Proverbs for the 21st Century #8

Proverbs for the 21st Century 1:8;

During congregational prayer, the line between praying for upcoming local church events and prayer becoming the advertisement, is notoriously thin.

Our heavenly Father,

We pray now for the upcoming Gingerbread House Making evangelistic event, which is on 7:30 to 9:00 this Saturday night in the North Hall where we will begin by making Gingerbread Houses and then having a talk from special guest speaker Jane Doe on The Essential Jesus, RSVP tonight to Sarah...

The lost sons

I know not every character or event in a parable has an exact real life equivalent. But in the parable of the prodigal son, who does the older son who stays working with his father represent?

Here's the end of the parable from Luke 15:

25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”

Jim Ramsey explained to us on Sunday night that this second lost son of the parable (the older brother) is the type of lost person who is hidden well in church. Externally they look fine, but in reality their relationship with their heavenly Father is fraudulent. This makes perfect sense to me. Luke 15:1-2 helps fill out the logic;

1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

As the parable was originally given, the most obvious equivalent of the older brother is the Pharisees and the scribes (who today are the unconverted church-goer). But isn't there a problem here? The description in 15:31 that "Son you are always with me, and everything that is mine is yours" seems an overly positive view of how the Pharisees stand before God. Jesus usually tries to highlight just the opposite - that though they appear to be right with God in reality they aren't. So are the Pharisees the older brother?

Jim reconciled this by suggesting that 15:31-32 leaves the parable on a cliffhanger ending, that we are not told of the older brother's (Pharisee/unconverted churchgoer's) fate. Perhaps my problems comes from a different understanding of the words of the Father to the older son. It appears the Father is rebuking the Son within relationship. That is, he is not telling the younger son you need to be saved, rather he is rebuking him about resenting his brother back. You dig? But if this is right, it radically alters the meaning of older brother. That Jesus is not teaching at that point the need to be saved but of those who would call themselves God people should desire for all people to return to God's family.

Either way, this intellectual issue I'm having does help highlight both sides of the parable. It's not just about the lost being found (Jim's evangelistic sermon) but also about the found not resenting others being found.

Do you have other thoughts on the older bro?

Can you resist the urge not to Google?

I have left church these past two Sunday's thinking to myself "Why, didn't I bring someone tonight who has never heard about Jesus?" That's a good way to leave church (thanks to Alex Koch and Jim Ramsey for so clearly explaining the gospel.)

Let me share with you perhaps the most meaningless part of Jim's sermon. I love it when preacher's show they're thinking about the current days we are living in. On the prodigal son returning home:

But then a crisis hits. Jesus doesn't use these actual words; but you'll see why I've chosen them in a moment. There was a GFC - a global financial crisis. Look at (Luke 15) verse 14 "And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need."

By the way, without Googling does anyone actually know what prodigal means? I don't think I've ever heard it in another context. I expect when I enquire of a dictionary it will say something like;

Prodigal: A description of the younger son in the parable of "The Prodigal Son".

And then when the description gives an example of a sentence.

E.g. The Prodigal Son.

Any ideas of it's meaning without consulting Professor Google?

Regardless of the meaning of prodigal, in light of the first two parables [Lost sheep, lost coin], surely a more apt description would be "The Lost Son" - or as Jim pointed out "The Two Lost Sons". Time for the subeditors to break with tradition I say.

Celebrity Alert

I'm meant to be home on strict bed rest but a free ticket to The Script had me hobbling in to the Enmore theatre last night with S and two girls from church.

As we left our dinner of cheap Newtown Thai, S and Tash started murmuring "celebrity alert" and tugging on sleeves to get my attention after eyeing "Ben" who is apparently from "The third last series of Farmer Wants a Wife." It turns out "Ben" was also attending The Script concert and we went on to share a urinal. If for some unknown reason you were wondering (as the girls asked when they saw us leave the toilets at the same time) no I didn't shake his hand. What do girls think actually goes on in guys bathrooms? It's strictly no conversation and no eye contact in my book. Hand shaking? Out of the question.

We did end up seeing a bona fide celebrity when just as The Script kicked off their first song Guy Sebastian and his wife came and sat in the seats immediately in front of S and myself. This just seemed to further highlight the problems of the generous application of the word 'celebrity' to "Ben from the third last series of Farmer Wants a Wife."

Long story short; I spent most of the gig pondering the repercussions of stealing Guy's hat, which he didn't take off for the whole gig and was considerably impeding our view. As for The Script; they were really good but with only one album to draw from played for a bit over an hour. Hello? Learn a cover song or six!

