Category: Christianity

My oath

Our WCF classes have proven to be fun and exciting. Which is a surprise. We were up to Chapter 22 tonight – “Of Lawful Oaths and Vows” – it’s pretty controversial, because it prima facie contradicts instructions from Jesus in Matthew 5, and James, in James 5.

Things got heated. In a pretty good way – but raising a couple of points that I’ll post separately…

I’ve got to say that at this stage I’m with the Westminster assembly on this one. I think oaths are ok – despite the face value instructions not to swear them.

Let me explain.

In Matthew 5 Jesus is talking to the Pharisees – who have completely, and terribly, misunderstood the heart of the law. That’s the problem Jesus has with their approach to everything – from adultery to generosity.

Their problem with oaths is that they’re swearing but trying to get out on technicalities. So they swear on heaven, on Jerusalem, on anything and everything but God, because it gives them a way out. So Jesus tells them that’s not on – but he doesn’t rule out swearing an oath by God – nor does he in Matthew 23, where the issue comes up again. In fact, a natural reading of Matthew 23 (verses 16-22) is to see Jesus encouraging the Pharisees to swear their oaths by God rather than working around the issue with stupid technicalities.

Deuteronomy 6:13 tells Israel to take their oaths “in his name” – not in the name of the kingdom, Jerusalem or the hairs on one’s head.

My understanding of the Matthew passage is that the Pharisees are to aim for honesty (let your yes be yes) so that complicated oaths with easy technical get out clauses are not needed. And when Jesus says “anything more is of the devil” it would seem to be referring to anything designed to obfuscate.

Then the James 5 passage is a direct quote of this one, so should be understood the same way.

I can understand the other side of the argument – but I’ve got to say I’d be pretty comfortable swearing an oath on God’s name to tell the truth provided I then did, and pretty uncomfortable if I swore that and didn’t so not swearing seems to be the safer option anyway…

What say you?

August 18, 2009

Pro-life not anti-death

One of the big issues I have with the “Christian” input into the abortion debate is that it’s pretty heartless when it comes to understanding the mother to be. I understand the need to fight for the rights of the unborn. I think we’re called to speak for the voiceless. I think we should uphold the value of human life. But most abortion protestors (as a horrible generalisation) are big on “it’s wrong don’t do it” and not so big on what to do if you don’t do it.

It’s a complex issue and worthy of much more than a simple dismissal. Abortion protestors are often (another horrible generalisation) jumping on a moral soapbox that is irrelevant to a non-believer, while offering no solutions whatsoever to the causal issue. Some mothers just don’t feel equipped to have a child, to raise a child and to love a child. I know that not having a child would be a much better option. I know because Bristol Palin says so.

The voice of the “pro-life” movement would be much more compelling if they were “pro-life” not just “anti-death” – which is why I think this Presbyterian Church in America that has come out and offered to take in any unwanted baby and care for them – is taking a great approach to raising the quality of the discourse on the matter. And getting some positive press for doing so… Here’s an excerpt from the sermon.

"I make a promise to you now and I don’t want you to keep this a secret," the pastor pronounced, "the Peachtree Presbyterian Church will care for any newborn baby you bring to this church.
"We will be the family to find a home for that child, and there’s no limit on this. You can tell your friends, you can tell your family, you can tell the whole world …"

August 18, 2009

Izaac needs your help

Izaac works for AFES at Cumberland College. They have been putting up posters. The atheists have responded with some wit. Izaac is preparing for a tit-for-tat battle of the poster. So he’s looking for some witty responses in order to start discussions.

Here are the slogans;

1. INFINITE BEING IS AN OXYMORON
2. WE’RE A NON-PROPHET ORGANISATION
3. BLASPHEMY IS A VICTIMLESS CRIME
4. IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE THEN WHO CREATED GOD?
5. WE JUST BELIEVE IN ONE LESS GOD THAN YOU

August 17, 2009

Psych out

I have to have a psychological test. All candidates for ministry have to go through a pretty rigorous vetting procedure.

It’s going to be fun. I hope there are ink blots.

