passions" (what we might understand better today as our desires); in this case it's not being excessive in what we are passionate about it, or at the opposite extreme completely dispassionate about anything. Rather, the "middle ground" is the ideal for Gregory.

Gregory turns to what we might consider an a obscure verse of Scripture for support here in Matthew 10:16; "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.". This is not an uncommon approach for him (and others), given his penchance for allegory, and its accompanying underlying assumption that if there is not a clear "surface" meaning in the text then the "spiritual" meaning should be pursued more vigorously (hence he heads for books like Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes quickly). For Gregory this verse from Matthew demonstrates perfectly the balance that he is advocating for. It's not shrewdness on its own; as in the case of people who treat others like door mats to achieve their own purposes. Neither is it innocence on its own; as in the case of the ones who allow themselves to become door mats in the name of humility! "Rather, it is the disposition which closely unites these two by the mean that is virtue... The disposition observed in the mean between these two is moderation." (ibid, 120)

This understanding of the Christian life is very applicable today. I hear a lot about "passion". People say they are "passionate" about a whole variety of things; their favourite football team, their family, their work. It's also used in terms of Christian ministry; people are passionate about issues of social justice, evangelism, worship or similar. We can learn the lesson of moderation from Gregory lest our passions control us and not us our passions. These things listed above as examples are all good things, but if any one of them consumes our energies to the detriment of the rest of our responsibilities in life then we run into the danger that was highlighted at the beginning of this post - "evil naturally operates in a deficiency or an excess of virtue." Moderation is the key; that is apatheia - self-control evident in every area of our life, not just negatively speaking over those things that we easily label sin, but also positively with regard to those interests that we are in fact the most passionate about.

Introducing Gregory of Nyssa

2010-10-25T22:37:00.001+11:00

It has been some time since I last posted. I am sorry about that, but life has been very busy lately. I have now commenced research in the dissertation stage of my MA and my personality type is such that I tend to dive headlong into a single thought or idea and it's very difficult for me to concentrate on other things.... My wife says I go off with the "study pixies" because I even become difficult to communicate with at home...

All this is to say that I will from time to time just share a few thoughts as I travel along the way to completing this dissertation. I hope that this may help me express my thoughts, but then also give you an insight into a man of God that I am completely fascinated with.... Gregory of Nyssa. Even though there are some 1600 years between our lives I find myself very drawn to the contemporary significance of his writings. I hope that the snippets that I post here from time to time will be helpful to you. I know that have been a source of inspiration for me.... Here's just one example from The Life of Moses.

"This is true perfection: not to avoid a wicked life because, like slaves, we servilely fear punishment, nor to do good because we hope for rewards, as if cashing in on the virtuous life by some businesslike and contractual arrangement. On the contrary, disregarding all those things for which we hope and which have been reserved by promise, we regard falling from God's friendship as the only thing dreadful, and we consider becoming God's friend the only thing worthy of honour and desire. This, as I have said, is the perfection of life."

NT Wright On Blogging

2010-09-26T21:16:00.001+10:00

Very interesting warning here...
Plus, I couldn't resist the irony of blogging this video
Thanks
Adam

Sermon: New Creation and Christian Ministry

2010-09-14T12:02:00.033+10:00

I delivered this sermon at a conference recently. I hope it may be helpful for you.

The story of "Mr Good"

Mr Good is very good. He always makes his bed. He always cleans his teeth. And he always wipes his feet. He never slams doors. He never forgets birthdays. And he never, ever tells lies. Mr Good is very, very good.

However, Mr Good lives in a place called Badland. A place where nobody is like Mr Good. A place where people do slam doors. And they slam them in your face!

In Badland, the puddles are much deeper than they look. In Badland, a dog’s bite is worse than its bark. In Badland, even the trees are bad!

One day, it was wet and windy. Well, of course it was. The weather is always bad in Badland. Mr Good was walking along, minding his own business, when the hat of the man in front of him blew off. Mr Good leapt into the air and caught it for him. The man turned around and glared at Mr Good. “What do you think you’re doing?” he thundered. “Give my hat back!”

Poor Mr Good. This sort of thing was always happening to him. You see, the very idea of doing a good deed in Badland was preposterous, unthinkable, mad. If Mr Good offered to help carry someone’s shopping, he was accused of stealing.

If he kindly held a door open for someone, then he would be kicked in the shin! Not surprisingly, Mr Good was not very happy. In fact, he was miserable. So he decided to go for a long walk to think about things. He walked for a very long time. He was so deep in thought that he did not notice how far he had gone.

And he was so deep in thought that he accidentally walked slap-bang into somebody. “Oh… oh… I… I… I’m s-s-so s-s-sorry,” stammered Mr Good, nervously. “That’s quite all right,” said the man, and carried on his merry way. “Quite all right,” repeated Mr Good to himself. “That’s quite all right?” In the whole of his life no one had ever said “That’s quite all right” to Mr Good.

Then Mr Good noticed that the sun was shining—which was strange, because the sun never shone in Badland. Further on, Mr Good found a rubbish bin on its side. Without thinking, he tidied up all the rubbish. “Thank you,” said a woman. Mr Good stared at her. In the whole of his life no one had ever said “Thank you” to him. “Could you tell me where I am?” he asked.

“You’re in Goodland,” replied the woman. “Thank you,” said Mr Good. “My pleasure,” said the woman. Mr Good beamed. And I am sure you have guessed that Mr Good now lives in Goodland. And Mr Good is happy. Very, very happy doing good deeds all day long.

The only thing Mr Good still does not trust is a puddle. Once you have stepped in a Badland puddle you never forget!

______________________________________

A lot of what we have discussed over the course of this conferencehas been to do with the relationship between “culture” and “gospel”. We’ve had important discussions about what culture is and how cultures can clash and being mindful of differences in culture. But we’ve really assumed that we all mean the same thing by the word “gospel”. This morning I would like to consider this word. What do we actually mean by it? And how do we understand Christian ministry (cross-cultural or otherwise) as it relates to the Christian gospel in the light of eternity? Among other things this really is a question of eschatology. So perhaps the question may be better asked: What is an appropriate eschatological framework for the gospel which demonstrates how what we do here and now relates to eternity?

The issue here is our “Eschatological framework” for ministry. Eschatology is commonly understood as the study of “last things”. What’s probably better is to understand it as “ultimate things”. What is God in Christ and through the Spirit “ultimately” doing in the world, and what implications does this have for Christian ministry?

Some might suggest that Mr Good is an appropriate eschatological framework for Christian ministry. Christians walk around doing nice things, trying to be good to others, taking the knocks and bumps along the way, but ultimately, one day, we’ll all take that long walk away from “Badland’ (i.e. earth) and go to this other, unrelated and disconnected place called “Goodland” (i.e. heaven) and there we’ll live happily ever after.

Is there a problem with this framework?

I would like to suggest that there is. Such a view lends itself (in some cases I must stress) to a partial or even complete disregard for this present life. It can be seen in such areas as ecology (not caring for this earth and its resources because it’s all going to hell in a hand basket anyway); interpersonal relationships (not caring for one another because the gospel becomes about me and “my long walk with Jesus to heaven”); and most tragically (in its extreme cases) when natural disasters occur. Wars and rumours of wars, earthquakes and other tragedies all just become another thing to tick off a list of “signs of the ages”. It’s been a tragic slur on Christianity that some people that have labelled themselves with the name of Christ have used other peoples tragic circumstances as an opportunity to preach a kind of “I told you so” gospel…I would actually call this a disconnected eschatology. Heaven and earth, this age and the next, are disconnected from one another and in practical terms bear little or no relationship with one another. This present world has nothing really to do with the world to come, but is simply the divinely chosen shipping port of heaven and ministry is getting as many people on the boat before it leaves.

So what’s an alternative way of understanding what God is ultimately doing for creation? I guess the question here is “What is, in fact, the gospel?”

