Obscene Beauty

Hermes Edinburgh

2010-12-18T11:54:00.001Z

I got a call this morning tell me to pick up my delivery otherwise forget it being delivered before Christmas. Nice.

For those struggling to find it, Hermes Edinburgh is here (see green arrow):

View Larger Map

The address is

Hermes
Block A
Clifton Trading Estate
Cliftonhall Road
Newbridge
EDINBURGH
EH28 8TP

What does it all mean?

2009-05-03T22:22:00.001+01:00

Driscoll on Nightline

2009-01-29T20:25:00.000Z

My boyfriend visited a strip club

2008-12-17T19:52:00.000Z

Home Delivery Network (HDNL) Edinburgh

2008-12-12T10:47:00.005Z

I ordered a Christmas present via Amazon recently, and it was dispatched by the somewhat infamous HDNL - Home Delivery Network. HDNL are infuriating as their website has no contact or depot details of any kind. And if you phone them up, they can't even tell you where their local depots are. A friend of mine tells me its because they subcontract out all of their local delivery. The only way you get their address is by having the HDNL call center arrange for the local depot to call you. Crazy, I know.

Anyway, to help out those in the Edinburgh area, here is the contact and address details of HDNL Edinburgh, obtained today after I called the call center a second time to request the location of the depot.

Address: HDNL Edinburgh. Unit 8A, Newbridge Industrial Estate, EH28 8LD.
Phone: 0131 333 5383 (number I was called from)

View Larger Map

As you turn right off Cliftonhall Road, continue straight on down the unnamed road until you reach the T junction, at which point I am told you have to turn left. Apparently "you can't miss us" at this point. I'm picking up my parcel on Saturday (depot open until 3pm), so we shall see how it goes. Remember to bring two forms of ID: photo ID + utility bill.

What if Starbucks Marketed Like a Church?

2008-11-22T11:53:00.001Z

HT: Rupert Ward.

call + response

2008-10-16T13:23:00.002+01:00

HPV Vaccine

2008-10-10T13:19:00.007+01:00

I've been wanting to blog on the HPV Vaccine for ages but haven't had the time or been able to do all the background research. Then I stumbled across this article over at TallSkinnyKiwi's, which prompted me to say something...

Having watched reaction from the media a few months ago, I was appalled that no-one even mentioned why this was being introduced: it can help prevent a sexually transmitted disease. Not one news story mentioned that. Why? Are we so prudish in Britain we cannot talk about STDs? is it too shocking to talk about sex and girls under 16? Well, yes, it is shocking to the public. But to not even refer to point of the vaccine is to me a conspiracy of denial.

Listen, I'm not against the HPV vaccine. But I am for a well-informed discussion, and that both the children vaccinated, and their parents, and fully aware of this is, and what it does. No information is disinformation.

Anyway, check out TallSkinnyKiwi's story, and feel free to comment here. I'd like to learn more about this.

update: This story has hit the national press: check out TallSkinnyKiwi's update here.

Please Stop Buying Chocolate

2008-07-26T16:28:00.005+01:00

I've taken a break from blogging, not really intentionally, just life has been busy.

Today however I heard a message from Steve Chalk on human trafficking and was moved to fire off a quick post.

The basic gist is that a lot of chocolate today comes from the Ivory Coast, Africa, and that the great majority of their chocolate is produced by child slaves. Yes, that's right, slaves.

Just type in "chocolate slavery" into Youtube and you'll see what I mean.

Here's a few vids to get you going:

The basic ethical rule is: if you don't know for sure that the chocolate you're buying is slave-free or fair-trade, simple don't buy it. What's more important, your chocolate fix or the blood of innocent children on your chocolate-smeared hands? For UK consumers, a list of slave-free chocolate can be found here.

For more info, go to Stop The Traffik's Chocolate Campaign.

UPDATE 3rd oct: After emailing Edinburgh's Coco chocolate store, they have confirmed that although their supplier of organic chocolate is not officially in the Fairtrade programme, they told me: "The company who supplies us and their parent company have a firm anti-slavery stance and also work with small co-operative farms to ensure a fair price for the cocoa.". Excellent, as this is one of Edinburgh's best choccy shops!

Saving Jesus from the Bible

2008-05-21T21:22:00.005+01:00

Ever feel like Jesus has been taken over by the bible or by actual history? Then when not check out Re-inventing Jesus?

Re-inventing Jesus is a heretical DVD-based small group exploration of Jesus Christ for the sons of disobedience (Eph 5:6). Featuring leading false prophets of our day, the 6 + 6 + 6 week program includes a printable participant reader and a facilitator guide offering discussion questions. The basic format for each weekly 1 - 1½ hour session includes conversation around the readings, a 20-minute video segment and guided discussion.

Sessions include "why Jesus is still dead in his grave", "how to start a Christian-cult", and "how to get rid of those annoying verses that tell you to not sin and that Jesus is actually God."

When asked how one could remove verses from holy scripture, the programme's expert on the subject replied:

"Its quite simple really. You just take a bunch of coloured pens and cross out all the bits you don't like. But ask a bunch of your mates first, for goodness sake, in order to ensure you cross out all the annoying bits"

Or you could just check out Saving Jesus, a seemingly similar product.

Great Blog

2008-05-21T21:10:00.002+01:00

HT to Adam who emailed me the URL of Stuff Christians Like, which is quite a giggle.

Check it out!

Why I'll Be Eating Steak In Heaven

2008-05-08T09:30:00.006+01:00

Greg Boyd is an author and pastor whom I much admire. I have really enjoyed reading his perspective on open theism and the warfare motif of scripture. I recently discovered his blog with which I was impressed by the range of topics under discussion. However, I do wish to pick a bone with Boyd's own theological position on vegetarianism.

First of all, I have no objection whatsoever to anyone becoming a vegetarian for ethical, cultural, or dietary reasons. Boyd even tells us that "God told him" to stop eating meat, and I have no beef with that at all. However I do wish to warm-heartedly push back on Boyd's assertion that Christians should seriously consider becoming vegetarians because in the New Creation we will only eat vegetables (and therefore we should anticipate that and prophetically embody that now).

The first thing that comes to mind is Isaiah:

The Lord who commands armies will hold a banquet for all the nations on this mountain. At this banquet there will be plenty of meat and aged wine – tender meat and choicest wine.
-- Isa 25:6 (NET)

So it seems the the Lord himself will serving prime steak and vintage red wine in the New Creation. If its good enough for God, its good enough for me. The only way we can get round this is to argue that it won't be real meat, which is surely the same as arguing that the wine at the Lord's banquet, or indeed the water that Jesus turned into wine, isn't alcoholic. Which is so brain-dead I can't even be bothered to waste my time to argue with! Face it, God knew in advance that one of life's most pleasurable experiences is eating a medium-rare steak with a glass of fine vintage wine in good company. :-)

(As a footnote, I am completely for animal welfare, I am appalled at the Western food industry, and I do my very best to ensure that all my meat, fish and dairy products I consume are either organically farmed or wild. I also sure that such standards are still below the Lord's, and that Christians should be at the forefront of the organic and fair-trade movements, pushing standards onward and upwards. A heavenly ethic on meat is not to abolish it but to kindly subdue and rule over animal creation.)

