Christianity – Page 97

Would you like salt with that?

My WebSalt article about the Greens is now up. You should go over there, read it, and argue it out with me in the comments… It’s much more balanced than my regular blogging fodder because it’s not polemic – it’s balanced… I hope.

“But there is much in their policy platform to celebrate – an Australian Christian Lobby media release issued prior to the 2008 election praised the Greens for their strong stance on climate change, refugees, overseas aid, work life balance and poverty. These are important issues – and should be serious concerns for biblical Christians.” “The criteria that determine an individual’s political preference will come down to personal convictions – that’s the fundamental freedom offered by a liberal democracy. So voters need to decide for themselves whether caring for the poor should be the government’s concern or the church’s? Or whether we should impose a Christian ethical framework on non-believers? Can we vote for a party that purposefully pursues an easing of restrictions in the circumstances surrounding the termination of the lives of unborn children? Just how much of a concern is the environment?”

July 15, 2009

Five Reasons I’m not doing MTS

I’ve had a number of conversations with Ministry Training Scheme apologists telling me that MTS is an essential. They do it lovingly and genuinely. And MTS is a terrific program for people thinking about vocational ministry. But I don’t think it’s for me. I think it’s probably for others. I don’t think of this as a double standard. I’m not sure when MTS became an essential. I’ve no doubt it’s helpful. I just doubt that it’s necessary.

MTS apologists have also, on occasion suggested the effectiveness of one’s ministry is tied to whether or not one undertook MTS. This is rubbish.

I don’t think setting up anything as a compulsory step in the path to ministry is right.

These apologists think my reasoning is weak. And it’s hard to argue with their reasoning without sounding arrogant (which I am, and which MTS would help) – but our minds are pretty made up. We’re already well underway with the college process. I’m not sure what these guys hoped to gain outside of unsettling us.

I would have gladly done MTS if I was still single and was asked 3 years ago. But I’m not, and I wasn’t. Well, not in any convincing way.

Here is my reasoning.

Finances
Training for ministry is a significant financial sacrifice – four years living below the poverty line while potentially trying to start a family doesn’t sound like much fun – six years sounds crazy. I’m not completely driven by finances but I am a pragmatist.
Time
I want to go to college because I want to be in full time ministry (and I want to be appropriately equipped for a lifetime of doing that). College is four years of not doing the job that I want to be doing – and not taking responsibility for a ministry.
I am headstrong, stubborn and confident (also known as arrogant) – I don’t want to spend two years as an apprentice before spending another four years essentially being an apprentice while at college. We feel a little bit like we’ve left the college decision a year late anyway – Robyn wants to study with me, and we want to fit a family in somewhere (God willing), and adding another two years to the schedule doesn’t work.
Experience
This reason is twofold – one, our plan, prior to college – is to end up in parish ministry and I think the most important experience for parish ministry is in the workplace – not a couple of years of extra years of ministry training.
Two – MTS is great for giving people an experience of the lifestyle that comes with full time ministry – and the costs involved, as well as hands on responsibility for programs. I think I’ve done a fair bit of the latter – and I grew up in the former. I don’t know how much MTS could possibly teach me about life in ministry that I haven’t experienced directly or vicariously.
Pragmatics
There are practicalities and external factors driving our decision to head to college (QTC) next year. The college is in its infancy (following significant strategic and cultural change), it needs students to keep this momentum, and I’d like to be part of that.
If we’re thinking about Townsville as a long term option (and it’s on the list) then I’d like to be in a position to be back here sooner rather than later.
I have plenty of “mentors”
MTS National Director, Ben Pharlet, was in Townsville over the weekend – his MTS apologetic was that it’s a great chance to be spiritually “fathered” ala Paul and Timothy. He may have a point on this as a “mentoring” type role – and it has made me reconsider my ill conceived mentoring rant last week. I was probably wrong there.
But I don’t feel like this is a massive gap in my ministry armour – I’ve benefited greatly from close relationships with people in Ministry in various roles with AFES and church. I know what Christ centred gospel focused ministry looks like. I know what it costs. I know people can be draining and hard.

From what I’ve observed in the ministry of people I know it’s brotherhood that sustains ministry in the long term. And my peers are going through college (or finishing MTS) now – or will be in the near future. I have no doubt I could find new peers later on – but why put in the relational hard yards when I’ve got a ready made group of friends already in the throes of ministry training.