Ultimately, wanting to go into Presbyterian Ministry seems to be the ultimate Catch 22 situation. The literal Catch 22 situation. As described by the novel that coined the phrase. Just slightly reversed – you have to be crazy to want to get in. Here’s the summary from Wikipedia…

The “Catch 22” is that “anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy”. Hence, pilots who request an evaluation are sane and must therefore fly in combat, but those who don’t request an evaluation don’t receive one and as a result can never be found insane, meaning they must also fly in combat. Catch-22, then, ensures that no pilot can ever be grounded for being insane – even if they are.

August 16, 2009

Yoof Ministar

It looks like today is just going to be chock full of YouTube videos. Here’s a great little Youth Ministry video that nicely complements the Ignatius one I posted a while back.

August 14, 2009

Coffee idolatry

JT’s Between Two Worlds is one of the pillars of the Christian blogosphere. Today he shared a little link to this article on sacred cows – and coffee in particular.

While I can appreciate where the author is coming from – I do like my coffee. More than most. It stings a little to see coffee lumped in with U2.

What you find on many websites is some kind of description like this: “I love reformed theology, U2, anything by Steven Soderbergh, and a fresh cup of joe.”  Or maybe: “My interests are theology, issues of social justice, Beastie Boys, and an Americano from (fill in neighborhood coffee shop here).”  Or perhaps: “Can’t resist a good Bonhoeffer quotation, Edwardsean philosophy, and a venti mocha with light whip.”

You get the point. Here’s the thing about this situation: there’s nothing ironic or unique about liking coffee. We all like coffee. Coffee is good. Made well, it’s really good. It’s kind of like saying you like bread. “Anything by Piper, Band of Horses, and Pepperidge Farm rocks my world.” Everyone likes bread. And everyone likes coffee.

Ouch.

August 13, 2009

On the question of Worship

I read this somewhere the other day. I thought it was prescient and worth recording for posterity…

The problem with the modern church’s understanding of worship is they see it as a noun not a verb.

Brilliant.

August 9, 2009

Preach, when necessary use wordle

I’ve been a little bit lax in my blogging this weekend. I spent yesteday being a husband, a spectator and a friend. I went shopping with my wife, went to the NQ Fury’s A-League debut, and then hung out with a friend as part of his bucks day.

I also did a bit of sermon tweaking. Here’s the resulting wordle from today’s sermon effort. I did use a few seconds of the binocular soccer video in my talk.

I think I was better this time than last time, though perhaps not as good as my best time. I was repetitive but with a little more creativity in my repetition…

Here’s how the video tied in (for the curious)…

The Pharisees are just like these Japanese soccer players – they’re running around trying to keep everything in equal focus. The big things and the small things. They’ve got no perspective. They’re swinging, and they’re missing. They’re keeping all the rules – but they can’t get the bigger part of the game right. They can’t hit the ball. They aren’t scoring any goals. They’re losing.

But they’re worse than the Japanese soccer players in that video. These guys are running the game. They’re the coaches and they’re strapping binoculars on everyone else. It ruins the game for everybody.

The heading, despite being an obvious reference to the graphical content of this post, refers to what I think is one of the great fallacies of modern evangelism. The idea of preaching solely by actions is nice, but fundamentally wrong.

August 9, 2009

Ten plagues for all your houses…

One of the other things I may miss out on this Sunday if pain persists and I’ve seen the doctor is my role in our puppet driven kid’s talks at church.

That would be sad. I have been enjoying being Ernie. As in Bert and Ernie. Children like puppets. It’s a fact.

Children also need to learn about the plagues in Egypt. Because that’s important. Sadly this has been difficult to achieve with puppets. Until now. I give you the “Plague Puppets” courtesy of some Hebrew children’s resource site (perfect for your Old Testament needs)…

August 5, 2009

Putting things in perspective

I am, depending on swine flu, preaching this Sunday morning. I’m doing the fourth woe in Matthew 23. I’m going to use this video as an illustration. If I’m allowed out of bed.

Oh yeah, the doctor said it was too early to diagnose me clinically yet. So I have to wait to see if it gets worse.

Here’s the passage.

“23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

August 5, 2009

One for the books

I’m a sucker for a good bit of other person promotion. And it’s probably time I mentioned Goannatree anyway.

It’s a good place to read intelligent scholarship from a Christian who is into literature, the arts and all sorts of culture.

This week Goannatree is running a book giveaway to encourage lurkers out of the woodworks – and probably to score a swag of new readers. So get along, check it out. You won’t be disappointed.