Noted Biblical theologian, N.T. Wright, has said this: “The ‘gospel’… is not simply ‘here’s how to be saved’; it is the good news that, through Jesus as Messiah, the creator God is putting the whole world right.” (N. T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (London: SPCK, 2009), 86) In other words, the gospel is not just about "Jesus died for my sins", or "me and my walk with Jesus", or “Jesus loves you so love him back”, but it’s about God and his activity in the world to renew creation of which we are a part.

Let’s consider this in big picture terms…

God creates the heavens and the earth. He looks upon his creation (i.e. heaven and earth)and declares that it is very good. He partners with his creation in the management of his “very good” creation – we call this stewardship. God understands that this task is too big for humans to accomplish as individuals – Gen 2:18 “It is not good for man to be alone.” His solution to this is community. In the context of the story it’s community in a nutshell (i.e. marriage) but community nonetheless. In spite of the “lets do this together” approach built into God’s design, the story takes a tragic turn when both Adam and Eve decide to go it alone. Remember, we’re given a hint that this might be coming earlier in 2:18 - “It’s not good for man to be alone”… Eve chooses to respond to the questions of the serpent on her own (individualism). The results of her incorrect choice have cosmic consequences.

Here’s where many people (in my humble opinion) get the gospel message wrong. What do we see as a result of sin entering the world according to Genesis 3?

1. enmity between the woman and the snake
2. pains in childbirth
3. enmity between the man and the land.
4. death
5. and humans driven out of the garden (away from the Tree of Life)

In essence what we have now is discord in creation. Where there was once harmony between the heavens, the earth, everything in the earth and with God, now there is pain, suffering, disharmony, and death. This is what we know as “fallenness”.

What we don’t see, and where I think many people get it wrong when they describe this situation, is separation from God. Again, in eschatological terms, for some this so-called separation is the problem that God is overcoming and all sorts of fantastic images are drawn up to describe this. The most notable of which is this one…

We’ll leave that image for a moment except to say that the suggestion that we are “separated from God” is (again, in my humble opinion) a false one.

How can this be?

Well, I just don’t see "separation" at all. As I read on from Genesis 3 into Genesis 4 I see that God follows Adam and Eve out of the garden. Although humans are driven out of the garden, for their own good, God follows them out. That’s not separation, that’s grace. Immediately in Genesis 4 we have the story of Cain and Abel, in the midst of which the Lord is talking to Cain. In fact this is the pattern of Genesis 1 – 11. Humanity sins, God punishes, but then immediately afterwards God is gracious towards humanity. We see that in Noah with the rainbow as well as Babel and the dispersing of all peoples, which is followed immediately by the promise of blessing to all peoples through Abraham and his seed (“Tongues” in Acts 2 should be interpreted as a the reversal of Babel).

For the rest of the Old Testament we see God seeking to restore creation to its original status – “very good”. In the words of NT Wright, God is “putting the world to rights.” Although the fallenness remains, and that is clearly evident in the stories of Noah, Babel, Egypt and others; even so, God is interested and active in partnering with his chosen people to achieve his purposes.

Importantly in this regard, throughout the Old Testament, God is described in terms that are relational. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is not just the Holy One, but the Holy One of Israel. And my personal favourite: “I will be their God, and they will be my people”; an eschatological promise that is repeated in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and picked up in the New Testament by the writers of Hebrews and Revelation.

These are all relational terms, describing a relational God, who has, since the creation of the world, been in partnership with people in the stewardship of creation. Even though sin has entered the world, in a strange yet grace-filled paradox, he continues to partner with the very beings that brought that sin in. He partners with them to achieve his purposes – putting the world to rights.

“Separation from God” therefore does not describe the Biblical picture of God. It actually describes the Biblical picture of hell. Consider the tragedy of the “goats” in Matthew 25 in this light.

The eschatological framework I would like to suggest that is appropriate for understanding “the gospel” is that of “new creation”. In 2 Corinthians 5:17 we find a very famous verse; “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” This is quite a lengthy sentence in comparison to the Greek, largely because we need to fill it out in translation in order for it to make some sense in the English language. However, in the Greek you get the sense that the “new creation” part is just breaking into the sentence… “If anyone is in Christ – New Creation!” I get the sense that Paul is saying “here it is. It’s arrived!” With Christ we have “New Creation!”

Here we catch a glimpse of this eschatological framework. This New Creation, is not something we’re just biding our time waiting to happen when Jesus returns. It has actually broken in upon this present age. With the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, and the inclusion of God’s people into himself, New Creation has begun. In theological terms this is an inaugurated eschatology. There remains a tension here between the old and the new creation which we could explore, but the point here that I would really like to make here today is this; the “old” and “new” are intrinsically and vitally linked.

What is the evidence for this? The incarnated and resurrected Jesus. In the incarnation we see the perfect unity of creation, heaven and earth permanently united in one person – truly and properly human and truly and properly divine. In the resurrection we see this one person as we will eventually be – as a part of the new creation. One of the big features of this is where the resurrection took place – here on earth. That is significant. It demonstrates that the “new creation”, God’s ultimate desire for creation, of which Jesus is the “first fruits” as Paul describes it in 1 Cor 15, is intimately connected with the old creation. The old is not on its way to hell in a hand basket, but on its way to recreation. If anyone is in Christ – New creation! The old is gone, the new has come.

So what does this mean for Christian ministry? Cross-cultural or otherwise?

I would like to answer that question firstly by looking at one example from the ministry of Jesus. It’s the story of the demoniac from Gerasenes. Jesus has been on the Israel side of the lake teaching in parables. He and the disciples get into a boat and begin to cross the lake. Jesus falls asleep, a storm arises which Jesus sleeps through, and the disciples panic about. They wake Jesus up, he calms the storm, and in the morning they arrive at Gerasenes. The location has some textual discrepancies, but the point is that it’s in Gentile country. Here is the first of many alarm bells that would be ringing in the heads of Jews hearing this story… Jesus gets out of a boat in Gentile country, confronts a man possessed by many demons, presumably naked since we’re told later that he’s dressed, he lives in or at least near tombs, AND there are pigs nearby! Everything about this story screams “UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!” to a Jewish person. A Jew would know that they would be ceremonially unclean by this location and this man who lives there, meaning that they would be excluded from the temple, and hence worship. Yet Jesus is completely unconcerned by this and as a result “New Creation” breaks in upon this mans life. The old is gone, and the new has come.

Was Jesus really ignoring the Jewish purity laws? From one perspective yes, but from another no. I think Jesus was truly a Jewish man and would have concern to be obedient to the law. Craig Blomberg offers a solution to this problem in his book Contagious Holiness

Unlike so many in his world... [Jesus] does not assume that he will be defiled by associating with corrupt people. Rather, his purity can rub off on them and change them for the better. Cleanliness, he believes, is even more "catching" than uncleanness; morality more influential than immorality. (Craig Blomberg, Contagious Holiness, (Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 128.)

This, I think, speaks volumes to us about Christian ministry, or perhaps better said the ministry of those who are “in Christ”. Being “in Christ” means that his holiness made real in us by the presence of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Holiness) is more catching than the uncleanness of this present age; wherever we confront that uncleanness. Not only are those who are in Christ a part of the “New Creation” they are also partnering with God in bringing New Creation to places where it currently does not exist—the poor, the dispossessed, the prison, the street, our workplace, the school, the sports field. This is the privilege and the paradox of ministry. God, in faithfulness to his covenant promises, continues to partner with humanity in his mission to put the world to rights. He is doing this through Jesus Christ and by his Holy Spirit, and he invites us to join him.

This has implications not just for who is involved in ministry, because I would like to suggest that it includes all. It also has huge implications for some of the big questions of our day – questions of the environment, of interpersonal relationships, and of our use of the resources of this world, including money. If there is an inseparable link between old creation and new, which I think the resurrected Jesus has demonstrated in himself, then what we do here and now actually matters. It actually makes an eternal difference for all of creation. Yes we believe that God will achieve his purpose and will put the world to right regardless of whether we help him, but since he has invited us in to be active participants in that mission, our participation must have an eternal effect.