Moral to the story; Guy Sebastian was a nice guy who posed for photo's with some starstruck chicky babes after the gig. His wife was gracious as the groupies gushed. But come on Guy, take your hat off inside.

Bible Book in a Sentence Sunday - Acts

The comments after last weeks challenge of 'Luke in a sentence' has highlighted the difficulties in summarising a book in one sentence. Kutz is keeping us on track by insisting we summarise not just the action but the message as well.

This week I have decided we should do Acts as a bookend to summarising Luke.

Luke in a sentence;

From his birth in Bethlehem to his death in Jerusalem; the beginning of Jesus words and works on earth.

Here is my attempt at a one sentence summary of Acts;

From Jerusalem, to Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth; the continuation of Jesus work on earth.

Surely you can do better! Feel free to post more Luke suggestions as well if it will help your Acts summary.

What do American Pie and Genesis 1-3 have in common?

Nothing until I put the two together.

After the overwhelming silence following my last post where I alerted people to my online vocal stylings I have decided that no news is good news and you actually enjoyed it. If this is true, it is nothing short of a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it's simply my own delusion which would cause me to post the second song online from my lounge-room recording session.

For your listening displeasure, I now present to you Genesis 1-3 to the tune of Don McClean's American Pie.

Here.

Lyrics in comments.

Howdy partner

Medical professional to me: Just wait a minute Mr Cowling, I'll go and get your partner.

What went through my head: What do I look like to you? A TV cop? A ballroom dancer? I believe the word you are looking for is 'wife'.

What came out of my mouth: Thank you.

Proverbs for the 21st Century #7

Proverbs for the 21st Century 1:7

To avoid inappropriate laughter whilst leading in congregation prayer, if you like to use the phrase "lift up" to God, try not to use the phrase before praying for things that are heavy in real life.

Dear God, I'd just like to lift up to you our church building, and I'd like to lift up to you Pavarotti and his family, and I just want to lift up to you our broken down church bus...

Hyperbole? I wouldn't use it in a billion years!

Dave Thurston has been speaking on the Sermon on the Mount for the past couple of weeks at our university Lunchtime Bible Talks. One of the things Dave highlighted was Jesus' use of hyperbole as he speaks on lust in Matthew 5;

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

I'm told by those who understand Greek that Jesus is here referring not simply to noticing a pretty girl walking by, but it is looking "in order to lust" or as Dave put it, "It's not the first look, but the second. It's the use of our imagination to create unrealistic and unhelpful scenarios which play out in our minds." 

One level of application here is the condemnation of pornography. I have also heard elsewhere this passage used to condemn masturbation in all forms. This is probably not the forum to discuss the merits or problems of that particular view but I do have to wonder if people arrive at this because it's the sin of the eyes that leads to the "right hand caus(ing) you to sin." If so, I don't even want to think about what it means to lose a "member".

But I digress, because what Dave really got me thinking about was the use of hyperbole to highlight the seriousness with which we should take sin (in this case sexual sin). Particularly my mind wandered back to this morning as I read Exodus 21-22 with a couple of students. This is what it says in Exodus 21:15-17

15 “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

17 “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

Was there hyperbole in the Law? Did the Israelites really enforce this law? I can understand verse 16, I think I can understand verse 15, but even cursing your folks meant capital punishment? No wooden spoon?

I am embarrassed of the disobedience I showed to my parents growing up (and occasionally still do to my shame) but if I was a little Israelite child would I have been rightfully put to death? I'm not trying to dismiss God's word, or seek out the minimum requirement, or try and logically disregard it, but were Israelite children who disobeyed their parents literally killed? Or is there hyperbole in the law?

I feel like I've just written into one of those dodgy advice columns in the newspaper where they make up the letters...

Please help,

Confused.

The Trinity or the Quinity?

The Trinity. Though there are areas of mystery surrounding this great doctrine, the concept is fairly clear cut, or so you'd think. Trinity = Three in one. Three persons. One God. There are some sections of scripture that give you food for thought on the matter such as the personification of 'wisdom' in the early chapters of Proverbs, yet for the most part Christian's agree God is one in three persons.

One thing I've discovered lately is that Christians don't like you attacking Christian song lyrics. So let me just say for the record, I actually like the song How Great Is Our God. But every time I sing it, I wonder if the trinity has been expanded.