PS: Also see Greg Wahl's satirical take on Boyd's position.

We Interrupt This Blog for A Reality Check

2008-05-07T21:52:00.005+01:00

Came across this rant from Paul at The Generous Husband. Good reality check for us all.

A question for those of use who try to follow Jesus - how does the world view "Christians"? How about the following:

o bigoted
o small minded
o homophobic
o selfish
o wasteful
o judgmental
o hypocritical
o unloving
o out of touch with the world
o too political
o hateful
o stingy
o unconcerned about poverty, the homeless, the hungry, the environment, and world peace

That is my list based on what I hear from folks, including some non-Christians who receive my tips. A study by George Barna backs up some of those things, and you don't have to look far to see all of the above, and worse, being said by a growing number of people.

We've become something that no sane person would want to be - or are we wrongly viewed as such? Is what the world thinks of us very wrong, or is there a great deal of truth to it? Sure, we can point out all kinds of good, but we can also point out a lot of bad, if we are willing to be honest. Hate-mongering in the name of Christianity is common. A lot of folks who are struggling financially have received far more help from secular, non-profit groups than from faith based groups - why are those who don't know Jesus doing what He called us to do better than we are? Why do they exist in small offices so most of what they collect goes to help, while we sit in expensive buildings that leave almost nothing to give to those who need help? Why is it all the unsaved hear from Christians is that they are going to hell, rather than about how Jesus loves them - and how we love them because we are following Jesus? Why do we invite them to come in, when Jesus told us to go out to them? Jesus hung with the poor, the sinners, "even with prostitutes" - we avoid "that kind of people" as if being with them will somehow make us dirty.

Clearly what we are seen as is not something most would want to be a part of. How do we change that? How do we change the perception? We must change the reality! Seems to me we have to change first ourself, and then we have to work on others who claim to follow Jesus. We need to correct those in our camp who are not following the Lord, and if they won't change, we need to let the world know that they are not a part of us, they are not attempting to follow the Lord, but are doing something else. How can we sit by an allow others to claim to do something wrong, something evil, in the name of Jesus? Would we sit by and allow folks to be killed in the name of Jesus? History is full of "Christians" who did this - The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, witch burning, lynching of blacks, and murder of Jews were all done in the name of Jesus - and many did not say "they don't follow my Jesus" out of fear. What about us, will we also sit by in fear, or apathy, as others drag the name of Jesus through the mud once again?

Coming up: Aesthetics & Worship

2008-04-05T13:55:00.009+01:00

Sorry for the lull in blogging, been kinda busy. To round off the mini-series on beauty, I thought I'd touch a little on aesthetics, which is according to faithful Wikipedia is, "the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgements of sentiment and taste", or more broadly "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."

Indeed. What reflection and contribution to art and culture can Christianity give today?

First stop: music. I love music, as I'm sure many of my readers do. One particular topic which always arouses controversy is worship music, that is, music which has been written to facilitate songs of praise, adoration, thanksgiving to God. I love good music, and I love worshipping God with words and song. So why is worship music so often a joke, musically and aesthetically speaking? Or even if its not, why is worship music so often a very narrow category/genre, compared to the awesome variety of music we are blessed with today?

A friend of mine always cautions me when I bring up this subject, saying that "worship must be a spiritual affair, not a soulish one", implying that the desire to have good sounding and even ground-breaking sound is not something to be yearned after in worship music. What's important is the spiritual matter of offering one's heart to God. This argument is often heard in charismatic circles. And its not one I can easily dismiss, because essentially there is a lot of truth in what my friend says. And I suppose that some churches get so carried away with the sound of music that they cease to place God first (Cf. the story behind Matt Redmond writing Heart of Worship).

So lots to think about. Actually I need to think more before writing further. So I leave you with a fantastic band I just discovered - Pendulum, whose trademark sound is a cross between Drum & Bass and Punk Rock.

Also, ever wanted to hear Jonny Cash mixed with punk? Ok, maybe not...

Women: Designed for Beauty?

2008-03-19T20:24:00.007Z

So at last we turn to the unavoidable topic of women, in this brief series on beauty. As I mentioned in the last post, the word is beauty is somewhat synonymous with the image of a young, pretty women. According to the world we live in, the ultimate representation of beauty is a woman. So why is this? Why do women long to be beautiful?

The answer, according to some Christians, is that God designed and created women in order to manifest beauty. According to John and Stasi Eldredge,

She is the crescendo, the final, astonishing work of God. Woman.
In one last flourish creation comes to a finish not with Adam,
but with Eve... Given the way creation unfolds, how it builds to
ever higher and higher works of art, can there be any doubt that
Eve is the crown of creation? Not an afterthought. Not a nice
addition like an ornament on a tree. She is God's final touch, his
piece de resistance... Look out across the earth and say to yourselves,
'The whole, vast world is incomplete without me. Creation reached its zenith in me...There is something uniquely magnificent and powerful about a woman. We tried to reveal the immeasurable dignity, the holiness of your feminine heart by showing that it is God who longs for Romance...it is God who reveals beauty as essential to life. You are the image bearer of this God. That is why you long for those things too. There is a radiance hidden in your heart that the world desperately needs...she is captivating, uniquely glorious, and he cannot be. She is the incarnation of the Beauty of God. More than anything else in all creation, she embodies the glory of God. She allures the world to God.

-- selected quotes from Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman's Soul

In other words, God designed The Woman to reflect his image and likeness in a unique way, to make known and reveal the Beauty of God. Women are beautiful because God is beautiful.

As wonderful and empowering as this might sound, not all agree with proposal. Of course, some without faith in the Christian God might simply suggest that the attractiveness of women has something to do with biological evolution. But beauty transcends sexual attraction, and in my mind is something entirely else. However other Christians have critiqued this beauty theology. For example Shawna R. B. Atteberry, a pastor and writer, blogs thus:

We live in a society that idolatrizes its version of beauty to the extent that girls and women suffer from various eating disorders in order to try to be “beautiful.” I do not believe this is the advice Christian authors should be giving to their readers...this is a finicky femininity. I also think it is a dangerous one. The church should be giving a different view of beauty, and what makes a woman beautiful. Although they encourage women not to listen to the culture, it sound like in the end the Eldredge's buy into culture’s definition of “beauty.”
-- blog post: What is Beauty?

Whilst Shawna has a point, I do wonder if she is throwing the baby our with the proverbial bathwater. Yes, as I recently blogged, young girls do suffer eating disorders, but this is because they are trying to lose weight. Here we see a rhetorical slight-of-hand. The Eldredge's said nothing about skinny girls. On the contrary, if young girls could learn that they are beautiful in God's eyes, and they are to display his beauty and celebrate their femininity, that would surely prevent all this weight-loss nonsense. You see, the problem with the contemporary culture is not that it teaches girls that they should be beautiful, but that it constantly tells them that they are not beautiful yet, because they are too fat one minute and too skinny the next. It also prescribes a very narrow vision of what physical feminine beauty is.

Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, let me say what I believe: God created all women to be beautiful and to radiate His glory, in body, mind, soul, character, personality, and spirit. This has nothing to with physical preferences (short, tall, skinny, slim, curvy, fat, blonde, brunette, whatever!).