One of my favourite passages in recent times has become 1 Corinthians 15 and I’d like to close with a quick reference to this chapter. The chapter opens with Paul suggesting that this is a reminder of the gospel that the Corinthians had first heard. Clearly, in this chapter there is a strong emphasis upon the reality of the resurrection. Jesus has been raised from the dead, therefore those who are in Christ will also be raised with him. There is a lot that could be said about this passage to do with inaugurated eschatology, however here is my shorthand summary…

1. Jesus is resurrected
2. “On that day” those who are in Christ will be resurrected like him
3. Their perishable body (old creation) will be clothed with the imperishable (new creation) – note the connection here.
4. In the mean time, and here is the one thing I want you to take away from this, verse 58:

“Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not in vain.”

God is putting the world to rights. We look at Christ, the first fruits of New Creation and know this to be true. God has done it for him and this is the guarantee that he will do it for those who are “in Christ”. We are “in Christ” because the Spirit unites us with him and therefore we anticipate being “clothed” in this New Creation, just like Jesus is. In fact, for anyone who is in Christ – New Creation! In the mean time, we partner with God, following his lead, walking in the footsteps of Christ, and walking by the Spirit, remaining steadfast and firm, knowing that our labour in the Lord is not in vain. As we do, we wait in hope, not to leave “Badland” behind and take the long walk to “Goodland”, but believing that God will achieve his purposes by recreating “Badland” and renaming it “Goodland”.

Lord, may it be so.

I am "The Salvation Army"

2010-09-09T22:13:00.001+10:00

In the course of conversations or on the internet I often hear or see comments such as "Why do the Army do that?". I'm sure you can recall similar situations where you've heard such a statement. I'm sure this kind of thing is not the exclusive domain of the denomination of which I am a part...

I have a real problem with this comment. It's not just "the Army" but you hear it narrowed down to different departments as well - "DHQ/THQ" or (my personal favourite) "The College". The problem I have is that the people who say these things are Salvationists themselves, yet they speak of "The Army" as if they are not a part of it. It betrays a complete lack of ecclesiological understanding and reeks of individualism.

For me, I made a concious decision a while ago to avoid at all costs speaking of "The Army" as if I'm not a part of it. I don't always succeed at this, but I try. The Army is not an institution but people. The reality is that it's not "The Army" making decisions that we disagree with, but people. People just like me who are struggling under similar (and probably greater) pressures, seeking to do their best in the Lord with a kingdom focus and a heart for the lost. So, it's likely they will make mistakes. They will get it wrong sometimes. But the reality is.... so will I. Goodness knows I have made some BIG mistakes in my time, and I'm sure that there are some whoppers to come!

I know these mistakes can really hurt people as well. I'm sure those who actually make those mistakes realise this. I'm certain that they agonise over appointment changes, or funding programmes, or how to reverse the decline in our territory. So instead of complaining about "The Army" when a decision is made that you disagree with, how about we each try praying for those people who are making those decisions. Let's uphold those who have responsibility for huge amounts of money, people resources and providing direction. They are difficult positions to be in and they don't choose them, but are appointed to them as well. So let's do our part by kneeling along side them, and lifting them up in prayer.

It was 130 years ago today...

2010-09-05T21:49:00.001+10:00

...Gore and Saunders taught Australia the Army way.

Edward Saunders

It was September 5, 1880 in Adelaide's Botanic Garden, that The Salvation Army commenced it's work in "the land down under". There are some who suggest that there were, in fact, earlier instances of Salvationists (or "Christian Missionaries" - i.e. pre-1878) who commenced the work in other locations. However, the history books as they currently tell it, take this day, 130 years ago as the "official" date of the Army's work in Australia.

John Gore

Interestingly, though we take this as the "official start date", at the time it was anything but "official". Gore and Saunders happened to meet earlier that year and, being Salvationists who had moved to Australia recently and convinced of the need of the Army in Australia, wrote to William Booth requesting that Officers be sent to Australia to commence the work.

Obviously in the late 19th Century a letter from Adelaide would take months to get to the "mother land" and so this wait, for Gore and Saunders, was way too long for the urgent need they saw around them. So... they didn't wait. They "opened fire" on their own. Something tells me, however, that they had truly captured the vision that William Booth had for the Army for the words that were shared in that first open air will go down in history as capturing the intent of this movement; "If there is any man here who hasn't had a decent meal today, let him come home to tea with me." Gore and Saunders commenced the first corps in Australia (now Adelaide Congress Hall), without permission, without 'officers', and without funding, property, committees, uniforms (dare I say it) or anything else other than the vision that they had captured from their time in the Army in England.

What an exciting time it must have been.

I heard someone say recently, there are two types of leaders; firstly, those who say "If you find a problem come to me and I'll solve it for you". Then secondly those who say "if you find a problem go and solve it and I'll back you up." I suspect that William and Catherine Booth were leaders of the second type. Clearly Gore and Saunders weren't reprimanded for starting the work on their own. They were applauded for it. Once they did, Booth soon supported this new work by sending officers (Captain and Mrs Thomas Sutherland) to help lead this small but vibrant group of new Salvationists. When they arrived in February 1881 they wore the first Salvation Army uniforms to be seen in Australia. We shouldn't read too much into this because uniforms were still not standardised, and it had only been "The Salvation Army" for 3 years at this point. Plus it was still 12 months before the Articles of War would come into existence. But clearly, the vision that William and Catherine Booth had for "winning the world for Jesus" was not only inspiring, but being well and truly communicated to, and captured by, every Salvationist. Clearly, Gore and Saunders understood this mission, and what it would entail - reaching out to those who "hadn't yet had a meal today". They got it. They understood it. And they acted upon it.

There is some significant theology at play here. In those early days there was not that much difference between an "officer" and a "soldier". It was more to do with "function" than it was "status", and so it was natural that two soldiers who met in "uncharted territory" should start the work themselves. That was what was expected of all Salvationists - Officers and Soldiers alike. They didn't need express permission, because they knew that they had it. This we would describe as the Army's understanding of the "priesthood of all believers". (Let me just state as an aside that I wouldn't subscribe to a theology of the "priesthood of all believers" myself at all. I think it's stating too much. Rather I prefer to speak of the "sole priesthood of Christ" and the "ministry of all believers" who are "in Christ". A slightly different emphasis, but the same desired outcome - all believers engaged in the ministry of making disciples of all the people groups in the name of Christ).

Is this still the same today? Is it the case that Salvationists feel a natural sense of "permission" to engage in mission regardless of what role they currently fulfil (soldier or officer), what resources they have, and, importantly, what permissions they have? Can we recapture that internal culture once again?

Before you jump to an answer let me recount a story I heard recently from Commissioner Kay Rader about The Salvation Army in Kenya. The Army is massive in Kenya, with well over 200,000 soldiers in the country. The territory had a congress event and as a part of the celebrations had a "march past". The Territorial Commander (leader of the territory) and the Chief Secretary (second-in-command) stood and saluted the hundreds of corps and thousands of soldiers as they marched past. Then came a group of people who had a sign displaying their corps name. It was unfamiliar to both leaders. They were dressed in make-shift Salvation Army uniforms, with cardboard epaulettes attached to their shoulders. The Territorial Commander looked to the Chief Secretary who looked back in bewilderment. Neither of them had heard of this corps or the people that made it up. It had just started all by itself. This mystery corps saluted their leaders, and the leaders saluted back.

Clearly something is going right when a Salvation Army corps can appear "out of nowhere"!!!

