Simone has been enjoying trawling through the YouTube Archives of the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse (also known as the guy who wrote the “End Times Anthem”).
Here are his tips on how to prepare for World War Three. And if you don’t believe him it’s probably the devil.
I love how every prophecy of Daniel and Revelation actually apply to America.
Apparently there’s been a bit of chatter on the interwebs (see Al, and Mikey) about how appropriate it is for Christians to be “cool”… I’m breaking a cardinal rule of cool here by talking about what cool is, and isn’t. But this sort of quote is just a little bit stupid.
“Likely, right now someone in your church is reading Blue Like Jazz or some similar book. It will resonate with them in style and content—it is cool and Christian. And it is extremely unhelpful. The only antidote seems to be twofold. The first is to reintroduce young Christians to the biblical Jesus: the person who died an agonizing death for their sins, who will tread the winepress of the wrath of God, and who listens to their prayers. The second is to begin the battle against the cool. The godly must begin to prove in the pulpit, in writing, and in their lives that Christianity is the deadly enemy of the cool.”
Now, I don’t know what planet this guy is from. I could understand if he was directing these remarks at the kind of people who think it necessary to install dirt bike jumps in church auditoriums to weakly make a point in a sermon. But that isn’t the definition of “cool” he went with.
” And the cool is the Western postmodern entertainment driven culture that has tutored our children and ourselves for the last fifty years.”
He must be really old and lame. But that’s not what “cool” is. That’s an old man’s definition of cool. That’s the definition someone comes up with looking into an idea or concept that they are not part of. Nothing says uncool like trying to define cool. Unless you want to compare it to being forty+ and having a Twilight tattoo.
Maybe my reaction against this is because I have been brainwashed by my postmodern entertainment driven culture. Cultural texts like:
Cool is almost completely subjective. It moves and changes with whatever group of people you move and change with, including within Christian subculture. It’s an ambiguous word (check out how much trouble the dictionary has defining it), and I think it could readily be applied to the life and ministry of Jesus. Even King Missile thought he was way cool… Here are some of the lyrics from a song called Jesus Was Way Cool:
“He would tell these stories and people would listen.
He was really cool.
If you were blind or lame,
You just went up to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you and you would be healed.
That’s so cool.He could have played guitar better than Hendrix.
He could have told the future.
He could have baked the most delicious cake in the world.
He could have scored more goals than Wayne Gretsky.
He could have danced better than Barishnikof.
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of.Jesus told people to eat his body and drink his blood.
That’s so cool.
Jesus was so cool.
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was,
So they killed him.
But then he rose from the dead!
He rose from the dead,
Danced around and went up to heaven.
I mean, that’s so cool.
Jesus was so cool.
No wonder there are so many Christians.”
But lets face it – definitions of cool are pretty arbitrary unless they come from The Rock.
Jesus was pretty good at that. Our job as Christians though is to be like him (which hopefully becomes more and more a case of “being ourselves”). I just don’t see how “cool” and “Christian” don’t mesh up – unless you understand “cool” as “conforms to social norms” rather than as “refuses to be influenced by social norms” (which I guess applies to those people who think Justin Bieber or any character from Twilight defines “cool”). The only thing this post proves is that trying to define cool in order to criticise it is just not cool.
Mikey raises the question1, on Christian Reflections, about whether its ever acceptable for a muso to start providing prayer muzak.
I say no.
I’d love to read your thoughts over there too.
1 Though he calls it something very different -“the post-sermon prayer tinkle” which to me sounds a little like a post sermon bathroom break, analogous to the obligatory pre-sermon bathroom break (if you don’t know about this, don’t ask. I think it’s called “Preacher’s Belly”… or it should be.
This was the last session and concluded with a nice little summary of how these thoughts can be used in meeting culture with the gospel.
Self-rule and self-mastery
If we are to exercise dominion over creation then that should start with the creature closest to us – ourselves. This is one of the things that distinguishes us from the animals. Animals don’t exercise self-control. We can train them, but they are driven by instinct. We are humans who are less than human because we do not exercise dominion over ourselves.
Esau, the hairy baby, is portrayed as a beastly human – a hunter who is at home in the wild. Jacob is more “ideal” – but he has to cover himself in goat skin, like an animal, in order to trick Isaac.
Esau lives on instinct, like an animal. He sells his birthright to satisfy his hunger. He’s not exercising self control.