There's so much more to say on this topic but I think I've said enough for now. Perhaps my readers can keep the debate going.

The Beauty Conspiracy

2008-03-08T13:52:00.006Z

"I will put hostility between the Serpent and the Woman" (Gen 3:16a). Ever since the dawn of humanity women have been oppressed by a forces of society and culture which are ultimately controlled and influenced by dark forces beyond our ken. One major battleground today in the Western world concerns the topic of beauty.

I typed in beauty into Google's image search, in order to see what sort of beautiful imagery would come out. Out of the 20 images which came back, 19 were of women. The word "beauty" in today's society seems to be synonymous with women. Indeed, we could be more specific and say its young pretty women, primarily Caucasian, that seem to be associated with the word beauty. If you do a regular Google search, most of the results concern cosmetics and make-up. Therefore I conclude that the beauty on the web is primarily about young women using cosmetics to look more attractive.

It really saddens to me see what the Western world and Media have done to women. It more than saddens me, it actually makes me angry if I stop to think about. Why is the media hell-bent on destroying the self-esteem of women? Continually, whether you buy a men's magazine, a women's magazine, or any type of magazine for that matter, our senses are assaulted with touched-up, brushed-up, artificial images of women. Many of you have probably seen the Dove video, but to clarify what I'm talking about, you can watch it below:

I also hate how the Media seems obsessed with skinny girls. Most men I know do not voice a preference for skinny girls. Its getting to the point where my eyes are hurting from watching gaunt near-death looking "celebrities". Its one of the many places in culture and society where the media do not represent the views of the majority. In fact, the media rarely does. Noam Chomsky has been banging on about this for years. The Media represents the opinion of an elite group in society who have their own interests, desires and preferences. This group, in my opinion, have little virtue to speak of, and unfortunately influence and control a lot of the world. Just think how much control the Western world is under when it comes to issues of the self-esteem of young women. In fact, the super-modelling world, which is my opinion is almost completely in the domain of darkness, is just completely out of it. These days a women who would be considered normal is now a "plus-size model". WTF???

So now ladies who are perfectly fit and normal and created by the hand of God are "plus-size". And that's meant to be a positive message? Excuse me whilst I puke.

So WTF is wrong with the modelling and fashion industry? I submit to you that one of the problems is that in reality a small number of homosexual men are running the industry, and it is their desires and aspirations which are flowing down to the catwalks, and in turn shaping the mindsets and self-image of millions of women and young girls around the world. Now before I get lynched, let me clarify that I am not saying that someone is evil or wrong because they are gay or lesbian. Neither am I saying that this is the only or root-problem with the industry. But according to a recent article in The Times newspaper:

"The fashion industry is 70% gay men, and their opinion far outweighs the 30% of women and straight men,” says another international stylist. “Projecting that little-boy fantasy is one that gay designers go back to more and more.” It’s the straight men who are pushing for a healthier vision of beauty.
The Latest Modelling Look: Sacrificial Virgin

Now I am sure there are plenty of gay men and lesbians that have a positive and healthy vision of beauty. But the problem is that the the people calling the shots in the fashion industry do not. As a direct consequence of their sexuality they prefer the girls to look pre-pubescent, under-developed, and boyish. This is completely and utterly wrong.

Nancy Hayssen, a "plus-size" model (i.e. a normal looking girl) has blogged on this very topic.

Ladies, women, girls, listen up: we have been deceived...Men don’t like sticks or bones. Men like women who have some softness to their bodies, a curve or two or three...most of the fashion industry today is controlled by GAY MEN. Seriously. Now, that’s no complaint about gayness...What do gay men know about female beauty and sexuality? Are you trying to get gay men to look at you and say you’re beautiful, or do you prefer straight ones?

Again, to clarify, this is not an anti-gay rant. Rather, I believe Nancy is saying that young women should not be trying to look like what the Media says a women should look like, since that look is basically defined by a small number of warped-minded gay fashion experts, who know nothing about femininity or about what a regular guy finds attractive.

I'll leave you with another Dove vid. "Enjoy".

The Wright Attitude to Imagination, Art & Beauty

2008-02-22T09:55:00.005Z

I've just finished reading a wonderful little book, namely Evil and the Justice of God by N T Wright. Amazingly (given the current blogging theme on beauty here), Wright turns his attention to creative imagination, beauty, and art. I'll quote the entire section below (bold emphasis is mine):

But the Christian imagination - shrunken and starved throughout the long winter of secularism - needs to be awakened, enlivened and pointed in the right direction...Christians needs to sense permission, from God and from one another, to exercise their imaginations in thinking ahead into God's new world and into such fresh forms of worship and service as will model and embody aspects of it. We need to have this imagination energized, fed and nourished, so that it is lively and inventive, not sluggishly going around in small circles of a few ideas learned long ago. And the Christian imagination must be disciplined, focused and directed, as with consciences itself, so that it doesn't simply rush madly about in all directions. It will not do to suppose that any old imaginative world will be as good as any other...

How can the Christian imagination be re-educated so that we can become conscious of living between the victory achieved by Jesus and the ultimate renewal of all things? At this point we must speak about art... To make sense of and to celebrate a beautiful world through the production of artefacts which are themselves beautiful is part of the call to be stewards of creation... Genuine art is thus itself a response to the beauty of creation, which itself is a pointer to the beauty of God.

But we don't live in the Garden of Eden. Art which attempts to do so quickly becomes flaccid and trivial...

The beauty of creation, to which art responds and tries to express, imitate, and highlight, is not simply beauty which it possesses in itself but the beauty which it possesses in view of what is promised to it... If Christian artists can glimpse this truth, there is a way forward to celebrating beauty, to loving God with all the soul, without lapsing into pantheism on the one hand or harsh, negative 'realism' on the other. Art at its best draws attention not only to the way things are, but to the way things are meant to be...

I want to draw out a few things which Wright has brought up in this small passage.

We (Christians) need to heed the call to push forward into a new era of creativity in the realm of arts and aesthetics. Wright seems to sense that Christians and the Church are in the artistic equivalent of a cul de sac, going round and round rehashing the same old tired ideas when it comes to art, worship, notions of beauty, etc. I believe we should respond positively to this challenge, accept its rebuke, and move forward.

A further important point, which bears repeating, is that we don't live in the garden of Eden. Although most Christians would agree with this, many would perhaps suggest that Paradise of Heaven is the Garden of Eden, and that at the end of the day all of this culture and technology here on earth is a waste of time: one day God will get rid of it all and we'll all go back to the garden, either in Heaven or in the New Creation. Yet to believe this is to fail to grasp a key theme in scripture. The story began in the garden, but it ends (in the book of Revelation) in a garden-city. A garden in the midst of a city (or is it the other way around?). This is not just a theological curiosity, and I expect this is what Wright is on about. God embraces our culture, and brings his paradise into our midst. Thus as we celebrate beauty and our Hope in God, we must remember that this goes beyond images of flowers and waterfalls.

There's lots more to say, but I'll leave some space for my readers to add their comments...What do you folks think about this?

Does Beauty matter to God?