While I love and appreciate many people who have MTS’d in the past – and think it did them (and would do me) the world of good – I just don’t think

that two years of training prior to training will have a massive effect in the long term. Having spoken to many MTS graduates I’m sure it’s a good thing – I just don’t think it’s a necessary thing. Your thoughts (especially you Izaac)?

July 14, 2009

5 Points about Calvin

Calvin is famous for his slightly misattributed and grossly misunderstood “five points of Calvinism” – I’ve got a reputation for being “not a five point Calvinist” mostly because I don’t like hyper-Calvinism. Calvin was mostly terrific – having done some research though I can’t say I’m fully on board with his philosophy of government.

Here are some things I learned about Calvin this week that I thought were interesting.

Calvin wrote some stuff under a pen name to avoid persecution from the established Catholic church – including Charles d’Es-perville, Martianus Lucanius, Carolus Passelius, Alcuin, Depercan, and Calpurnius – these would be good names to consider for your children or characters in a novel if you’re staunchly, but secretly, reformed.
Calvin was, by nature, incredibly humble – he wanted a life of quiet scholarship. He requested an unmarked grave. He was pastorally sacrificial. He submitted all things to the sovereignty of God. He championed a doctrine that made human agency incredibly small. He instituted a political system in the city whose church he lead removing power and authority from the church and putting it in the hands of the people. The idea of having a theological movement named after him would have been an anathema. It seems to me that this aspect of his character is in stark contrast to the pillars of the “new Calvinism”.
Calvin was, by nature, incredibly arrogant. He was so incredibly confident in his personal views on scripture and Government – and did not particularly like opposition. God seems to prefer to work through guys who are an incredible paradox of confidence and humility – I’m not sure that humility and arrogance are the polar opposites people suggest. They seem to be two separate characteristics with related distinctives.
Calvin was politically savvy enough to know when not to be political. This greatly enhanced his influence on the political sphere.
He was expelled from Geneva the first time round because he wouldn’t pander to the rich and powerful (by serving them communion). He was brought back to reform the political structure of the city a few years later. But he didn’t use this as an opportunity to grandstand or point score (at least from the pulpit)… To quote the helpful biography of Calvin I linked to the other day:

When Calvin returned to St. Peter’s Cathedral in 1541, he unceremoniously but symbolically resumed his pulpit activity by expounding the Scriptures at the exact verse where he left off prior to his exile.

Several days earlier, Calvin had consulted with the Small Council, the real political powerhouse of the day, and encouraged them to make important reforms. They were so willing to help him in the Reformation of Geneva that they not only approved his proposals to revise the protocols for church order, but they also appointed him to a committee to design a constitution for the Republic of Geneva.
Calvin’s post-reformation political realignment of Geneva pioneered the separation of church and state, and the separation of powers. His restructuring of Geneva’s government removed power from the head of the church to a church council, and to a separately elected government in the city. These groups functioned as checks and balances. He separated government of the city from the church to protect the church from the interference of the government and the wealthy – not the other way around.
He was, however, not a fan of government being “secular” – his philosophy of government, or theology of government, revolved around the government acting in a Christian manner. Again, a couple of insightful quotes from that biography…

Calvin practiced what he preached. A consistency of ideals, both in church and state, permeated his thought and action. He was prudent enough to realize that the best way to reform the culture was an indirect one, i.e., to first reform the church.
…
”With the publication of the Ordinances, Geneva created a unique Christian commonwealth whereby church and state cooperated in preserving religion as the key to their new identity.”

July 13, 2009

Why I didn’t blog much over the weekend

I organised the Willows Presbyterian Church Calvin 500 Conference.
I spoke at said conference about Calvin v Servetus
I organised the dinner part of said conference (and made coffee) where Mike Raiter talked about the New Calvinism.
I attended the Townsville 400 V8 Supercar Event
When I wasn’t doing those things I was cleaning out my big fish tank after a mishap with the filtration killed three of my pet fish and endangered the life of a pet turtle.
I was telling the national director of MTS why I like MTS but don’t think it’s for me.
Or I was watching The Ashes and Robyn was using the laptop.

July 13, 2009

Political Calvinist

Calvin is best known in Christian circles as the predestination guy. But I think he should perhaps be best recognised as the political guy. He was a champion of the separation of church and state – this came from the church first, not the state… and was big on the separation of powers with a system of checks and balances.