How do we recapture that sense of "permission inspired by a clear vision" within The Salvation Army in the West where it appears to be lacking? How do we mobilise the soldiery to engage wholeheartedly in the mission of the Army without the sense that it's "the Officer's job" to do it all, lead it all, or permit it all? What kind of leadership does that call for? What will it take to get back there?

I suspect that it starts with leaders who say "if you find a problem go and solve it and I'll back you up" and actually mean those words. That means encouraging innovation, allowing for failures and stuff-ups, and praising success - both with words and funding those activities that are actually achieving the purposes that we believe God has called us to.

These are huge problems, and I don't pretend to suggest easy answers to significant problems, but we have to start somewhere and it may as well be with us.

Coutts Memorial Lecture - Recording

2010-09-03T20:38:00.001+10:00

The "Coutts Memorial Lecture" for 2010 is now available to view online. The guest speakers on this occasion were General Dr Paul Rader (R) and Commissioner Kay Rader and was presented at Booth College in Sydney. The title of this lecture was "Reaching for Metaphors of Grace".

It can be viewed in a similar way to any YouTube clip, with a slide bar at the bottom providing easy fastforward, rewind and pause functionality. If you're concerned about download limits, because it's in Flash Video format it's only about 60MB in total to watch the whole thing.
Here's the link
Enjoy!
Adam

Sanctification... a thing to be reckoned with?

2010-09-02T21:19:00.003+10:00

Sanctification is clearly a topic I'm very interested in and this aspect of theology is really a lifelong wrestle for me. How do I understand the Biblical imperative "Be holy for I am holy" AND how do I live it out?

There have been many attempts to understand sanctification throughout the ages, and its relationship to other aspects of theology. For example, Calvin proposed the dual processes of mortification and vivification (the ongoing process of the old self "dying" and the new life "living"). My main issue with this is that it makes the Christian life sound like a kind of multiple personality disorder. Another suggestion, particularly arising out of 19th Century revivalism, is that of "second blessing". That is, there is a moment in time, normally post-conversion, when the Christian seeks God in faith to be "entirely sanctified", and when this moment occurs there is an exchange in the life of the believer where the love of God drives out sin (classically referred to in the early Salvation Army as the "roots of bitterness") which thereby eliminates the possibility of sinning, or at least enables the believer to focus their entire self on the love of God. The problem here is that what is an experience of "some" has in some circles seen to become "normative" for all. This is a problem because not everyone will experience sanctification in this specific way. Of course, that is not to invalidate the fact that many people have in fact sought after God for sanctification and by his grace he has done so in this particular way, but let's not pretend that this will be the way that it happens for everyone.

(For an interesting perspective on this view from one damaged by it see Harry Ironside's Holiness the False and the True. This book needs to be understood in its context; from someone who has been hurt by a particular interpretation of a doctrine and not used as some sort of "proof" that that doctrine is in fact wrong. Rather, it's necessary to hear these kind of voices as a part of good theology).

What I would like to suggest is there is a problem in the way that sanctification (and indeed justification as the New Perspective of Paul has taught us) has been conceptualised as a kind of "thing" that needs to be acquired. Sanctification; the love of God; the righteousness of God; his holiness; or other related terms all become conceived of in terms of a "thing" that is transferred from God to the believer. The believer "doesn't have enough" of this "thing" and so needs more from the divine source of this "thing-ness". Similarly, sin becomes the negative polar opposite "thing" that is eliminated in a process of exchange and as a result of this exchange the believer acquires the "thing" that belongs to God (that is, sanctification).

There's significant problems here that I won't get into, but rather propose an alternative conceptualisation. I'd like to suggest that sanctification and holiness (and indeed justification) need to be conceived in relational terms. This is the language of covenant throughout the Scriptures. Indeed this is the way we should understand God; as a relational God. He is not just the Holy One, but the Holy One of Israel. The command to Pharaoh through Moses is "Let my people go!" And my personal favourite - "I will be their God, and they will be my people". These are all relational terms. Covenant does not mean that God's righteousness (insert holiness or other qualities of God here) is somehow transferred from God to the people thus making them holy, but rather that they are made holy by virtue of their relationship with God.

This has implications for the whole imputed/imparted debate. We need to get rid of those terms because they're based upon a "thingness" conceptualisation of sanctification. They're not relational terms, and so unrelated to the Biblical concept of covenant. Similarly the way we understand "sin" is also challenged here. It also needs to be understood of in relational terms (taking into account of course it's ontological consequences... that's for another time).

I think perhaps the best way to understand this in relational terms is by use of an analogy - that of marriage. For me there was a moment in time when I was married - 18th March, 2000. I stood up in front of family and friends, and in the presence of God I was united with my wife in marriage. Consider that the moment of enacting the covenant. From that moment on I became "married". It's even more important that I don't just express this in "me/I" terms but "we" terms; since it is a relationship. So that day we entered into marital relationship.

Now let's try and translate some of the options of conceptualising sanctification above into this relational analogy. Let's start with Calvin. From that moment on I spend a lifetime mortifying my "single life" and vivifying my "married life". Now there are some aspects of truth to this, but overall it just doesn't make sense. In the same way, if I conceive of covenant as a relational term, then sanctification must be expressed in relational ways.

Let's try the second example. On 18th March, 2000 I was married, but then I continued to seek after my wife with all my heart, hoping and praying (by faith of course) for a moment when all my desires for any other person in this world were taken away and my focus was only ever upon her. Let's even label this a "second wedding" or becoming "entirely married". Again, it doesn't fit into relational terms. It's almost laughable!

Scripturally, I think there's plenty of warrant for understanding sanctification as a relational concept, rather than a transfer of some "thing". For example, Paul refers to the Corinthians as hegiasmenois en Christoi Iesou, kletois hagiois (to ones who having been sanctified in Christ Jesus and called saints...) in 1 Cor 1:2. Now the content of the rest of the letters certainly raises some questions as to just how "sanctified" and "saintly" they really were! If we conceive of it in Calvin's terms well we might just say that they are still undergoing this process of mortification and vivification. Possibly, but Paul could have used plenty of other terms... so why didn't he? The second option, that is the "second blessing" alternative, is even less likely to fit here. If we conceive of sanctification as some kind of second event in time, and the Corinthians are apparently already "sanctified", then why were there so many problems amongst the church here if their propensity to sin had been taken away?

However, if we consider this in terms of relationship, or more specifically covenant relationship, then we have a much better result. Stretching my metaphor just a little further the result is this "You Corinthians are married (in covenant relationship) with Christ, therefore start living like married (covenanted) people - and here are the expectations of a life married with Christ" (cue the rest of the letter...).

There are implications for a shift in thinking in this way, and I would value your thoughts on this. For me there are also implications on the whole "faith" vs "works" dichotomy as well... but that can wait for another post.

Socks, Jocks and Power Tools

2010-08-31T12:06:00.002+10:00

So I open my letterbox yesterday and am confronted with the usual Monday afternoon pile of junk mail. This week there's a slightly different edge to it. On the cover of the K-Mart catalogue is not the usual top 3 options - Women's Clothing, Toys and Kitchen Appliances, but men dressed in appropriately boring polo shirts, smiling as if someone's just "dropped" something and no-one's owning up to it; there's plain white socks, a dart board and a block of Toblerone labelled "Super Dad"... It must be Father's Day soon. The only time of year when a male is not out of place on the cover of these recycle bin fillers.

I'm struck by the image of "Fathers" that society portrays at this time of year. Apparently, it's the time of year when mothers and children purchase our underwear. The only time. It must be, because that seems to be the overarching theme of these catalogues. Boxers, briefs, jockeys, Y-fronts. It's all there. But it seems the multi-packs are not enough, because apparently us fathers are unable, or unwilling, to purchase these seemingly "foreign" objects on our own throughout the rest of the year. Perhaps instead of 3 or 7 packs, we need a 52 pack. One for each week of the year. (That is how often us neanderthals change them isn't it???).