2008-02-15T14:45:00.005Z

It seems to me that contemporary Christians really struggle with beauty. No, I am not talking about the lack of hotties in church either (!) Rather I am talking about architecture, interior design, aesthetics, art, music ... that sort of beauty. To be sure, this also applies to men and women, but that's not the angle I want to explore right now.

Over at Gentle Wisdom, Peter Kirk is picking up a thread on aesthetics and worship, in particular, the aesthetics of our meeting places used for worship. A suggestion is raised that perhaps we shouldn't even bother about crafting a space with a sacred aesthetic, to which Kirk responds:

I tend to agree. We need functional spaces, buildings to meet in. But it is not for us humans to declare them sacred or presume to make them “crafted specially for a human-divine encounter with God”. If we are to “develop a sense of awe and wonder”, we should do this not through buildings which then become idols, but by beholding and reflecting the glory of God, 2 Corinthians 3:18.

Whilst on one hand I can agree with Peter's statement, I am left troubled thoughts: that this approach can and does lead to a pseudo-gnostic approach to Christian faith, where things of this earth count for little or nothing, and things of Faith is all that matters. Is this why contemporary Christianity struggles with concepts such as beauty, and for that matter, New Creation? If in Christ we are a New Creation, and we await not an ethereal eternity in the celestial clouds, but a renewed physical universe [New Earth], then surely we can't short change issues such as aesthetics and beauty. If redeemed humanity are sons and daughters of the Most High, and if we are taking the cultural mandate seriously ("Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it" Gen 1:28), then surely we can't let what we know is a fallen and decaying world under the power of Satan have the last word on architecture, music, art, and beauty?

In summary, I believe the Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit is beautiful, and that whatever God has made in some way reflects his beauty. All beauty originates from God. In addition, as redeemed Sons and Daughters of God, Christians should aim to fulfil the cultural mandate and fill the world with beauty.

Now if this is true, perhaps the aesthetics of the buildings we worship is not completely insignificant. Perhaps the aesthetics of the worship should be considered. Perhaps we need to take a long hard look at how a theology of aesthetics and beauty would change the way the think about mission, worship, art, and work.

Its time for the church and for Christians to wake up to the fact that God is not only truth, and love, and light, and holy, but that God is beautiful. Over the next few days I will try to expand and unpack what this means to us.

Reading

2008-02-15T08:59:00.004Z

I always find it hard to step back into blogging after taking a break. So to help me write again, I thought I'd give you a list of stuff I am reading or about to read right now.

Evil and the Justice of God, by N T Wright. I'm about half-way through this right now. This is classic Wright: a concise, flowing post-modern aware prose, taking me through the story of the world, of Israel, and of Jesus. Its great how no matter what the topic, Wright always brings it back to the cross. One thing I find interesting is how he talks about Satan as "the Satan" (following the Hebrew) and refers to him as "it" -- refusing to ascribe God-gifted image-bearing gender to it. He reminds us that the feminists may be pushing to refer to God as "she", but strangely there is no debate to call Satan "she"! Quite right too, but as ever Wright cuts through the political mumbo-jumbo to deliver a fresh insight on otherwise familiar territory.

The Nature of the Atonement (Four Views. Looking forward to this one. The four views are Christus Victor (Boyd), Penal Sub (Schreiner), Healing (Reichenbach), and Kaleidoscopic (Green). I expect I will agree with both Boyd and Scheiner, and I am very curious as to what Green has to say - sounds like he might take a multiperspectivalism approach, or at least a nod in that direction.

Gettings Things Done by David Allen. The main thing about this "life-changing" book is that I need to actually read the darn thing. Perhaps it should come with a free pamphlet entitled "How to start and finishing reading this book".

Freed to Lead by Colin Buckland. Looking forward to this one.

Who Can Be Saved? by Terrance L Tiessen. I've read about half of this interesting book on accessibilism: the belief that the salvation that Jesus wrought on the cross extends beyond the church's proclamation of the gospel. Actually most people believe this, otherwise young children and babies who sadly die prematurely will spent eternity in a fiery hell, a picture not even the grumpiest meanest Calvinist can contemplate. However Tiessen believes that rather than having different methods of salvation for different groups, is is necessary to coherently figure out a doctrine of salvation which accounts for everyone who is saved. I've been thinking the same for many years, so its been very enjoyable to read this book. Take-away thoughts thus far are "All true Christians are saved, but salvation extends to beyond Christians" and the whole idea of the difference between guilt and culpability, again something I've noticed for a while in the gospels but have yet to see a good explanation of. I need to finish reading this one!

Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky. From the minute I picked up this book I have found it hard to put it down. This guy is a genius. Within pages he exposes the level of corruption and control within the United States. After 44 pages, I am already convinced that the United States is currently the best candidate for an "Antichrist", if ever there was one (and I'm not sure that there is!). Lets face it, the US has an awful lot of power, a very biased and controlled media, and military forces stationed all over the world. Its responsible for the deaths of countless hundreds of thousands of civilians over the last 60 years. The only problem with this book is that at the moment it leaves me feeling quite down and depressed about global politics. A brilliant expose of the Powers that be in todays world. So much for Christian America.

Still Alive

2008-02-08T13:17:00.001Z

Just a quick note to say that I am still alive etc but have been too busy recently to blog. I hope to resume soon!

War on Christmas: The Advent Conspiracy

2007-12-22T17:29:00.000Z

Well, its nearly Christmas, and I am currently in Canada (Kelowna, BC) and surrounded by snow. I'm taking a break from blogging over this holyday (sic) season, but before I go I want to hash out a few thoughts on the meaning of Christmas, which neatly continues my theme on cultural conspiracies.

These days there is something of a Christmas controversy going on, which according to Wikipedia (see link above) has actually been going on since the 17th century. However in recent years Political Correctness it has reared its ugly head and insisted we celebrate Christmas but just rename everything. So Christmas trees become "Holiday Trees" or "Family Trees" (excuse me whilst I puke), and we talk about the "Holiday Season" and wish each other "Happy Holidays". Actually, its all rather ironic since talking about a Holy-Day just brings us back to the non-secular aspects of the celebration.

Here in the UK it seems at last that some measure of common sense has materialised into the political scene: Trevor Phillips, chairman of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission, has condemned PC attempts to secularise Christmas, although I have been told by a source that this has upset at least one political figure.

In Blogdom, Peter Kirk reminds us of C S Lewis's response to the commercialisation of Christmas: "I send no cards and give no presents except to children", whilst Duncan reminds us of some current Christian approaches: Advent Conspiracy (more on that in a bit) and Just Christmas, a initiative which Morningside Baptist (Edinburgh) seems to be involved with.

To examine the more recent Christian approach to Christmas, lets look at closer detail at the Advent Conspiracy:

[AC] Advent Conspiracy from Jon Collins on Vimeo.

All well and good, but I can't help but feel that all this Christian Political Correctness on Christmas is actually missing the point as well. Surely children know something about Christmas, and what child, if asked to give their opinion of Christmas, would start talking about ethical issues and justice? For Christians especially then, there is great confusion concerning our response to this festive time, with issues such as how to celebrate the birth of Jesus, traditions of Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, pagan winter festivals, commercialisation and political correctness to deal with.