This fascinating biography of Calvin includes some great insights into how he interacted with the (still nominally Christian) government of the day…

“Calvin’s preaching was at times direct, confrontational, and “politically informed.” One 1552 sermon so irritated the Council that they inquired just why it was that he spoke of the Senators and other civil rulers in a particular sermon as “arguing against God,” “mocking him,” “rejecting all the Holy Scriptures [to] vomit forth their blasphemies as supreme decrees,” and as “gargoyle monkeys [who] have become so proud Calvin’s rhetoric was certainly not so academic or technical as to elude his audience.”

July 11, 2009

The Geneva Convention

The Christian blogosphere is drowning in a sea of Calvin posts. It’s his 500th birthday around now – depending on where you are on the planet. We’re taking things back to Geneva tomorrow at church as we “celebrate” the milestone.

I don’t have much to add – except to say that I’m putting the finishing touches on my “novella” on Calvin’s life for our conference tomorrow. My topic deals with Calvin and Servetus – a heretic killed on his watch (but not, as some would suggest, by him).

Heretics were killed back then. There was a very blurry separation of church and state, and heresy was a destabilising political force. It’s hard to reconcile the actions with our current system of government and our religious freedoms – but there wasn’t really much choice in those days.

Calvin had a hand in significant political reform too – helping move a number of theologically reformed countries towards more “democratic” systems of government.

Challies.com has a great article on the episode and I commend it to you – if you can’t be bothered reading all that, and you’re in Townsville, come along to the conference tomorrow afternoon at Willows.

I’m going to use the word antidisestablishmentarianism in my talk too – that should be a real highlight. I’m all about brevity and concise communication…

I’ll share a bunch of Calvin links for you all to enjoy in tomorrow’s link post. Huzzah.

July 10, 2009

Copywrongs

Simone has brought up the old copyright chestnut again – head on over for the fun. I’ve commented a couple of times already – no doubt I’ll comment many more…

“This argument didn’t sit right then and still doesn’t now. I’m convinced that there is something different about a song. Last night I gave away a kids club that I spent weeks and weeks writing. I’m happy for people to use it however they want. Change bits. Whatever. I don’t care. (Though my fonting and layout is nice). In terms of work hours, this kids club probably cost me about $4000. No single song has cost me that much. It’s not a time thing. I don’t think it’s a selfishness thing either. But there is an all-or-nothingness about songs that there’s not about other things.”

July 10, 2009

No atheists at the gallows

This is an interesting follow up to the last post on death and the decline of religion. There’s a saying that infuriates atheists – well, at least the ones I read on the Internet – “there are no atheists in the fox holes” – it’s the idea that when confronted with our mortality we turn to God.

A quick flick through this oddly compelling gallery of the last words of executed criminals suggests there aren’t many atheists at the gallows…

July 9, 2009

The death of death

An ABC blogger reckons religion is in decline because nobody is as scared of death any more… his post attracted a bunch of rabid atheists – like any such post on the interwebs does. There aren’t enough rational Christians commenting on these kinds of posts with gospel intent…

“The appeal of the big three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – has always been that they offer us a mechanism to deal with death, an accommodation with our inevitable personal extinction.”

The study of religious structures is pretty fascinating. But the idea that religions came about to control people rather than in a search for truth and meaning is pretty insulting to any believer.

Christianity, is not, as the author of this piece suggests, about “moral living’ that’s an outcome of Christianity not the process of Christianity. And it’s not the end goal of Christian life.

“In exchange for living according to a moral code, life can be infinitely prolonged after the death of the body. But for Westerners, death is now further away than ever before. Western science has not yet conquered death, but it has now banished death to a comfortable distance.”

One of the angry atheists in the comments suggested that the God of the Bible is immoral – kind of defeats the purpose of being God if you’re not the arbiter of morality doesn’t it? That statement is not logical.

“This article made no mention of the wealth of evidence and arguments against religion. The immorality of the god of the bible, mohammed, and just the illogical nature of the whole thing.”

July 9, 2009

On "spiritual" people

Overtly spiritual people are really annoying. They’re the over sharers of the Christian world. Challies.com posted a link to this comic – I haven’t been able to locate the original source. But it’s funny.

July 8, 2009

You knead Jesus

Ok, that’s a terrible pun – but with a cookie cutter like this you can make your next Catholic Communion experience authentic – with “body of Christ” biscuits.

You know those people who flog off pieces of toast on eBay because they can see a grainy picture of Jesus in their breakfast – they’ll have no troubles spotting Jesus when given one of these biscuits.

They’d also be great for your next church baking stall fundraiser. Or something. Actually, I’m not sure what you’d want to use them for. They’re kind of odd. But they’re out there – and available for purchase. And you should know that.