I mean, C'MON! We're not that barbaric are we? Is this the image of Father's that we find acceptable? Men who can't, or won't, buy their own underwear, and yet for some strange reason have the responsibility for feeding, clothing, providing and protecting young children. Have we gone MAD! Surely, we can give a little more credit to Fathers than that?

Now consider the image that we portray of fathers in the church. What does that look like? Is it suitable? Is it realistic? How do we encourage it? Do we just perpetuate the image that society portrays? Perhaps even more challenging, does it portray an appropriate image of the Father God? Of holiness? More specifically, do I portray an appropriate image of the Father God?

I've been wondering a bit about this lately, and considering the question "What does it mean to be a male and a Christian?" What is authentic maleness in the Christian faith? What does a Christian Father look like? Now I'm not a power-tool wielding, "lets build us a workshed", front-row forward, built-like-a-brick-dunny kind of guy. That's not me, and never will be. I'd much rather be reading a theological book than fixing a light bulb (which reminds me...) or knocking together a coffee table on a Saturday afternoon. I do like watching UFC but I'm certainly not about to jump inside the octagon! (Are you guys NUTS!?!?!?).

But I am a male, and I am a Christian, and I am a Father too. And I want to be a part of a community of faith that encourages me to be all of those things, and where I can encourage others to do the same. Similarly I want to derive my "maleness" and "fatherhood" from the faith-fact that I now am crucified with Christ and by the Spirit I am a participant in the Godhead. So to answer the question "What does it mean to be a male and a Christian?" I answer by looking to the Trinity. The "giving" Father (John 3:16), the "self-emptying Son" (Phil 2:6) and the "teaching and advocating Spirit" (John 14). This, for me, is what it means to be male. In fact, this is what it means to be truly human (male or female). To be co-crucified with Christ is to deny self, and take up the cross of Christ daily and follow him.

To be like Christ, to be holy, is to be like the Godhead who is "giving", "self-emptying" and a "teacher-advocate" (among many other things) and so that is what I must become. In Christ and through the Spirit that is what I am becoming. "On that day" that is what I will be. That's what it means to be truly Christlike and therefore truly human, and in my case to be truly male and truly a father.

What better gift could I give my kids everyday than that?

Book Review: Inhabiting the Cruciform God

2010-08-27T22:27:00.001+10:00

Michael J. Gorman Inhabiting the Cruciform God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).

This was one of those books that had been recommended to me but I simply added it to the list. That normally means it's years off being actually read because I have so many other things already on the list. That was, until last weekend when I finally bumped this book up to the number one spot. I'm glad that I did because it has made a considerable contribution to a number of discussions going on in both Biblical studies (Pauline) and Holiness theology.

I had been told that Chapter 2 was the one to look out for here, because of Gorman's ability to synthesise the doctrine of justification and sanctification together under the heading of co-crucifixion. This is no mean task, but I think Gorman is successful. This lengthy chapter did live up to expectations, as Gorman shows that Paul does not have two soteriological models (participationist and juridical) but one - what Gorman calls "justification by co-crucifixion". This he defines comprehensively as:

restoration to right covenant relations with God and others by participation in Christ's quintessential covenantal act of faith and love on the cross; this one act fulfilled bot the "vertical" and "horizontal" requirements of the Law, such that those who participate in it experience the same life-giving fulfilment of the Law and therein begin the paradoxical, christologically grounded process of resurrection through death. (pg 45)

However, it was Chapter 1 which was for me the shining light. Through sustained and thorough exegesis of the Christological hymn found in Philippians 2:6-11 Gorman shows that it is not that Jesus was acting "out of" character as the pre-existent Logos, and second person of the Godhead, in his kenotic movement in the incarnation but rather that he was acting "in" character as God. The key term here is the "although/because" of verse 6. The significance here is that in Christ we actually see who God is and what humanity can actually become. Thus for Christian holiness, to be truly Christlike is to live a self-emptying life, through participation in the self-emptying Christ. In Gorman's words

In Christ's preexistent and incarnate kenosis we see truly what God is truly like, and we simultaneously see truly what Adam/humanity truly should have been, truly was not, and now truly can be in Christ. Kenosis is theosis. To be like Christ crucified is to be both most godly and most human. Christification is divinization, and divinization is humanization. (pg 37)

Chapter 3 has been previously published within Kent Brower and Andy Johnson's Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, where I had previously read and enjoyed its contribution. However, the logical place within the argument of this present book makes for a good fit here as well.

Gorman grounds his argument in reality well by wrestling with an ethical issue, that being the place of violence. If kenosis is theosis then what is the place of violence in the life of the Christian. The answer: none. Gorman's argument is persuasive and I agree with his conclusions here.

I would suggest adding this text to your book list, but bump it up towards the top soon. It's well worth the read.

Adam

Order here at Amazon or bookdepository

Upcoming Events

2010-08-25T11:06:00.000+10:00

There are a few free events upcoming which you may be interested in attending.

1. The Nazarene Theological College in Brisbane are hosting Dr Joseph Coleson from Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City tonight (25th August, 2010). More details here.

2. Booth College is hosting General Dr Paul Rader (R) and Commissioner Kay Rader who will be presenting the Coutts Memorial Lecture. The lecture will be presented in Sydney on Thursday 26th August at 7:30pm and in Brisbane on Sunday 29th August at 2:30pm. More details here.

You can also view online the Sydney lecture (26th August at 7:30pm) via the livestream available here.

3. St Andrew's Greek Orthodox College in Sydney are hosting their 2010 Patristic Symposium on Wednesday nights commencing 1 September through to 6 October. More details here.

4. Macquarie University Ancient Cultures Research Centre and Australain Catholic University Centre of Early Christian Studies have combined to present "Epistolary Conversations: Opening the letter of Classical and Late Antiquitty". This will be an all day event on Monday 15 November 2010, starting at 9:30am to 5:30pm. More details here. RSVP is required for this one.

5. Macquarie University are also hosting Professor Larry Welborn who will be presenting a free public lecture on Wednesday 8 September, 2010 at 7:15pm - 8:30pm. More details here. RSVP is also required for this one.

I hope to attend some of these myself and so I look forward to seeing you there.

Adam

Frederick Coutts Lecture - Livestream

2010-08-22T17:12:00.001+10:00

Just thought I would make you aware that the 2010 Frederick Coutts Memorial Lecture is on this Thursday, 26th August, at 7:30pm at Booth College in Sydney. The guest speakers this year are General Paul Rader (R) and Commissioner Kay Rader. I've had the opportunity to hear them both speak in the last two weeks and I'm sure it will be a great lecture. The title of the lecture is "Reaching for Metaphors of Grace".

If you cannot make it in person then you can watch it live from anywhere in the world here. (Just enter a guest name and click OK. You may be asked to download a "plug-in" which only takes a couple of minutes).

Sydney is +10:00hrs from GMT, and you can calculate the time difference using this site.

Hope to see you there.

Adam

The Rapture - A Response

2010-08-19T10:44:00.001+10:00

This was a review that was published in "The Officer" magazine last year. This publication is only made available to Officers in The Salvation Army, so I thought I'd also make it available here for others who may be interested. Comments are very welcome.

Phil Layton, The Rapture London: Salvation Books, 2009.

A quick survey of recent Salvation Army Year Books reveals that in recent years the Army has not published a great many books of a strictly Theological or Biblical Studies nature. In fact, by and large the vast majority of texts are either reprints of old texts or translations into other languages. So as someone who refers to himself as an “apprentice theologian” I get excited when I do see a new publication by a Salvationist author that attempts to address a topic of a theological nature.