For me the problem stems from what I see to be a four-fold root to contemporary Christmas festivities. We have, in chronological order, a pagan winter festival (Yule in Northern Europe; see also Winter Solstice), the historical event of the birth of Jesus, the gift-giving tradition of Saint Nicholas (and the related cultural icon, Father Christmas), and the recent (mid 20th Century onwards) commercialisation of the above traditions.

The Christian response is usually to downplay the pagan aspect, somewhat reluctantly accept the Father Christmas figure, pay homage to Saint Nicholas (Santa Clause) in gift-giving, and go to church to celebrate the Nativity. Quite honestly, its an incoherent mess of traditions and culture. Further more, when a Christian is asked the true meaning of Christmas, they often respond along the lines of "its all about the birth of Jesus", which is rather odd as this doesn't often tie in with the associated festivities practiced by said Christian. Alternatively, they might respond, "its about peace, joy and love", which while sounding rather nice, is - to be honest - rather trite, and while its hard to disagree with, it loses the Christian perspective: many other religions could equally celebrate such virtues. While this is not a bad thing in and of itself, it may suggest we haven't yet got to the core of the meaning of Christmas. Now often, if pressed, a Christian will admit that the core meaning of Christmas is that Jesus came into the world to die for our sins. Indeed, that very message was preached at a church I attended this morning.

Died for our sins? I thought that was the meaning of Easter? Don't we celebrate the death of Jesus on Good Friday? And his Resurrection on Easter Sunday?

May I be bold and suggest that nothing I have mentioned thus far gets to the heart of the contemporary celebration we call Christmas. May I also suggest that the birth of Jesus-who-died-for-our-sins, or "peace on earth", is also not the true meaning of Christmas. Neither is it to be found exclusively in the altruistic gift-giving tradition of Saint Nicholas. So what is the meaning of Christmas?

I believe the clue to the meaning of this season is found in the British figure of Father Christmas: an ancient pagan figure who originally represented the coming of Spring. Later (6th Century AD), he became infused with the Saxon Father Time, or King Winter. Later still the Vikings infused into him the tradition of Odin, who takes on the persona of Jul and visits the earth (this is where Yuletide comes from). The character of Jul was a portly, elderly man with a white beard and a long blue hooded cloak was said to have ridden through the world giving gifts to the good and punishments to the bad.

Finally, in more recent times the tradition of Father Christmas has been conflated with the story of Saint Nicholas, to produce the contemporary figure of Santa Claus. At this point my readers may say that if I truly think this is the meaning of Christmas, then I have finally lost the plot, perhaps in an attempt to continually shock and provoke. Well, I cannot deny the latter, but I can certainly assure you I am still Compos Mentis. Please read on!

If the story of Father Christmas is the key to the true meaning of Christmas, then how so? Let us ask none other than Professor JRR Tolkien, who wrote Letters from Father Christmas. I believe if anyone understands the heart of Christmas, it is Tolkien. Here is a man, that despite his academic environment, could enter the story world of a child -- a world he called Fairy -- in a moment. Tolkien's response to Christmas was to write a Fairy Story about Father Christmas. And its here that the mystery of Christmas is revealed.

Now Tolkien had a high regard for Fairy Stories. He once wrote:

The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords.

We can now come back to the Jesus, and to the historical Christian story. For Tolkien said, in relation to his understanding of Fairy Stories:

I would venture to say that approaching the Christian Story from this direction, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospel contains a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful and moving: ‘mythical’ in their perfect self-contained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe [good 'catastrophe' - a sudden appearing of something gloriously good].

The quote above introduces many concepts which I don't have time or space to comment on right now. I leave that as an exercise to the reader. What I want to zoom into, however, is Tolkien's keen insight of the nature of the gospel story, and in particular the birth of Jesus, which he elsewhere described as the "eucatastrophe of Man's history". In other words, Christmas is not about death and suffering (of Jesus), nor is it about a feel-good mush of love, joy and peace. Rather, Christmas is mysterious. Christmas is 'magical'. Christmas is a fairy story - not to say it is untrue, but on the contrary, it is to assert that its a wonderful time when the world in fact is the way children know it should always be. Christmas is about wonder! Its about joyous anticipation, excitement, beholding marvels, dreams coming true. Its about admitting that the impossible is possible after all. It is, at the end of the day, about the Incarnation of Jesus: about God becoming Human. This is what we celebrate at Christmas. Not his death, or his suffering, or his shame. No-one, and I mean no-one, actually celebrates that in this holiday season. They may say they do, but just look at what they actually do...its all about excitement, and wonder, and magic, and mystery.

Think about this for a moment! I first loved Christmas as a small child. Father Christmas would visit our home, magically filling up our stockings with presents. Why did I believe in this? I suggest its because it represents a deeper truth, which all children, and only some adults, know intuitively to be true: that we live in a world of wonder, amazement, excitement, mystery, magic, miracles ... of dreams coming true. I ask you this: is there any better way to describe the Truth behind this truth, and to describe the Father behind Father Christmas, than to use the language of a child?

The Incarnation of Jesus - God becoming one of us, is so often overlooked by Christians and Christmas celebrations alike. The significance of the Incarnation, which at the heart of Christmas, is best summed up by the Church Father Irenaeus: Jesus became what we are so that we might become what he is. This is the meaning of Christmas - this is what we celebrate: the mystery, magic, wonder and excitement of Jesus becoming what we are, so that we can become what he is.

This Christmas, let us throw ourselves into the magic, mystery, excitement, and wonder of Christmas, however we celebrate it, knowing that in doing so, we are experiencing what Tolkien called eucatastrophe -- that sudden thrill and excitement of something wonderful happening -- and that by entering into this, we are in fact entering into the very same wonder of the Incarnation, and find ourselves transported to the Nativity scene: perhaps standing by the mysterious Magi, joining the shepherds in their wonder, and standing in complete awe as the angelic heavenly army appears in all its might and splendor and glory.

My dear friends and readers, this is Christmas: wonder, mystery, excitement, magic... the feeling that Ooh, I just know that something good is going to happen (!), the impossible becoming possible ... The Nativity, the Incarnation of Jesus, is a historical and true "Fairy Story": The ultimate story, the most wonderful story, the most enchanting story, and its what I will be celebrating this year.

Merry Christmas!

Conspiracy of Denial: Porn

2007-12-11T09:41:00.000Z

On a recent blog post concerning abortion, someone in the comments mentioned the phrase "Conspiracy of Denial". That phrase has sat with me, and I believe God wants to break open many Conspiracies of Denial. The next one I want to look at is porn. To do that, let me introduce you to Shelley Lubben. In her own words: "Shelley Lubben is a mother, a fighter for truth and survivor against all odds. Shelley is also a former porn actress fighting tirelessly against pornography which affects most of the world in a destructive way."

Before we listen to what Shelly has to say, let's learn a little about who she is. Watch the video below:

Now we will hear about the conspiracy of denial concerning the porn industry. The following comes from this article, which is probably an excerpt from her upcoming book.