The Godhead three in one

Yep, that's the teaching of the Bible.

Father, Spirit, Son

Okay, that's them.

The Lion and the Lamb. The Lion and the Lamb.

So we've got the Father, Spirit, Son, the Lion and the what the?

Bible Book in a Sentence Sunday - Luke

Last week's challenge was Proverbs.

"Being wise begins with fearing the Lord."

This week's challenge is Luke.

My suggestion;

From Bethlehem to Jerusalem, Jesus resolutely sets his course to the cross.

Think you can improve it? Delurk and converse.

Another atheism response

A few weeks ago I requested a little help with a response to the new atheist poster that went up at uni. I've been unable to make time to craft a response. But as they posters have stayed up longer than expected without being covered over, I am putting up responses on Monday.

Their poster;

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike

I've been toying with a response such as;

I've never seen God... but I could have 2000 years ago

Does it work?

Do I really sound like that?

[DISCLAIMER: A second consecutive day of self-promotion]

I've never really listened to myself preach. I have a few recordings but I've never taken the time to actually sit and listen. That changed on my 6 hour drive yesterday. Between discs of Pearl Jam's greatest hits, I decided to stop in at McDonalds, download the only two sermons I've given this year that are online, and have a listen for the rest of my journey. I must admit, I feel like a bit of a goose listening to myself speak. It seems egotistical, even though it's not. The reason I listen is to improve as a preacher. To force myself to sit through the torture that the congregation has to endure.

I've picked up a number of things to work on - both in content and delivery. Delivery-wise, I need to eradicate the "ummm's" and "ahhh's" that I punctuate with. I feel the need to fill all the gaps. Though I also realise they come out more as I am trying to think of the right word to say. Perhaps it's the sound my brain makes as it processes. Either way, it needs to stop.

For those interested in giving me feedback, you can download the two talks here.

August 16 - New Life, New Motivations - Ephesians 4:17-5:2

March 1 - Connecting People with Jesus - Topical

Remember. I'm a second year ministry trainee, who hasn't yet been to Bible College. So be gentle.

I feel the standard of this blog has dropped a bit of late. Note to self: Be more interesting. Normal blogging will resume next week.

What do Missy Higgins and Acts 1-4 have in common? [UPDATE]

Nothing, until I forced the two together.

When the cat's away, the mice will play. In this case, S is the cat and I am the playing mouse. And it just so happens that I am a mouse playing guitar.

I am always reluctant to release my music out into the world. Because I don't know if the world wants to hear it. Also because I am not like people in the first round of Australian Idol who are unaware of their vocal and musical limitations. I am aware. And I hear every dud note and missed beat. But as Sarah is away and ironically I need to force myself to rest by doing stuff, I decided to finally work out how to record songs on GarageBand. The fruits of one and a half hours recording is two songs. I present now the first. They are both parodies that I wrote in 2006 to play in church to summarise a previous sermon series as we were subsequently returning to the book - in this case Acts.

As songwriting is something I used to enjoy, perhaps the results will be pleasurable for you too. Depending on your feedback I will post the other one in a few weeks. I may even write a few more.

Here is the original song it's based on (sorry for international readers; it's an Australian artist).

And here is my take on it based on Acts 1-4. 

UPDATE - Sorry about the problems playing the last version. I have created a myspace account and affectionately called my one-man band "Izaac sings aloud"

http://www.myspace.com/izaacta

I imagine this will be the first time many of you have ever heard not just my "singing" voice but also my voice at all. Possibly you will wish it is also the last time.

The lyrics are in the comments.

Proverbs for the 21st Century #6

Proverbs for the 21st Century 1:6

Shortening Bible Study to BS is problematic in the current parlance. It becomes an inaccurate description of the activity.

Jokes not to make in the pulpit

I like to joke. But jokes are not always appropriate from the pulpit. I believe they have their place in allowing a mental break for the listener and also in building rapport. Yet much jest can be a distraction to the word of God.

Unfortunately, stupid jokes keep popping into my head as I read the Bible.

Here are two that have popped into my head in the last few hours. They are hideous. But for your enjoyment...

1. If Eve was the First Lady does that make Adam the president?

2. There has been much conjecture over who created Facebook? I've discovered the answer. It was Thomas. In John 20. He wanted to poke Jesus.

As I said. Hideous.

Children in Church

Are you from the "get the little rats out as soon as possible" school of thought? Perhaps in the "token gesture brief kids talk" group before shipping them off? Maybe even on the "keep 'em in the main gathering as long as you keep 'em quiet" side?