This opens up some interesting angles on our culture – we define what it is to be human in degrading, instinctive, animalistic terms – “if it feels good do it” is the modus operandi of animals. Does our advertising sell the human experience or a sub-human experience?
Christian ethics – like abstinence before marriage – is decried as unhuman. It’s a case of exercising self-control.
We need a rich and diverse presentation of the gospel to reach our culture – because not every angle will hit every person.
The good news of the gospel is our hyper-restoration. We’re not just restored to Adam’s status but beyond. We go past the pristine. There’s a way out of our beastialised humanity. There’s a way for us to exercise dominion over creation, and ourselves. The gospel reconceives what it means to be human. The question “What does it mean to be human?” is a great way to address our culture with the gospel.
The good news of the gospel is not just about Christ – but about Christ and his Spirit. We’re often Christocentric in a way that forgets the Spirit. It can seem like evangelicals are a bit embarrassed by Jesus’ humanity – we like to focus on his divinity. Our definition of true and normal humanity is skewed – we talk about our reality, normal humanity, as though our fallen selves are the norm. Perhaps Jesus’ humanity is the norm – and is in line with our created identity (ie that which we were created to be prior to the fall). Jesus is the true bearer of the divine image. The true human (in his sinlessness). It’s not super humanity but true humanity. It’s where we’ll be in our resurrected state. Sin is the aberration. We say “to err is human” but that’s really a definition of what it means to be fallen humans.
Jesus may, in fact, be no more than humanity as it’s meant to be. The resurrected Jesus is as humanity was always meant to be.
The writer of Hebrews reads Psalm 8 as a prophecy about the Messiah. “We see him for a little while made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honour.”
True humanity submits to God’s authority – which is what Jesus did, in the extreme, at the cross.
The writer of Hebrews doesn’t limit this picture of glorified humanity to Jesus alone – but puts it as the destination for humanity through Jesus – the purpose of Jesus’ resurrection is to bring many sons to glory. Jesus suffered, died, and rose again so that we might become like him as “sons of God” – not in a vague liberal sense that we’re all sons of god, but to be what Adam was supposed to be.
The doctrine of glorification (eg Romans 8) – we need to think about this doctrine as a now but not yet doctrine – yes, it’s our condition in the age to come, but the power that will transform us (the Holy Spirit) is already at work in us. Mostly it’s not yet. But that power of transforming us into glorified people is already at work in us. The Spirit’s work in us is to make us human in a way that God’s breath into Adam made him human. We’re being made a new people, now glorious.
When we are speaking about what it means to live as true humans Jesus should be our starting point because he is the “true human.”
Ethics
Living as true humans has to mean living in Christ. Once you come at it this way, Christian ethics are simply to live humanly (rather than animalistically).
If we are to understand our fallen humanity as “beastly” where we live without self-control and on instinct. Peter uses the analogy of “brute beasts” when describing those who blaspheme – “creatures of instinct born only to be destroyed”…
Our tendency is to live by instinct. We should, instead, be living via the fruit of the Spirit, a redefinition of what it means to be human (Galatians 5), where self-control gets a Guernsey. Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 9, with an athletic comparison, also uses self-discipline as a key for life as a Spirit empowered human. The new human is united to Christ and empowered by the Spirit and so is beginning to exercise the dominion that Adam was meant to exercised over creation.
Self-control is about every area of our lives – not just about sex. It’s about our tempers, about controlling our tongues, about controlling our diets, it’s about controlling our passions. This is counter-intuitive in our culture, which regards self-control as an unnecessary prohibition. Our world looks at self-control and calls it a vice (cf Romans 1).
When we look at the fruit of the spirit we should think “this is what it means to be human, no more and no less.”
Fresh angles on evangelism.
We live in a world where everybody is questing to be truly human.
Every religion and ideology, every political vision, is built on the question of what it means to be truly human.
Our political debate is just an expression of what it means to be truly human. The health care debate in the US is also underpinned by what it means to be truly human. The debate about gay rights, our popular culture (eg Twilight), just about every expression in our world is undergirded by this question of what it means to be truly human. We say that the definition of true humanity focuses on the question of Jesus Christ – who shows us what it means to be God, and also what it means to be truly man.
We say “consider Jesus” the one true human, defining humanity by any other starting point is defective. We, as Christians, should be modeling what it means to be human. We are the ones living the truly alternate lifestyle. Our task is to live humanly and model what it means to be truly human.