Sex-packed porn films featuring freshly-dyed blondes whose evocative eyes say “I want you” is quite possibly one of the greatest deceptions of all time. Trust me, I know. I did it all the time and I did it for the lust of power and the love of money. I never liked sex. I never wanted sex and in fact I was more apt to spend time with Jack Daniels than some of the studs I was paid to “fake it” with. That’s right none of us freshly-dyed blondes like doing porn. In fact, we hate it. We hate being touched by strangers who care nothing about us. We hate being degraded with their foul smells and sweaty bodies. Some women hate it so much you can hear them vomiting in the bathroom between scenes. Others can be found outside smoking an endless chain of Marlboro lights.

But the porn industry wants YOU to think we porn actresses love sex. They want you to think we enjoy being degraded by all kinds of repulsive acts. The truth, porn actresses have showed up on the set not knowing about certain requirements and were told by porn producers to do it or leave without being paid. Work or never work again. Yes, we made the choice. Some of us needed the money. But we were manipulated and coerced and even threatened. Some of us caught HIV from that coercion. I personally caught Herpes, a non-curable sexually transmitted disease. Another porn actress went home after a long night of numbing her pain and put a pistol to her head and pulled the trigger. Now she’s dead.

It’s safe to say most women who turn to porn acting as a money-making enterprise, probably didn’t grow up in healthy childhoods either. Indeed, many actresses admit they’ve experienced sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse and neglect by parents. Some were raped by relatives and molested by neighbors. When we were little girls we wanted to play with dollies and be mommies, not have big scary men get on top of us. So we were taught at a young age that sex made us valuable. The same horrible violations we experienced then, we relive through as we perform our tricks for you in front of the camera. And we hate every minute of it. We’re traumatized little girls living on anti-depressants, drugs and alcohol acting out our pain in front of YOU who continue to abuse us.

As we continue to traumatize ourselves by making more adult films, we use more and more drugs and alcohol. We live in constant fear of catching AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. Every time there’s an HIV scare we race to the nearest clinic for an emergency checkup. Pornographers insist giving viewers the fantasy sex they demand all the while sacrificing the very ones who make it happen. In other words, no condoms allowed. Herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, and other diseases are the normal anxieties we walk around with daily. We get tested monthly but we know testing isn’t prevention. Besides worrying about catching diseases from porn sex, there are other harmful activities we engage in that are also very dangerous. Some of us have had physical tearing and damage to internal body parts.

When porn actresses call it a day and head home we attempt to have normal healthy relationships but some of our boyfriends get jealous and physically abuse us. So instead we marry our porn directors while others of us prefer lesbian relationships. It’s a real memory making moment when our daughter accidentally walks out and sees mommy kissing another girl. My daughter will vouch for that one.

On our days off we walk around like zombies with a beer in one hand and a
shot of whiskey in the other. We aren’t up to cleaning so we live in filth most of the time or we hire a sweet foreign lady to come in and clean up our mess. Porn Actresses aren’t the best cooks either. Ordering food in is normal for us and most of the time we throw up after we eat because we’re bulimic.

For porn actresses who have children, we are the world’s WORST mothers. We
yell and scream and hit our kids for no reason. Most of the time we are intoxicated or high and our four year olds are the ones picking us up off the floor. When clients come over for sex, we lock our children in their rooms and tell them to be quiet. I use to give my daughter a beeper and tell her to wait at the park until I was finished.

The truth is there IS NO fantasy in porn. It’s all a lie. A closer look into the scenes of a porn star’s life will show you a movie porn doesn’t want you to see. The real truth is we porn actresses want to end the shame and trauma of our lives but we can’t do it alone. We need you men to fight for our freedom and give us back our honor. We need you to hold us in your strong arms while we sob tears over our deep wounds and begin to heal. We want you throw out our movies and help piece together the shattered fragments of our lives. We need you to pray for us the next fifteen years so God will hear and repair our ruined lives.

So don’t believe the lie anymore. Porn is nothing more than fake sex and lies on videotape. Trust me, I know.

Unfortunately the church hasn't always been the best witness of Jesus to those involved in porn, erotic dancing, and prostitution. But there is Light at the end of the tunnel: check out the JC girls, below:

Thanks

2007-12-05T14:57:00.000Z

It took me a while to notice, but I've been tagged by Duncan with the thanks meme. Apparently I simply have to list five thinks I am thankful for.

For Jesus dieing for my sins and reconciling me to God, and all the rest of the atonement

My beautiful and amazing wife

Good, loyal and faithful friends

For having a nice flat to stay in, a nice car to drive, and an interesting and rewarding job.

For the ministry of Mars Hill Church, for I have profoundly grown in Christ as result from their teaching.

If we want to get theological about the stuff I am thankful for, we could boil it down to beauty, truth, relationships, material provision. Amen to them!

I'm tagging Paul Ede, Peter Kirk, and BrunetteKoala. I think you are meant to tag five people but I don't know enough bloggers! :-)

Oral Sex and Backrubs

2007-11-30T18:48:00.000Z

Its Friday, so time for something different. I've been debating Driscoll's preach on the Songs of Songs in this post over at Dave Warnock's blog. Apparently a preacher talking about oral sex is still controversial these days. What does the bible say about all this, you ask?

each man should have [sexual] relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband.
A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights, and likewise a wife to her husband.
It is not the wife who has the rights to her own body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife.

-- 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 NET

Read this slowly, and then read it again. This is mind-blowing. Apparently a wife has a sexual right to be pleasured by her husband. Guys, if you are married and your wife is not sexually satisfied, you may be in sin! Likewise, girls, if you are married and not sexually satisfying your hubbies, you too may well be in sin. And finally, if you are not married and are sexually satisfying your partner, you are definitely in sin! Can't win, eh?

Paul and Lori describe this principle as sexual stewardship:

It's interesting that there's a symmetry here; she owes him the same thing he owes her. This symmetry isn't found in other areas of the marriage, so God obviously felt it important to tell men they owed their wives sex. This is where we see the idea of stewardship. A steward is put in charge of something which does not belong to him. The steward is given both authority and responsibility for the thing (or person) he's made a steward of, and he's accountable to the one who made him steward. In the case of sex, God has given the husband stewardship of the wife's sexuality, and the wife stewardship of the husband's sexuality. A steward never puts his own desires above the care of what has been entrusted to him, and we must do the same with sex, putting the good of our spouse above our own sexual desires.
-- From The Marriage Bed: Sexual Stewardship.

Now the actual point of debate is whether Driscoll encouraged oral sex as a holy activity within marriage, or whether (in general or in one particular instance) he commanded it. Dave Warnock feels that he had commanded it (based on Song of Songs affirming it), and therefore that command itself would be wrong. I would agree in principle, if Driscoll indeed commanded said activity. But I never got that impression. Scripture does say something like "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin", so I think we can all agree that even if the bible affirms something, if our conscience troubles us, we are to abstain until we can resolve the issue.

Those of you who are single may be wondering why I am telling you all this. I wonder myself...but at the end of the day, biblical sexuality is the same as everything else for us Christians: our life is one of service, of sacrifice, and of great joy. Too often our sex lives are ignored by churches and pulpits. I thank God for those who are willing to speak out on this issue.

Does Mark Driscoll believe in a God of Love or Hate?