What to do with the ankle biters...

I'm not necessarily advocating any one of these three options;

1. Sunday School (or "kids church" as we call it)

2. Brief kids talk in main gathering, then Sunday School

3. Remaining in the main gathering

Each of the three have their benefits and challenges. However, a throwaway comment from Peter Kemp yesterday preaching on Ephesians 6:1-4 got me thinking.

Here's the passage;

¹Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ²"Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— ³"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." ⁴Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

Here's Peter's comment;

My main focus today will be on verse four as the children have left us. However, it is interesting to note that the children would be present as the letter was read because Paul addresses them directly.

Food for thought.

Bible Book in a Sentence Sunday - Proverbs

Last week's Bible Book in a Sentence Sunday was Habakkuk.

Thanks to your suggestions I present to you Habakkuk in a sentence;

"God is too righteous to even look upon wrong, but to trust him is to live."

This week's challenge is Proverbs;

My suggestion;

Wisdom for living below, comes from above.

Got a better suggestion?

A specialty specialist

I realised recently that I attempt to start off most posts by channeling Jerry Seinfeld. What's the deal with... Have you ever noticed... Would someone explain to me... What's with...

But today I can't help it.

Have you ever noticed how it seems people can only specialise in one particular area? Now that may be an obvious thing to say. It is after all a specialty. But I am feeling lately that I am unable to say anything authoritatively. The reason is because there is always someone that knows more than me about it. I am not the foremost in any field. I'm like not even in the four-most. I'm just average at many things, including puns.

It could simply be a bad case of little man syndrome, however if you give me some scope to philosophise for a moment I think there's something of greater significance occurring.

I don't know if it's a big deal, but I think my conundrum has arisen because I'm too influenced by postmodern thought. Postmodernism seeks to rob words of meaning. Because we are not omniscient we are unable to make reliable statements. Yet is there really a need to undermine every statement emanating from my vocalising orifice? Do we need to know more about a subject than anyone else to say something true about it? With the depth of reasoned argument that I'm famous for, in answer to my own question; I think postmodernism, at this point, is stupid.

I apologise for this somewhat ranting post but let me finish with some sanity from a quote I found the other day here. I have no idea of the validity of the source but I agree with the statement. On Don Carson being a jack of all trades.

In an age of increasing specialization and fragmentation, Carson, to the admiring disbelief of many of his colleagues, persistently refuses to limit his interests His publications cover a vast range of subjects: New Testament Greek, Bible translation, hermeneutics, contextualization, the use of the Old Testament in the New, preaching, various aspects of New Testament and biblical theology, major commentaries on Matthew and John, and even poetry. Carson’s fielding of questions subsequent to a presentation at the 1993 annual meeting of the Institute of Biblical Research showed glimpses of his competence in an array of fields. As a reviewer of one of his books put it, “Professor Carson possesses qualities which are not often found in combination. He is a New Testament scholar who sees the Bible as a whole; a biblical scholar with a concern for both the theological and the practical implications of the Bible's teaching; a blunt writer with a pastoral heart; and (perhaps rarest of all) an academic with a clear, vigorous, occasionally even slangy style.”

In the light of these qualities, it is understandable that some compare Carson favorably with  other evangelical scholars such as F. F. Bruce and I. Howard Marshall. While Bruce, unlike Carson, had a background in classical Greek, Carson may exceed Bruce in his exegetical and theological grasp. Significantly, Carson is not just a New Testament exegete but a biblical theologian who synthesizes materials that other scholars leave unrelated. Moreover, he is abreast of the latest developments in computer technology and linguistics. At the same time, some see Carson as taking over the mantle from John Stott as an evangelical leader and spokesman respected worldwide. That Carson can be compared with evangelical figures as diverse and influential as Bruce, Marshall, and Stott, is in itself a tribute to his versatility and increasing stature.

I'm a slave for you

As we seek to understand biblical principles in the current age we inevitably hit a number of roadblocks. One of these I keep hearing different views on is how best to apply the slave/master relationship that often pokes it's little head up in the New Testament letters.

Which of these options do you think best captures the movement to modern minds?

Slave/master is the equivalent of

1. Any job where you have someone working above you

2. Any relationship entered into where you are under longstanding obligations e.g. A home loan

3. There is no equivalent.

Others?

Proverbs for the 21st Century #5

Proverbs for the 21st Century 1:5,

He who cuts corners in sermon preparation relies too heavily on Pastor Google.