We are united to Jesus and have begun the process of becoming truly human. We don’t get up and pronounce that we’ve got something that others don’t – but we do model this fuller picture of humanity. As we become more “godlike,” as the Spirit transforms us, we become more human, and then we become advertisements for the gospel.
Our gospel message is redefining and modeling humanity in a way that is hopefully attractive to the people around us.
Deuteronomy – when Israel keeps the law the nations go “oh what a wise God you have…”
Australia is ahead of the US in terms of being a “post-Christian” society – the US is moving that way and grappling with the question of what that will look like.
More notes from Doug Green… including some more speculative stuff (by his own admission) that was pretty thought provoking. You’ll notice that in order to convey the essence of some sort of characteristic Doug would often add “ness” to the end of a word, and occasionally negate that with an “un”… my spellcheck didn’t really like that so much…
Evangelicals have a low view of what it means to be human even before we introduce the subject of sin. In our unfallen condition we were like God as a son is like his father.
The Fall Stuff – less pretty, and a little more speculative…
We know how the story in Genesis 3 transpires – the “king and the queen” reject their undergodness. The consequences of Adam’s sin have been understood conventionally in expressions like the WCF.
Five things that happened in the fall:
Romans 3:23 – because we’ve sinned we now fall short of the glory of God that attached to us as unfallen humans (rather than being a case of missing God’s standard of perfection). Psalm 8 – for all have sinned and we no longer have our heavenly nature. We are “falling short” humans.
Doug Green is speaking at QTC today. His first session was on the “image of God” in Genesis (and a bit of Psalms, and a bit of Kings). Here are my notes.
Guilt and Depravity – the two problems facing humanity
Guilt is the bigger issue in western sentimentality.
Depravity concerns inner corruption.
This double focus means that when it comes to defining the gospel we focus on these two conditions.
The WCF mirrors this focus on these concerns. This is what our reformed minds are interested in. If we talk about the gospel it’s likely we’ll end up talking about these concerns.
Justification – we get a new legal position and inner moral orientation. This is how we define the work of Christ and the Spirit. These views have come under criticism in recent years (the justification debate). Our definition is possibly too individualised. We need to do a better job at describing the gospel as it applies to the cosmos – but that’s not our focus today.
The Human Condition
The atonement is incredibly important for understanding the solution to the human problem. It is the central element in God’s answer to the human condition.
Nothing today is a contradiction of that central tenant.
“The Gospel as the Way to be Truly Human”
The salvation or gospel story told from the perspective of what it means to be truly human.
Image of God – that was our original definition of humanity.
The consequence of human sinfulness can be enriched by saying when humanity sinned we lost our glorious godlike status. We metaphorically fell from heaven, and we became less human as a result. We became more like the animals we were supposed to be ruling over. All sin has a dehumanizing effect. It makes us more beast than human.
Imagine a sliding scale on a continuum with God on one side and the animals on the other – we were, in the beginning – closer to the God end of the spectrum than the animal side.
Doug is pushing a very high anthropological view – true humanity was more like God in the beginning than we often think. Sin tipped the spectrum.
The word “fall” captures the idea of this change in status.
We didn’t become mere animals, and the image of God was not obliterated within us (Genesis 9). Something happened there to decrease our “image of godness.” Before the fall we were “glorious” creatures – but there’s a sense that sin ripped away or diminished that glory. We now live in perpetual quest for our lost honour and glory – perhaps an interesting angle on our human condition.
The good news of the gospel is that you can become glorious again. You can become human again. This has implications for pastoral life and evangelism.
The Godlike Glory of Humanity
Genesis 1 v 26-27
When we read the text we focus on the word “image” and forget the “likeness” – what does this mean? It confirms the creator/creation distinction. WE are creatures like the fish and the birds, but on the other hand among the creatures there is one that resembles God. That is man. We have “one foot on either side of the creator/creature distinction” – in the ancient world if you wanted to know what a God looked like you were supposed to look at his image or statue. His physical resemblance. However you talk about the image of God in humanity you can’t ignore Psalm 8.
“You made him a little lower than (Hebrew) Elohim” – a little lower than divine beings. That’s an awfully high anthropology. That we were just a tad short of divine.
Instead of saying that humanity was created like God the psalmist says that we were made similar to heavenly beings. The main point is that there’s something almost divine about unfallen humanity. [ed note – which would be consistent with reading the passages in the light of an eschatological view of humanity].
“You crown them with glory and honour” – this divine glory, traditionally divine characteristics, rested on humanity.
To bear the image of God meant that the first human, Adam, bore aspects of divinity.