2007-11-28T12:10:00.000Z

Mark and I

Folks have been debating for about a week now on the whole issue of the wrath of God and how this co-exists with the love of God. Mark Driscoll's preach in Edinburgh on Friday touched upon this theme as a small part of a larger sermon on the atonement of Jesus. Many who were not present but read Adrian's synopsis have attempted to understand what Mark was actually saying. I have perhaps confused matters by putting in my thoughts, as I was also present at this meeting.

But rather than throw around opinion, what I offer now to help steer the debate is an almost word-for-word transcript of the controversial section of Mark's preach. I've cut out a few jokes and verbal slip-ups, but apart from that this is what Mark said. Please note that much of this was said with humour, which does change the way some of it is interpreted.

Jesus is our Propitiation

This word appears four times in the Greek New Testament. Most translations don’t include it, they say “people don’t know what the word propitiation means”, so they put in other words like “sacrifice of atonement.” People don’t know what that word means either! So I don’t think it helps. Use the word, it’s a good word.

1 John 4:10 is one example

“This is love, not that we have loved God”

- see that’s why I hate freakin’ religion – religion tells people, if you are a good person then God will love you. The gospel says, God has loved you, look at the cross, now you can live a new life. You don’t obey so that God will love you, you obey because God already does!

The gospel is so much better than religion. “This is love, not that we have loved God” – not that we went first, not that we initiated, but that God has loved us and sent his son to be a propitiation for our sins.

Stupid people – stupid theologians – but they say things like

“I don’t believe in propitiation because how can a loving God…”

Propitiation is how God demonstrates his love. Come on! We know God loves us because he propitiated our sin!

Here is what propitiation is: GOD HATES SINNERS. You’ve been told that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. No he doesn’t: Ghandi says that, just so you know, he’s on a totally different team than us.

14 times in the first 50 Psalms God says he hates somebody. Says he hates group like the Nicolations. Hates dudes like Esau. Hates those in Proverbs with haughty eyes. He hates all kind of people! When someone says “I hate the sin but love the sinner” that’s dumb because we are sinners. I hate the essence sum total of what you are, but I really like you!” What the! We do what we are: we have an old nature and we commit old acts of sin.

It says it in Psalm 5:5 “I hate -- or it says, You hate all who do evil”. Now let this settle. People say things like “God doesn’t hate anybody!” Yes he does! He hates tonnes of people! He does. Some people say “that’s not fair”. Course its fair! You hate people! And God’s far better than you and he knows a lot more people!

God hates sinners and he hates their sin. I preached this doctrine of propitiation. The third time I preached this … a guy pulled a knife and tried to get up on the stage to kill me. So people will respond to this doctrine … we grew the next week by 800 people [after preaching this doctrine…]

GOD HATES SINNERS. He works it out through his wrath. God wrath is mentioned more than 600 times in the bible. If you have a bucket of verses that say love, and a bucket of verses that say wrath, wrath is a bigger bucket.

The whole “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” -- that’s the wrong place to start. “God hates you and its going to go really really bad forever!” – hey now that is true…

What happens with propitiation is that Jesus stands in our place and the wrath of the Father is poured out on the Son. I want you to see the masculine suffering of Jesus. He is dying by suffering the wrath of God. And the wrath of God is poured out on Jesus and is thereby propitiated, diverted, taken away, from sinners who are in Jesus Christ.

I love this! People come up to me and say “How can a loving God send anyone to hell?” My question is, “How can a holy God take anyone to heaven?”…

People need to know how good God is, how angry God is, so that they understand how significant Jesus is. “I’m under the wrath of God? I need to go to Jesus and I need to be propitiated.”

This is shown in the Passover, when literally the wrath of God was going to visit every home except those who were covered literally by blood – substitution. And as they were covered by blood, so the wrath of God passed over them. Just as we are covered by the blood of Jesus. 1 Cor 5:7 “Jesus Christ the Passover lamb has been slain.” He is the blood that covers us, so that the propitiating work of God is accomplished, so that the wrath of God passes over.

If I may add a brief observation of my own, its clear that Mark is espousing a particular model of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), a model which I have described in the past as "hard" penal substitution. I don't think I can fully agree with this, as it goes beyond what scripture actually says. I'm more comfortable with soft PSA, a somewhat more subtle model that theologians across the board can agree with, including Wright and possibly even Steve Chalk, although no-one really understands what he believes about substitutionary atonement these days!

UPDATE: Peter Kirk offers his revised response to this message, given the accurate transcript above.

UPDATE AGAIN: If you want to hear Mark's Friday and Sunday night preaches, you can can get them courtesy of Destiny Church Edinburgh: [ Sunday 10am | Sunday 12noon | Friday - leaders meeting]

Does God Love or Hate You?

2007-11-19T09:51:00.000Z

There is a little controversy brewing at the moment, believe it or not, on the topic of whether God loves or hates us. To be honest I do think the church and general public is in a muddle right now over this issue. Let me walk you though the different points of view, and lets see if we can get to the heart of this debate.

On one side, we are told that "The Father loves you", and that in scripture we can see a love letter from Father God to each and every one of us.

Well, that settles it, doesn't it? Not so fast. Because apparently the same scriptures also teach us that God hates us !? Mark Driscoll explains it best:

To be honest even I am a little confused. And I know for a fact that there are many here in Edinburgh who are a little mixed up about whether God loves or hates people right now, following Driscoll's visit this weekend, where he spoke on this issue at a leaders meeting.

Let's see if our old friend Tom Wright can't shed some light on the issue. Wright recently wrote:

The biblical doctrine of God's wrath is rooted in the doctrine of God as the good, wise and loving creator, who hates - yes, hates, and hates implacably - anything that spoils, defaces, distorts or damages his beautiful creation, and in particular anything that does that to his image-bearing creatures. If God does not hate racial prejudice, he is neither good nor loving. If God is not wrathful at child abuse, he is neither good nor loving. If God is not utterly determined to root out from his creation, in an act of proper wrath and judgment, the arrogance that allows people to exploit, bomb, bully and enslave one another, he is neither loving, nor good, nor wise.
-- The Cross and the Caricatures, N T Wright.

Well, that helps a little bit. Let's see where we are just now:

God (not just the Father, but the entire trinity) is a loving, wise and good creator. God is indeed love.

Because God is love, he must relentlessly, absolutely, completely, and totally hate sin.

So far so good. Now here comes the catch. According to Driscoll, we can't separate the sin from the sinner. He mocks the idea that God can love the sinner, but hate the sin, as surely a person acts out of who she is. (He also correctly notes that "hate the sin, love the sinner" is one of Ghandi's teachings.)

This is where it gets tricky, and this is where I want my readers to chip in. To start the ball rolling I'll do my best to attempt to reconcile all of the above and come to some sort of conclusion.

I believe Driscoll is right in saying that because God hates our sin, he is angry at us. I prefer to put it like this: God hates that our sinful, corrupt, fallen, Adamic nature is the essense of what we have become. Therefore, without the mercy of Jesus we stand before God utterly incapable of escaping who we have become, and utterly incapable of avoiding the wrath and anger of God. Now I say "become", and not "are", because I believe also that God has created all of us in his image, and that we are all image bearers of God, whether you are a Christian or not, and whether you believe it or not. Thus far, this should not be controversial to anyone. Additionally however, I believe scripture informs us that the "Adamic" nature trumps our image-bearing nature, and therefore in some sense and in some way, we find ourselves as enemies of God, not because God for some particular reason hates us personally, but because as Wright reminds us, God hates all that is evil and wicked and wrong and perverse, and there is something of that nature in everyone.