July 3, 2009

Black comedy

Honestly, I thought long and hard about that title… because it’s semi racist – but it actually really epitomises the nature of the post in question.

The feedback to my decision to make references to making light about the death of Michael Jackson was not mixed. Most people don’t like the idea at laughing at death. I’m of the opinion that “where oh death is your victory, where oh death is your sting” (Corinthians 15:55) is essentially a mockery of death – and once death and sin (which crops up in verse 57) have been dealt with you are free to laugh at it.

Perhaps laughing at people who presumably haven’t dealt with sin isn’t the most sensitive thing to do.

But I digress – the reason for this post – is that I’m wondering about satire and death, and satire and death as “incisive social commentary” – particularly after viewing this Twitter account purportedly from a “Starving African Child” (obviously it’s not really from a starving African child).

It seems to tread close to where the Chaser’s infamous sketch dared to tread – though perhaps not quite so confrontationally, and yet it is as confronting as a World Vision ad – which uses pathos for persuasion rather than humour. Both are tools of persuasion – and yet we frown on one and not the other.

The sense of outrage surrounding the Chaser sketch seemed to be that it preyed on the vulnerable for laughs (while making some sort of point – perhaps their problem was with clarity in terms of the target – presumably cathartic middle class philanthropy… I’m really not sure what their point was), while World Vision et al are drawing attention to the plight of children. Is it wrong to use satire to do this? Is it only wrong when the target isn’t clear? Is it inherently wrong to satirise the vulnerable in order to draw the intended response from those in power?

June 30, 2009

Questions from answers

No, this isn’t a post about Jeopardy. Have you ever seen a billboard that just didn’t make sense? Have you ever seen one of those billboards that came from a Christian organisation? Well, here’s one. So now you can answer “yes” to both those questions… It makes no sense to me at all – perhaps you can explain it to me.

Answers in Genesis even made this into a video advert on YouTube. I think they’re suggesting that if you’re not a Christian you’re likely to shoot people because you don’t really care about them – or that people who don’t believe in God are more likely to shoot you because they don’t care about you.

It’s just odd and pretty screwy. Though I’d expect that from these guys. They’re Christianity’s Richard Dawkins.

June 29, 2009

Wisdom v Folly

I preached tonight. On 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5. It was neither my best or worst effort but wasn’t as coherent as I wanted it to be. It felt a bit rambly about 15 minutes in.

I really like the passage – but I kind of feel like I came at it with an agenda (critiquing atheism and encouraging evangelism (we’re doing a big evangelistic push at church this term)) and Paul is really addressing the immaturity of the Corinthian church. I especially like verse 18…

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

I think, upon reflection, that I will go back to writing an outline before I write the text, and I suspect writing the whole thing in one session would be beneficial. There were a few times when I repeated thoughts unintentionally – and I didn’t really do a thorough proofread. Taking a whirlwind trip to Brisbane over the last two days probably didn’t help.

Oh well, enough self indulgent reflection.

June 28, 2009

Transformers 2

We saw Transformers 2 last night. It lived up to all my expectations. People (critics) who complain about Transformers movies forget that the movies are based on action figures – and Revenge of the Fallen replicates just about ever Transformer battle my imagination ever produced when playing with the toys. There’s a slight spoiler in the third paragraph – don’t read it if you don’t want to.

The plot was a bit bumbling – it really was just a vehicle for bringing the vehicles together into gravity defying alien robot Wrestlemania. Some of the fights copied the WWE’s playbook – there were submission moves, power moves… it was awesome. If wrestling involved robots I’d get cable TV and watch every week. It felt a bit like watching a National Treasure movie just with awesome robots. Really awesome robots.

The basic plot (without spoilers) involves the reluctant “messiah” Sam having the typical “central character doesn’t want to undertake the task they’ve been pre-ordained to perform” identity crisis – popular since Gethsemane. If I wanted to Christianise this review I’d say isn’t it great that there’s such a powerful allegory – Sam even “dies” at one point only to meet the Robot gods in heaven and be flung back to earth. There’s a bit of messianic confusion because Optimus Prime also dies and is resurrected.

Go see it though – you won’t be disappointed the explosions are bigger and there are more robots and more robot fights than the first one (and a few laughs along the way). I gave it an 8/10 because I’m capable of ignoring the stuff that critics look for in awesome robot carnage fests.

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen (Final Theatrical Trailer) from Bay Films/Michael Bay Dot Com on Vimeo.

June 26, 2009