My present appointment is as Director for the School for Christian Studies at Booth College in the Australia Eastern Territory. Part of my role, as I see it, is to stay in touch with the theological scene, which I define quite simply as "participating in the discussion". I do a lot of reading, thinking, discussing and writing about theological issues. I enjoy interacting with others and communicating what I have learned and I ask a lot of questions. I do not (and will probably never) purport to be an expert on theology but I am passionate about it and I want to see the Army seek to understand it's faith in deeper ways and contribute to the wider Church as well. The purpose of this article is to “participate in the discussion” of a topic brought up in the recent publication – The Rapture by Captain Phil Layton. Again, I was excited to see a new Army publication, but it left me with a lot of questions unanswered.

Firstly, "Rapture" theology, or dispensational premillennialism, in terms of the 2000 year history of the church, is "new" theology. The term was expounded by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the 19th Century and before this time is generally unheard of in theological writings. Premillennialism itself is not something new, but the idea that the Church would be "Raptured" away prior to a period of tribulation and then the 1000 year reign of Christ is a new theological formulation. I say "theological formulation" deliberately because the word does not appear in Scripture. Hence it is a particular interpretation of Scriptural texts put together in such a way that a theological construct is formed. This is not a bad thing, in fact it's an important role of the Church and there's a particularly good example of how important this is - the Trinity. Once again a term that is not found in Scripture, but history tells us just how important a doctrine this is. Since the very term itself is a theological construct (not a Biblical term) it's therefore impossible to take a "plain" reading of Scripture, as this book purports to do, without either reading into the text, or deconstructing and then reconstructing the texts under consideration. It is my assertion that this book reads "Rapture" into the text, which is a huge problem for me.

The assertion that dispensational premillennialism is “new” means that we should react to it with more scepticism than is offered in this book. Thomas C. Oden, in the introduction to his three volume Systematic Theology, says

the only claim I make is that there is nothing whatever original in these pages

(Thomas C. Oden, Systematic Theology. (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2006), 1:xiii).

Reacting against the modern temptation to assume that any “new” contribution must move away from the “old”, Oden gives us a good theological approach to follow. In all areas of the Christian faith there will always be ancient path that has been trod for thousands of years. Dangers abound to the left and the right of this path. If in your travels you find yourself on a different or “new” path then it’s necessary to stop and ask “why?” then return once again to that ancient pathway.

Secondly, the chosen methodology employed in this book, i.e. a “plain reading” of Scripture, is not a part of our historical heritage; that is, Wesleyanism. The so-called Wesleyan quadrilateral including "Scripture, Experience, Tradition and Reason" is a very sound approach to theology. History has shown us that when the pendulum swings too far in favour of one of these four parts and the others disregarded then we end up in deep trouble. Schleirmacher overemphasised "experience" and we ended up with Liberalism. Orthodox theology overemphasised "tradition" to the point where it was considered sacred and arguably more important to them than Scripture. Modernism overemphasised "reason" and the scientific approach to Biblical interpretation and in doing so placed humans "above" Scripture, rather than "under" its Divine authority. When it is suggested that a "plain" reading of Scripture is the best option, or indeed even possible, without considering "experience, tradition or reason" it opens the door for all sorts of weird and wonderful interpretations of any given text. That's how cults have formed in the past (an extreme example I know). But at an individual level, it opens the door for people to say "God told me this" and find any sort of scriptural reference to support their claims. For example, are the "holy war" texts of the Old Testament to be used to justify war in today's contemporary world. A "plain" reading of Scripture may lead one to say "yes". Adding in "experience, tradition, and reason" we are more likely to come to the conclusion "no" (at least I would hope we would!). Similarly, if I read Luke 22 or 1 Cor 11 with a "plain" reading one might suggest that I would come to a very different conclusion regarding the sacraments than Captain Layton does in his first book, The Sacraments and the Bible.

This theological formulation is historically "out of place" with where we have come from and so I have an issue with this both being published under the Army's name and also have the Chairman of the International Doctrine Council giving the "Foreword" in (one assumes) complete agreement with this theological stance. Given that we publish so few books on theological or Biblical studies issues, any book that is released naturally has endowed with it the impression that it has the full support of The Salvation Army, particularly if it is from IHQ’s own publishers.

Thirdly, the back cover suggests that the writer is a "Biblical Scholar". Whenever I pick up a new book the first place I turn to is the Bibliography and endnotes. This helps me to get a "feel" for the content and context of the book before I read it. To be perfectly frank, if I saw this Bibliography on one of our student’s essays I would be very disappointed and speak to the student immediately about reading more widely, as well as their overuse of internet references. Sites like http://www.askmoses.com/ are not at all scholarly since we cannot know who has written what and what editorial processes the work has gone through to get onto the internet. I encourage students to use the internet "wisely" and the references shown here display a lack of scholarly discernment. I find it even more remarkable that many of the listed websites are in fact Jewish. Something that is absolutely bizarre, given that they are still awaiting the first coming of the Messiah, not the second!

Here, there are no commentaries, New Testament or Old Testament surveys, no scholarly articles and the book itself is not presented using accepted scholarly protocols (e.g. footnotes, endnotes etc). For example, a definition for "eschatology" is given (pg 7) in quotation marks but no reference is provided for this. If a student handed that work into a lecturer at our school they would fail because of "plagiarism" or failing to present the paper according to the expected conventions. Similarly, the main definition for "Rapture" is based upon the Oxford dictionary, which for me does not cut it in "Biblical scholarship". The claim to be a "Biblical scholar" needs to be better evidenced than this book provides.

Next, the chosen hermeneutic for the book of Revelation is that of a "futuristic" one. There are two problems with this. Firstly, it assumes that everything in the book is about some future time, and not about the contemporary situation that it was originally written for. To say this differently, if I wrote you an email that was not about an issue relating to "now" but something that I am prophesying will happen in 500 years time then why would you be interested in that email? You're likely to delete it, or at least disregard it. Similarly, why would the original recipients of Revelation be at all interested in this letter if it didn't have a contemporary significance for them? If they weren't interested in its content, then why and how would it become canonised into Scripture. This is especially important given that there were so many texts that could have been included into the canon but were not. I think a futuristic interpretation alone is insufficient to answer these questions. Revelation 1-3, at least, is also clearly about contemporary situations facing the seven churches, not some future event(s).

Captain Layton has also, in my opinion, applied this "futuristic" interpretation to every text chosen in the book. It is applied to Daniel, Pauline, Johannine and other Gospel texts at liberty. Each text is taken out of context and used to support a theological formulation (Rapture) that those texts were probably not supporting (e.g. John 14). Whilst the attempt is to elicit a "plain" reading of the Scriptures from the reader allowing Scriptural authority to speak on a particular topic, in fact in employing this "proof-texting" methodology it does the complete opposite. It causes the reader to "read into" the text the theological formulation that the author wants them to see. This is, again, why I argue that we need experience, tradition and reason to aid us in our reading and interpretation of the Scriptures.

My own thoughts on dispensational premillennialism are that it simply doesn't make sense. If I read the Scriptures canonically (i.e. the broader "brush strokes") I see a God who is walking with his creation in the garden (Gen 3:8); who covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David; who rescues his people from slavery in Egypt so that he may be their God and they his people. I see a God who is completely holy and unapproachable (e.g. Exodus 19), yet paradoxically is in the midst of his people represented by the tabernacle and later the temple. Then of course we see in Jesus Christ God himself dwelling in the midst of his people; Emmanuel (Matt 1:23); the God-man who took on human nature and died a cruel and brutal death on the cross for the restoration of the world.

Then I see something very interesting. After a very public crucifixion I read of a very private resurrection. I have to ask why? Why not come back to life with a huge spectacle? Why not come out of the tomb and parade yourself in the temple? Why not show your scars to everyone instead of just Thomas? If the resurrection is so vital to the Christian faith then why would Jesus entrust this vitally good and world changing news to a few unreliable witnesses? The answer - the Church. The Church is the living representation of Christ in the world. It is empowered by the Holy Spirit to be the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12) now that he has ascended to heaven. So we, being united with Christ, are empowered for mission and continue to be God's people and he our God. All through Biblical history I read of a God who is interested in being with his people, not so much in heaven but rather in the midst of creation, and he calls us, as the Body of Christ, to be that body in the world.