August 5, 2009

Facing the music

Another post, another YouTube video…

As I mentioned earlier, Matt Redman, who is responsible for a few cringe worthy "worship" songs, is undergoing a bit of a Copernican revolution. He has realised that some of the soppiness in his songs can be a little bit over the top, and not quite Biblical.

I’m glad he uses the framework he does to assess his songwriting (and that of others).

"In the Bible you don’t see a lot of people coming up to Jesus and saying you’re beautiful"

August 4, 2009

Mor(e )on Christian music

Two interesting tidbits to add to my crusade against cringe worthy Christian music… 

The first, is an opinion piece in The Age where an atheist journo went along to a PlanetShakers experience*… it’s got all the echos of the South Park episode I mentioned a few weeks back – just so you know I wasn’t exaggerating the issue here’s a quote…

“Christian pop, ’80s power anthems, Metallica meets Cheap Trick. A mosh pit for Jesus was jumping with teenagers in rapture and a balcony of Planetkids went off for Christ. Music blared from the stadium sound system while the screen seduced us with slick videos edited so fast the phrase ‘‘subliminal image" kept popping into my head. Lyrics flashed up: "Come like a flood and saturate me now." I wondered what Freud would have made of the disproportionate use of such words as ‘‘come’’, ‘‘touch’’ and ‘‘feel’’, and the phrases "move within me" and "being filled". My favourite was "King of Glory, enter in".”

Secondly, There’s apparently an article somewhere where Matt Redman – cliched songwriter extraordinaire – repents from his ways of writing love songs to God. I’ll find that article when I get home and update this post.

*As a side note – this gonzo journalism thing where atheists try to experience Christian stuff from a true outsiders perspective is an interesting phenomena and is probably worth listenting to for those people trying to catch the atheist cultural zeitgeist. Other examples are the Guardian’s Alpha experiences and the Friendly Atheist Hermant Mehta’s book on his experiences in churches that he went to after an ebay campaign where confident churches could buy the right to try to convert him.

August 4, 2009

On death do us part

Two death post in one night. This isn’t some morbid fixation (though I am watching Bones as I write)…

I have appreciated elements of the Pyromaniacs writing. They call a spade a spade. And I appreciate that. I’ve never really engaged in commenting on their posts – even though there have been some I disagreed with.

Until this post – where one of the “Team Pyro” guys wrote a long post about the death penalty on his personal blog. I hope the comments around this site never reach the sycophantic levels of rabid agreement that go on over there…

Now, I’m not against the death penalty. I’ve argued for it on previous occasions. But I think we should be encouraging a government that is careful, considerate and merciful. I agree that the law needs to pursue justice – and that that looks like retribution, rather than rehabilitation. But this post doesn’t hit that balance.

It also falls into the trap, in my opinion, of equating America with God’s kingdom.

Ben, from bathgates.net, led the way into the fray and I followed to see what had happened in his wake. It’s not really pretty. But feel free to join the fun.

After this experience, and having read through thoughtful analysis of the “ministry” of the Pyromaniacs on Ben’s blog, I’m much less interested in what the Pyros have to say about anything.

August 2, 2009

Dialogue with Atheists

I love my atheist friends. Not only do they brighten up my work days with interesting emails, the also get me thinking quite a bit about what we do right and wrong as Christians.

The Internet Monk has entered into his own little dialogue with an atheist – it’s interesting reading.

That old “morality” chestnut comes up. One of the things atheists seem to find profoundly annoying (apart from being generalised and slandered as a bunch, and references to Hitler) is the idea that you can’t be a moral person without God.

This is a communication breakdown. When I say “you can’t be good without God” it’s because I believe in God, believe humanity to be totally and naturally sinful, and believe that God graciously allows sinful people to act morally. Other people mean something different – they mean that you can’t be moral without “believing” in God. They’re different. And I think we need to be careful to express the difference in meaning. Non-theists are capable of moral behaviour. Theists believe that’s because God lets them, atheists don’t feel that compulsion because they don’t believe God is there to do it.

The internetmonk article also brings up the question of indoctrinating children and whether or not this constitutes “child abuse” – which it can’t possibly, if God is there. And I believe he is.

August 2, 2009