Our doctrine of “total depravity” leaves us with a low view of humanity – but that’s our post fall humanity – what does it mean for us if we’re in Christ. Sometimes Doug wonders if our view of who we are as Christians is a little anemic. “There but for the grace of God go I” – we’ve been transformed, on the road to glorious humanity, so we’re not just forgiven sinners anymore…
The Holy Spirit in us gives us an element of Godlikeness. Maybe we need to take that work a little more seriously.
We’re godlike – but we’re also “sons” – Genesis 5 gives us an interesting hint about what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God. “Adam had a son in his own image, in his own likeness who he named Seth…” Seth was to Adam what Adam was to God. Luke’s genealogy makes that point (Luke 3 – Adam the son of God).
“Son of God” is a way of referring to exalted humanity.
We were godlike. We were glorious. We were sons.
We were godlike, therefore we were kings over creation.
“then God said let us make mankind in our own image, in our likeness…” with a purpose construction in Hebrew “so that they might rule.”
Because the original humanity was created in the image of god they were created to be kings over the rest of creation – exercising dominion.
It’s a vice-regency deal. In the ancient world creation isn’t a neutral act. When gods create they gain mastery over their creation. [Interesting aside – perhaps our postmodern approach to literature (denying authorial intention) is part of this desire to not associate creation with mastery/ownership. It’s certainly consistent.]
God’s rule over the world is meant to be a mediated rule – through his creatures, humans. Who are designated to rule on his behalf.
The first humans were not kings over creation – they were “God’s kings” – like the governor general with teeth. With real power.
“You made him ruler” [ Psalms ]
“The flocks and the herds… all creation belongs to the Lord God, all creatures are the works of his hands”
Genesis 2 portrays Adam as a king (subtly). One is obvious – the naming of the animals. Name giving was also a way of exercising dominion and authority.
Genesis 2:7 – much more subtle. The language of being taken out of dust, throughout the OT, is the language of enthronement. 1 Kings 16 is an example. The prophecy against Bashar “I lifted you up from the dust and I made you a leader…”
Dust is the language of “nobodyness” this language of being created from the dust is the metaphorical “raising up of a king” – “dust you were, and to dust you will return” is the language of dethronement.
2:15 – the portrayal of Adam as a gardener – in the Ancient world the kings were the garderners who made their nations fruitful. Ecclesiastes 2 – “this is my greatness, I built houses and I planted vineyards and parks, I planted all kinds of fruit trees…” the proof of the author of Ecclesiastes’ great kingship is that he is a gardener.
We were created to be kings over creation, but we are also kings under God.
Humanity was godlike – but not god. And the godlikeness was subject to recognising this relationship. Should they forget that they would immediately lose their godlike standing.
“The Lord God commanded them: “you are free to eat of any tree of the garden…”
Adam receives a one word Torah. A single test of obedience, of creatureliness. Failure to comply casts him out of his kingly role.
To be truly human is to submit to God and to obey his commands.
Gary explains why this sort of behaviour (setting up a dirt bike ramp in church and having a motorbike jump the minister in the middle of the sermon) is a bad thing. The Awesome Driven Gospel isn’t the Gospel driven Gospel.
But it is, I must admit, slightly awesome. Though the protective barricades with “Thor” written on them surrounded by flames are an interesting touch.
Via ChristianNightmares.
A well meaning friend, perhaps unaware of my position on Family First, suggested that I become Facebook Friends with Queensland Senate Candidate Wendy Francis. I have met Wendy (a few years ago), I used to play football (soccer for the luddites) against her son. Anyway. I added her. She seems like a decent, hard working, Godly Christian lady, I’ve no doubt she’s a great mum. I’ve got no doubt she’s a Christian. I’ve got no doubt she’s moral. And I’ve got no doubt she’s intelligent. But I won’t be voting for her. She’ll probably end up somewhere above the Greens and the Australian Sex Party on my ballot paper (I like numbering the senate paper completely. I’m a politics geek. Sue me.). And here’s why. I don’t think she’ll make a good politician. Pretty much by her own admission. If you want a godly, motherly, intelligent amateur holding the balance of power in the senate (which might happen) then feel free to vote for her. I won’t judge you.
She’s been busy on Facebook posting 101 reasons to vote for Wendy Francis. Here are some examples.
#13 I’ve never had media training and I don’t know how to avoid or fudge questions.