Then I hear the suggestion that in the future God will take his people away from creation.... it just doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't make sense. Why would God be so involved in his creation, even to the point of taking on human nature and being subjected to crucifixion, then invite and involve his people in communicating the message of salvation to the world, only at the most crucial moment in history (i.e. the moment before his return) to take those people away from creation? Where did that come from? It just “flies in from left field”. I don't see it in the texts suggested in this book, and it seems out of character for the God revealed throughout the Bible. It also makes me want to ask why people who seem so interested in dates and events to do with the Tribulation even bother (if they hold to a dispensational premillennial view). If you're not going to be there why do you care? As an aside I would like to thank Captain Layton for not going down this path too much. It's been way overdone in "rapture" theology and is, for me, a waste of time.

I would like to conclude with a rather lengthy quote from one of my favourite writers, Robert Webber, which sums up my particular views on eschatology very well.

The church is where the Spirit of God is forming a people who are the expression of God's redeeming work in the world. They are the people in whom the dwelling of God is forming a new creation. They are God's witnesses in the world; they witness to God's victory over the powers of evil (Eph 3:10) and are a sign of the ultimate reconciliation of all things (Rom 8:18-20).

For this reason the church does not have an eschatology, it is an eschatological people. This explains the younger evangelical indifference to the new eschatological series, Left Behind, by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. This series grew out of the old view of "having an eschatology," a dispensational premillennial eschatology in the case of LaHaye and Jenkins. The younger evangelicals want to be an eschatological community. They want to be a people formed by a theological understanding of the world and the presence of the Spirit, who makes this people a community that prefigures the future and expresses a foretaste of the kingdom to come.

In sum, to say the church is the body of Christ is to affirm the church is the continuation of the presence of Jesus in the world; its life is sustained by the energy of the Spirit who is "the Lord and giver of life"; there is a divine side and a human side to the church; the church is a witness to the drama of salvation; and the church is the presence of the eschatological future in the world. In this sense the church does not "have" a mission, it is mission, by its very existence in the world.

(Robert E. Webber, The Younger Evangelicals. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002), 113.)

Worship

2010-08-09T14:28:00.003+10:00

Today I came across two articles on worship which I found quite interesting. Firstly at theRubicon, James Pedlar suggests 5 ways to improve worship in The Salvation Army. These are a great discussion starter and it will be interesting to see what responses are received to these suggestions...

In the light of number 4 on James' list (pay attention to content) it was then interesting to read an interview with Keith and Kristyn Getty over at Leadershipjournal.net. A fantastic quote here which I find particularly encouraging...

"If I've got non-Christian friends coming to church, I'd far rather give them four verses of comparatively heavy theology with some theological words which explains the gospel, than give them twenty repeated words that could be said about your pet horse or your girlfriend."

While we're on the topic. Here's another great reading from one of my favourite authors, Robert Webber. I originally read the whole book that this came from a couple of years ago and wrestled with this particular excerpt - The Divine Embrace. I would highly recommend this book. So, I was also glad when I found that Christainity Today had published this particular part and made it available.

The key to getting this one is to understand the difference here between God being "subjective" and "objective" in worship. If we treat him as the "object" of our worship, he is distinct from it and uninvolved. If he is the "subject", then he is active in our worship. Once I got this I found this particular reading to liberate my understanding of true Christian worship - it wasn't all about me! (Amazing I know!).

Love it!

Enjoy

Universal Salvation... It's not all bad!

2010-06-10T02:08:00.006+10:00

I’ve had reason lately to contemplate the suggestion of universal salvation – that is, everyone will be saved in the end. No need for repentance, conversion or any sense of morality, you’re just “in”. I’ve been thinking about this for no other reason than I take the words of The Army’s sixth doctrine very seriously… “made an atonement for the whole world”. Similarly, I look at passages such as Titus 2:11; “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” (ESV), and ask myself the question “What does it mean to say “all people?”. How do we address that? Do we actually mean, “the whole world” or do we rationalise it in some way as needing a caveat clause: only those who go through some “initiation process” of some kind “get in” (be that a “sinners prayer” or otherwise)? I recognise that there is a fairly weighty scriptural basis for the suggestion that some people are “in” and some people are “out”. The Bible does speak of a place of punishment, and a place of reward, and Paul frequently uses the phrase “in Christ” which suggests there are some who are “out of Christ”. But for me, as I said to a friend over coffee the other day, I’d much rather dance with a doctrine that said “all people are saved” than one that suggests that 75-80% of people in the world are going straight to hell. There’s a certain amount of attraction towards and comfort in universalism there. It says a lot about the extensiveness and extravagance of God’s love and grace. I’m not a universalist, though. I’m still not convinced that it’s orthodox, and neither has the church been throughout its history. I’m with Karl Barth at this point, though, who when accused of being a universalist (which he wasn’t) he responded by saying “I’m not, but would it be so bad if I was?” However, I do find that upon raising even the possibility of universalism there’s a certain amount of discomfort that arises in people almost immediately. Stop and assess your own thoughts and feelings as you’ve been reading this particular posting. Are you disagreeing with any suggestion of universalism? Have you been considering a strongly worded rebuttal (which is welcomed by the way)? What’s going on inside your head at the mention of this word? “Universalism” is just one of those theological dirty words (It’s a shame it’s not spelt with four letters). It seems to be one place of common ground as a “no-go zone” regardless of one’s particular theological bent in other areas. I have to ask why is that so? Again, would it be so bad if God did, in fact, save everyone in the end? Would it be so bad if God did say that “Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for all, you don’t have to do anything, you don’t even have to be a particularly nice person, you’re all saved, you’re all in!” This is where the discomfort arises. How would we feel if our next door neighbour in eternity was Adolf Hitler? Or Osama bin Laden? Or an axe-murderer? Or a child rapist? This, I suspect, is the underlying source of our discomfort with any suggestion of universalism. We want retributive justice. Like when we watch any movie based on a theme of “us” and “them” we want to know that the bad guy gets it in the end. Reminiscent of the scene in Bruce Almighty when he’s standing in the rain screaming at God, we know God can do some pretty good “smiting” and we’re looking forward to when he does that to “those evil people in the world” in the end (i.e. not “us” but “them”)… Universalism, for all its faults, does have one thing going for it. It exposes within us the limits of our own love for others; particularly the love we have for our enemies. What did Jesus say? “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love you neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:43-45 ESV). In the context of this discussion those words become particularly powerful. When was the last time you prayed for Adolf Hitler, or Osama bin Laden, or much closer to home someone who insults me? When have you prayed for your enemy's eternal salvation? I don’t think I’ve ever done that! “Lord, have mercy upon him/her.” It’s almost painful to type those words in reference to those "enemies", let alone pray them. But doesn’t that say more about me than it does about God? Doesn’t that expose in me the extent of my ability to love my enemies, whilst at the same time showing just how far God goes to provide a means of salvation for all people. In the light of that, consider these words from Romans… “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” (Romans 5:6-11) We were “enemies of God”, Paul suggests, yet still at that time Christ died. It’s as if we are the terrorist, or the mass murderer, or the child rapist in our considerations above. We deserved God’s retributive justice (“Smite me Almighty Smiter!” as Bruce Almighty so aptly said), but instead of it being directed towards us it was directed towards Christ. God should have punished us. God should have destroyed us, yet because of his covenantal love and the faithfulness of Christ he fulfilled his promises to Abraham, Moses and David through Jesus Christ and now makes them available to all people, Jews and Gentiles, through Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. This still amazes me and to be perfectly honest I still don’t fully understand it. But boy am I thankful! Let’s not forget that this is where we’ve come from and in the light of that consider where we’re going, and also who’s coming with us. Do we just want it to be “the lost, the last and the least” (as important and absolutely vital as they are). It’s interesting that often that phrase is said by those who are “the found, the first, and the finest”. Or should we also be desparately seeking “the worst, the woeful and the wicked”? To coin a completely overused phrase… what would Jesus do? “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”

The New Handbook of Doctrine...