Thanks Captain Obvious

Natarsha Belling on Ten Morning News;

"After the break; sexually transmitted infections on the rise in Australia. We discover what's behind this worrying trend."

Hmm I wonder...

A dilemma

Why do I find it so hard to choose a passage to speak on evangelistically? I much prefer being given the passage. There's just too many options.

For the record I've chosen Luke 5:12-26 the healing of the leper and the paralytic (though I may drop off the leper due to time). I'm speaking to youth group guys year 7-12 under the title "What's the big deal with Jesus?"

Christians and the internet

A fascinating article in the Sydney Morning Herald on Christian couples sharing email addresses as a reflection of the trust and openness of their relationship. Fascinating because it is obviously a piece from their international feeds because it is free of the sneering editorialising of every other Herald piece on Christianity in recent memory. Fascinating because like these Christians, S and I also developed a joint email when we got married, not from hearing it preached but out of the practical reflection on the sinfulness of our hearts, temptations of the online world and desire to publicly model the transparency that is essential in our marriage. Fascinating because we too have also now developed separate emails for our ministry roles which the other has access to but we may choose not to share with each other for their sake.

Also good to mention at this point is the covenant eyes accountability software. Well worth the $2/wk.

Quality of life?

The issues surrounding developing an ethic relating to euthanasia are complex.

One of the confusing factors for Christians in the medical profession is about "quality of life". Quality of life is a means of measuring a persons emotional, social and physical well-being, including their ability to function in the ordinary tasks of living. The argument goes that using these assessments of the quality of life that a person can experience or hope to experience acts as the foundation upon which decisions are made about the continuation or termination of life. 

The 'termination of life' that arises from the quality of life assessment is not always through euthanasia. It most often comes through the form of ceasing treatment. Given the name 'palliative care' this philosophy means stopping treatment that would hope to cure disease or extend life. Focus is moved instead to treating the symptoms, most often pain relief.

Why do we resist all moves towards assisted suicide or euthanasia but maintain that it's okay to stop treatment and move towards palliative care? The outcome is the same, so what's the difference? Should we support moves towards palliative care? Or should we seek to extend life through expensive, painful treatment which will have only limited effectiveness?

In one hand we want to affirm the sanctity of life. Human life is inherently valuable [insert scriptural evidence]. Yet in the other hand we must acknowledge the pain of sin. More than that we must acknowledge the pain of pain. While valuing human life we want also to alleviate pain and suffering where possible. Is there a way of valuing life while seeking to minimise pain? Is there a way of valuing life through ending it?

WIthout developing these thoughts in detail there are a number of points that I think help frame the discussion,

1. Palliative care is an attempt to reconcile the tension between valuing life and alleviating pain. I believe it is successful in this. No one likes to see others, especially their loved ones, in pain. When medical intervention will have minimal results with increased suffering for the patient it is an expression of love to not undergo treatment. For example in later stage cancer, chemotherapy potentially increases life expectancy by a few months but will result in greater physical sickness for the patient in the remainder of their life. By ceasing treatment; which inevitably decreases life length, we are actually holding our value of life. We are saying that life is not an abstract idea but it is an individual. In caring for the person through alleviating pain, we are valuing life.

2. I understand that this logic sounds very close to a justification of euthanasia. However at that point I would counter with a second consideration which is there is a difference between actively seeking to end a life (euthanasia) compared to the more passive ending of medical treatment (palliative care). If you have a consequentialist ethic you will see the end result is the same, but in my mind there is a world of difference. It's not a matter of "leaving it to God." Rather it is in my mind impossible to value life by actively seeking to end it through euthanasia, but it is possible to value life in ceasing treatment.

3. Removing ourselves from the quality of life ethic there is a deeper problem of societal values. It is captured excellently here. The choice of someone to end their own life through assisted suicide is often lauded as a great victory of autonomous choice. It is the decision of the individual to finish what is theirs; namely, their life. But this great exercise of autonomy is not truly a magnificent example of free choice. The individual makes this decision not in a vacuum but amongst the value placed on their own life by others. The value an individual places on their life is amidst a society which values youth, sees the elderly as inconvenient, views people with disabilities as of decreased value and importance, the endless lust for youth and beauty. If society says I am expendable I will see myself as expendable. So like in most discussions, as we turn the attention to ourselves we must ask how am I contributing to the desire of people to end their lives? How am I communicating the value of life in the values I hold as most desirable.