#88 I really don’t know quite how to be a politician and I rather suspect I should stay that way and those who vote for me would agree
#71 In a campaign featuring robotic candidates controlled by media minders I’m a fresh contrast. It’s time for un-politicians!
My big problem with the Family First campaign (and its epitomised by Wendy’s appearance on Sunrise) is that they completely lack any form of nuance or any sense that they’ll be, if elected, governing for everybody. Not just the people who vote for them. What they say is fine (almost) coming from the mouths of lobbiests and special interest groups. But this sort of comment from her Facebook profile is just a little scary: “Atheist Prime Minister & atheist Greens with senate balance of power equals the wrong road for Australia”.
I can’t help but think that if she had media minders, or thought like a politician, she may have avoided situations like this.
“legitimising gay marriage is like legalising child abuse”
Comparing anything that’s clearly not in the same category of child abuse to child abuse is like comparing things to Hitler. We have a pretty solid definition of child abuse to work from – and we have myriad victims of child abuse in our community who must feel somewhat slighted by the idea that children with two loving parents are being placed in the same category.
Christians hate it (I know I do) when atheists suggest that Christian parenting is child abuse. So why would we, as Christians, use similar language to describe family structures we disagree with. Even if it wasn’t her who posted the message (and she says it wasn’t, but that it was a staffer) it’s the kind of amateur hour thing she seems to be proud of (based on her points above). And she didn’t distance herself from the sentiment in subsequent interviews. A little media training and political nous goes a long way.
Something can be bad for a child without it being child abuse. This lack of nuance is appalling. Is she saying that any child without a father is suffering abuse? Does it follow that any mother who leaves her husband and becomes a single parent is also an abuser? Or is it only if they leave their husband for another woman?
I sympathise with her position on same-sex couples adopting. But I think it’s a much more complex situation than can be adequately argued or justified on Twitter in 140 characters or less. Is it better for a child to have loving gay parents than no parents? Probably. As soon as you concede that point you’re on the back foot. Coming out with emotive tripe that seems designed purely to cause scandal is a ridiculous political strategy designed only to resonate with the lowest common denominator of Christian thought.
My biggest problem with Family First is that they almost completely fail to empathise with the people they oppose. Christians, by the grace of God and our parliament, enjoy incredible freedom in our country. This kind of “we speak for the majority so we’re going to prevent any minorities being represented” mentality is just scary. You know what happens in cultures that oppress and silence minorities. They start sending them to death camps. There. I made a Hitler comparison.
Politics has famously been described (probably by Churchill) as the art of compromise. By being definitively “non-compromising” and “non-political” you’re essentially saying that you don’t care about the outsider. The people who don’t hold your views. That’s not what being a senator, or being a Christian, is about.
This interview with Peter Jensen on the current election is worth a listen. I’m surprised it hasn’t been spoken about more in the blogosphere this week. Perhaps it’s not controversial enough. It’s from Sunday night.
Q: Do Christians necessarily vote from the viewpoint of faith, do you think?
A: Yes we do. And fortunately in Australia it’s perfectly possible, even across the range of options, to vote from faith and to vote differently. You can not say to a Christian in Australia “you must vote for such and such a person. It’s a matter of balance. You’ll work out which way you want to go.”
He discusses Gillard’s atheism and its impact on Christian voters frankly. He discusses Abbott’s faith and its impact on voters with equal frankness.
Simone posted her scorecard yesterday. Here’s mine. I hope it brings a little perspective to what can be an overly manipulative procedure. I probably should have included a column for Jesus. Click the image to see a bigger version.
While you’re waiting for my next installment of “Help Lord — the Devil wants me Fat” you should get into spiritual and physical shape with this workout – Christian style.
It’s apparently all to do with copyright. I don’t think this guy understands the copyright laws.
The ten commandments made easy for the visual thinkers… and for those who have only ever been frustrated by the Veggie Tales characters and wanted them to get their comeuppance.
The 10 Commandments: No. 5 Thou Shalt Not Kill from Global Mechanic on Vimeo.
The Ten Commandments: No.7 – Thou Shalt Not Steal from Global Mechanic on Vimeo.
Christopher Hitchens, one of the four horsemen of the atheist apocalypse, has cancer. A pretty nasty case of it. Al has posted a couple of excerpts from a piece he wrote.
This interview is quite phenomenal. He talks about the issue of Christians praying for him – some praying that he’ll cark it, most praying that he’ll get better and/or find God. This starts about 4 minutes in. Apparently the 20th of September is “Pray for Christopher Hitchens” day. I recommend participating.