2010-05-18T23:12:00.002+10:00

I recently set out to "review" the Handbook of Doctrine, but found that the task is going to be much more detailed than I anticipated. The main reason for this is that, since it is a revision of Salvation Story it requires a comparitive reading of both texts at once. The changes, I suspect, will be very significant. In the initial stages, however, I've written an "initial response" which has been published over at theRubicon. Enjoy! Adam

Jammin' with James Morrison

2010-05-15T18:25:00.002+10:00

Back in September, 2006 I had the opportunity to play with Australian Jazz legend, James Morrison. My wife, Megan, filmed it and I've finally taken the time to load it onto YouTube... Here it is. Enjoy!

New Handbook of Doctrine 2010

2010-04-27T12:03:00.004+10:00

I just found out today that The Salvation Army's new Handbook of Doctrine (2010) is available for download over at the International Headquarters Website. I plan to read through this soon and provide a review shortly. Come back soon to see it. Thanks Adam

Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright

2010-04-23T10:19:00.002+10:00

The 19th Annual Wheaton Conference took place recently and included speakers such as Richard Hayes and Kevin Vanhoozer in dialogue with N.T. Wright regarding his writings. You can access video or mp3 files of this conference at this link. Enjoy! Adam

The search for equality continues...

2010-04-12T20:28:00.004+10:00

I found this article in the newspaper the other day and found it intriguing and challenging. Hopefully you will find the choice to provide a link to it in my blog an ironic one. Adam

A theory of everything?

2010-04-06T23:59:00.007+10:00

In the 1950’s one of the great scientific races of all time ended. The discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, the building blocks of life, opened the door to many more significant scientific breakthroughs in our time. This discovery has had a huge impact on our understanding of life as we know it, and in particular has provided the framework for some very significant developments in the areas of medical research and criminal investigations. In the twenty-first century a new race is on, for the elusive “theory of everything”. The challenge here involves drawing together multiple, widely accepted, but at times seemingly contradictory theories (such as quantum theory, the theory of relativity, string theory, etc) under a single unifying whole – the so-called, but yet to be discovered, “theory of everything”.This challenge is proving particularly elusive for scientists, but I believe the church also needs to embark upon a similar quest lest it continue on a path of segmentation and eventual separation. As I see it, there tends to be three main focal points that people, by virtue of personality, interest, culture, upbringing or otherwise, tend to be drawn towards within the church; worship, mission, and social justice. Of course, these three categories are not mutually exclusive, nor an exhaustive representation of the possibilities that exist, and they are of course generalisations as well, but from my observations it appears that people tend to lean towards one of these particular areas more heavily than they do to others. The danger here is that people lean “too far”, becoming exclusivist in their approach to Christian living and misunderstanding and even looking down upon others who do not share their views or passion in their particular area of interest. For example, those who lean in the direction of “worship” tend to place a great emphasis upon the weekly gathering. A lot of preparation goes into this meeting, with practices, musical arrangements, sourcing new songs, movie clips, decorations, sermon preparation and so on. These are all worthwhile activities for worship is a good thing. We are created to worship and enjoy God’s presence, but without the added dimensions of mission and addressing the issues of injustice that exist within the world we risk becoming “Sunday” Christians; only interested in the next service and never actually engaging with the world around us. Similar dangers abound in the other two categories I have suggested. Those who lean towards “social justice” are passionate about righting the wrongs that exist within the world. This particular emphasis has received much attention in the last five to ten years and rightly so. Before that time we’d rarely even heard of phrases such as “fair trade” or “people trafficking”. Sure, the church had been involved in dealing with these issues in the past but what has changed dramatically is how accessible the solutions have become. The average Christian now has the opportunity to become a part of the solution, not just your heavyweights like John Wesley, William Wilberforce, or W.T. Stead. Simple things like what thinking about what chocolate, tea and coffee we purchase are making a difference for those who produce these commodities. Recently we saw Cadbury in the UK and now in Australia release “fair trade” labelled chocolate, as a direct result of the pressure that has been placed upon this company from those with a particular interest in social justice issues. However we must remember that Christians are not the only ones trumpeting this horn. This is not a bad thing, of course. The more, the merrier. But the danger is that as we address these issues the “why?” becomes detached from the “how”. There is a significant threat that social justice activity loses its theological framework, and so successes such as the “conversion” of Cadbury, become “human” successes and not God’s. We put the pressure on the company and we convinced them to change their ways. We forget to acknowledge and thank God for his activity in sanctifying one more of the impure and unjust structures that have existed within society. I could continue, but you get the picture. I guess what I am trying to suggest here is not that we stop any of these activities. That would be an absolute travesty. Nor am I suggesting that those who have a particular bent towards “mission” should suddenly stop and get on with the “real” issues of worship or addressing social justice issues. Again, that would just be arrogant and misguided. Rather, I would like to propose a “theory of everything”; a theological framework that I hope each of these emphases, and indeed others that come to mind (education, youth and children, aged care etc.), can be one part of. If each of us can hold onto this “theory of everything” then perhaps there is the opportunity to see ourselves as contributing to the whole, and thus benefiting each of the other areas. So here’s my suggested “theory of everything” summed up in a phrase I picked up in Clark Pinnock’s Flame of Love – “social sanctification”. If we try and look at this issue from God’s perspective here is what we see. In creation God saw that everything was “very good”, in other words the whole was holy – it was “socially sanctified”. Then sin enters the equation and causes all the problems that we see within individuals and society as a whole. But, against the popular myth that sin caused “separation from God”, God remains very much interested in his creation. He does not separate himself from his people, but rather sets about the task of “sanctifying” that which is no longer “very good”. This takes place by means of floods, covenants, the calling out of a particular people as a royal priesthood, a sacrificial cultic system, the provision of land, the continued self-revelation of God’s self by means of the Scriptures, and ultimately through the Christ event and the sending of the Holy Spirit into creation. We also possess the eschatological hope that is revealed in passages such as Revelation which reveal a time when creation will ultimately be re-created (note not destroyed), and return to a state of being “very good” once again. This is, as I see it, God’s ultimate purposes in the world, and I describe this process as “social sanctification”. The miracle is that God invites us to be involved and equips us for the task in this ongoing process. Within this broader category of “social sanctification” we can see many possible sub-categories that contribute to this ultimate goal of restoring creation to being “very good” once again. These include, but are not limited to, the three main categories listed above. Worship; restoring right relationship between humanity and God by means of attributing to God the praise that he is due as God. This is social sanctification and addresses the rampant individualism that sin is founded upon and continues to infect society with. Mission; eliminating the barriers that exist preventing those who are not a part of the people of God from entering into fellowship with the Triune God and true fellowship with creation. This is social sanctification and responds to the call of God to share the good news of the Gospel with the entire world. Social justice; directly addressing issues of injustice and inequality that particularly affect the poor, disadvantaged, marginalised of society, not forgetting issues related to ecology, for the betterment of all creation. This is social sanctification and recognises that the Christian faith is not just about “me and my relationship with Jesus”, but about God’s restorative activity within the world which we are called to be a part of. The more I think about this theory, the more it resonates with me, and the more I think it has value within the Christian church. One of the major problems that scientists face in their pursuit for this elusive theory is that a “theory of everything” must be a theory of everything. It must encompass every known scientific endeavour and include all possible outcomes. So too for this theological “theory of everything”. So it’s time to take this theory from the hypothetical and trial it within the test tube. Does it fit? Does it work? Are the outcomes consistent? Is it possible for all Christian activity, thought and practice to be conflated beneath this umbrella? The task is massive, but I think the call to “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3) calls for such an endeavour. I would value your input and thoughts.