Thoughts?

Bible Book in a Sentence Sunday - Habakkuk

The last Bible book in a sentence Sunday was Romans. I like Mark's suggestion.

"Paul writes to the church in Rome that believing in the gospel of God's grace through Jesus = belonging to God's people for both Jew and Gentile."

This weeks challenge: Habakkuk

My suggestion;

Amidst the judgment of the unrighteous, the righteous shall live by faith.

Can you do better?

Here is my statement. Here are my 23 clarifications.

I'm starting a war against nitpickers.

Nitpickers are the reason I can no longer make definitive statements. I must counter each definitive statement with at least 23 clarifications. This means by the time I get through the clarifications I have usually forgotten my original point.

There is a difference between saying something that's insensitive (which I do occasionally and must repent of) and saying something that will upset those who are sensitive.

For example, a friend of mine in ministry suggested a few of the blokes who are thinking about full-time ministry go on a regular run through the local cemetery. The run would be quite tiring (like most running) seeing as it's in the largest cemetery in the southern hemisphere, so we were going to call it "The Death Run". An alert colleague pointed out to me that one of the people in the group to which we were announcing the run had a few days before suffered a significant death of a close family member. So we didn't call it "The Death Run". This was right and proper. But does it mean, I should never talk about death in case someone has recently experienced loss? To answer my own rhetorical question; no. There is a difference between being insensitive and saying something that will upset those who are sensitive.

End rant.

The gift of singleness

I was asked the other day;

When do you work out if you've got the gift of singleness?

My answer;

Before you start dating.

Because what happens if 12 months in, one of you decides they've got the gift and singleness and the other partner has decided they have the gift of marriage? Then what?

The AUA returns... for now.

A rare second post in a day to ask if anyone can help in rebutting the latest atheist poster that's gone up;

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

Gordo went onto the AUA's Facebook group to thank them for the free publicity. They had already discovered our previous replies and thought overall that "conversation was a good thing" and "We're keen to poster more replies." However as far as I can tell this won't be happening. The AUA is two guys, their slogans have not been created but flogged from some Dawkins fanboys site, plus we poster each week for Lunchtime Bible Teaching and it's hard work. The chances of an ongoing poster war is minimal. That said, we'll use them as best we can to promote Jesus on campus.

Any suggestions?

Proverbs for the 21st Century #4

Proverbs for the 21st Century 1:4

Love covers a multitude of sins. Facebook uncovers a multitude of sins.

Everybody needs good neighbours

I have been working on a theory regarding social justice: that your particular expression of social concern will be dictated by where you live and minister. The concerns of the people who live in your area will dictate what shape your social justice will take.

In the country town where I grew up there are few, if any, homeless people. However, there are many widows, many struggling families, many financial hardships depending on the success of the particular growing season. Therefore this changes how as the body of Christ we care for the disadvantaged.

Should I feel guilty that my current suburban church doesn't run a soup kitchen? The reality is that I don't. But should I? I would contend that living in the suburbs is different to living in the heart of the city and thus the ministry we undertake to the disadvantaged will look different. I don't feel guilty about not running a soup kitchen, but I get the feeling from some people that I should.

However, perhaps I'm just washing my hands of responsibility. For by my theory, if I lived on the North Shore would my particular expression of social justice mean consoling the family with only one BMW?

The seemingly unrelated tangent

Much has been written about the effect technology is having on the existing church model. The result of globalisation, which itself has arisen from the increasing speed in which people and information can travel, means the existing model needs to change. When sermons can be streamed live into loungerooms on the other side of the room, we are living in a new world. 

The existing model that I've heard recently challenged is the parish based system of church. That is, the artificial boundary line drawn up and everyone within that boundary is the responsibility of one church. With the speed of travel these days, people no longer live, work and play all in the one place. They now have affinities perhaps in different places for each of these activities. Therefore, as well as the parish based model we must develop Christian groups that target the people who meet across parish boundaries for their work or play.

The tangent link revealed

What does this have to do with social justice? One benefit of the parish system is we look after the people in our area, we see the particular needs relevant to those we care for and act accordingly. There is a danger as the effect of globalisation shrinks the world, that while my definition of neighbour is now much larger, I stop caring for my literal neighbour who lives beside me. However in contrast to this, if the particular struggles of my fellow suburbanites are relatively minor compared with others, should I expand my definition of neighbour? If we don't need a soup kitchen should I go into the city and run one?

Conclusion

I like soup.