So God loves humanity, not just a little bit, but without measure or bound. At the same time, he also hates everything evil that we do, and even more than that, he hates what we (without the grace of God) have become. Fortunately for us, he loves us even as we sin and even as we are his enemy. In other words, in the love/hate equation inside the Trinity, it is love that triumphs!. That love compelled the Triune God to send himself, the Son, in order to live, die, resurrect and ascend to Glory to sit down on the very throne of heaven itself, in order to rescue us from what we have become, and to restore us to a Glory even greater than that which we were meant to have, right back in the beginning of Genesis.

Why do I believe this? I think ultimately because of the biblical truth that on the cross, those that believe in Jesus also died with him. Although Jesus died for us, the mystery of the atonement runs much deeper. Scripture is absolutely clear about this:

2 Cor 5:17 So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away – look, what is new has come!

Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Rom 6:6 We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 6:7 (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.)

What I read from the above is this: there was something so wicked, so evil, so corrupt, in each one of us, that God has to destroy and kill this in order to give us life. Jesus is not only our substitute, our sacrifice, and our representative. Metaphysically, or spiritually, those of us that trust in Jesus have been crucified on the cross with Jesus!

I believe that this is why God "hates us" -- because of the "old man" and "body of sin" that cannot be separated from the "true you" apart from blood of Jesus. So perhaps I would summarise the whole issue like this:

God, that is, the Father, the son -- Jesus, and the Spirit, is love.

God loves each and every person on this planet.

God created us all with dignity, value and worth. We are all image bearers of God made by the hands of God, whether Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or any other faith, including no faith at all.

God, because he is love, absolutely hates sin and wickedness and perversion and evil.

All humankind finds themselves alienated from God, and in a sense he is opposed to us, because we are not "good people doing bad things", but image-bearers who have been tainted with a terrible disease of sin from which we cannot escape.

We are under and subject to the wrath of God, for he opposes what we do and what we have become.

Yet, even as we rebel against him, God loves us and his love triumphs and wins through. His love and forgiveness is poured out at the Cross of Jesus. Jesus himself says "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

And even though God loves us and forgives us, our "old man", our Adamic nature, is crucified and dies on the Cross of Calvary alongside Jesus.

And finally, those that do not accept the reconciliation that God offers may ultimately face the prospect of existing for an eternity outside of God's love and outwidth his Kingdom; in other words they will be in hell. This is because although God loves all, he hates what we have become, and unless we turn back to him, we can never escape the corrupting influence of the body of sin.

Thanks for listening. Perhaps there are more concise or better ways of explaining this. What do my readers think?

Is Your Church Missional or Missing The Point?

2007-11-14T10:28:00.000Z

I was just listening to talk by David Bisgrove, from Redeemer Presbyterian Church, and heard a great soundbite. In fact, I have stopped listening in order to write this. David was talking on the subject of sharing the good news of Jesus in a post-Christian culture. Let's cut to the chase:

Scripture tells us that ... non-believers are expected to be in our worship services ... [They should find our] worship challenging and comprehensible, NOT comfortable.

When you preach, or teach, preaching is done as if the whole community is listening...If you preach as if non-Christians from the community are there, even if there are not, it will not long be long before they are brought.

In most (even thriving) churches the whole service usually assumes
- a lot of biblical knowledge
- a we-them mentality
- a lot of evangelical terminology.

Most Christians, even if they are edified in the church, know intuitively that their non-Christians friends would not appreciate the service.

Sad but very true. For years now I have lamented the "Christendom" or "Holy Huddle" approach to meetings, where it is always assumed everyone is a Christian, an often a mature one at that. I always feel somewhat bad about this, because people often respond with "but the service blessed me", "I really found the Lord during worship", "the sermon was really interesting". I'm glad David Bisgrove has hit the hammer on the head of the nail with this one. Public Christian meetings should not be catering for obscure teaching, bless-me praise times, and lengthy in-house announcements which often bore the people the news relates to, let alone anyone else. I think many churches believe their public meetings are a cross between a social gathering and an annual general meeting. In other words, there is a preoccupation with internal, inward-looking, in-house matters, rather than the public proclamation of the gospel, a time of worship which both Christians and non-Christians can in some way enter into and appreciate, and a time of corporate prayer for the city and nation.

Now some people will say, "but Alastair, we want meat, not milk; we want depth, not shallowness; we want to glorify God, not be seeker friendly". I suppose the answer to that is two-fold: One, as David Bisgrove went on to say, should people really be seeking such things from a public worship/gathering ? He points out that Redeemer has other venues and times where education, training, counseling, etc. takes place. They don't jam it all into their Sunday meetings. In addition, I believe it is possible to hold a public Christian meeting in which God is given the glory, he is worshiped in Spirit and in Truth, and the gospel proclaimed, in such a way that both Christians and non-Christians can a) comprehend/appreciate and b) be challenged by and (c) be given space for appropriate ways to respond.

So what do you think?

Mark Driscoll in Edinburgh This Weekend

2007-11-13T10:58:00.000Z

When I first heard about this I was very skeptical that Mark would come along to Edinburgh, what with the huge number of speaking engagements he must be offered on a daily basis. So I am thrilled to announce that Mark will be in Edinburgh this weekend, and you will be able to catch him at a number of different venues.

Friday 16th 7pm Destiny Edinburgh Destiny Edinburgh is hosting a leaders meeting with Mark Driscoll. If you want to attend you'll need to email Destiny first - check the link above for more details.

Saturday 17th 9.30am Men Makers Mark Driscoll will be the keynote speaker at this annual conference. Its for men only (sorry girls), and I strongly encourage all Edinburgh men of faith to come along.

Sunday 18th 10am Destiny Edinburgh Mark with be preaching at Destiny Church Edinburgh.

Sunday 18th 12noon Destiny Edinburgh Mark will be preaching at the lunchtime service as well.

Sunday 18th 6pm - GLASGOW Mark's last public speaking engagement in Scotland will be with Destiny Church Glasgow, at 6pm.

UPDATE: Adrian (didn't realise he was around and didn't see him unfortunately!) has provided a detailed synopsis of both Mark's preach on Friday, Andrew Owen's preach on Saturday, and Mark's first preach on Saturday.

New Bibles

2007-11-12T09:52:00.000Z

I'd like to draw attention to two new bibles out on the market.

The first is the NET Bible Compact Edition, which is essentially the NET bible text with abridged notes and some nice extras. Its great to see the NET bible slowly maturing into a premium product.

The second somewhat more news-worthy bible is the Gay And Lesbian Study Bible, translated and edited by Dr Ann Nyland, and based on her previously released Source translation. If you want to jump into a discussion on this bible, you'll find one over at Better Bibles.

UK Abortion Debate

2007-11-07T14:23:00.000Z

I'm not sure where to start, but I'd like to blog a little on the topic of Abortion. Forty years on from the introduction of the Abortion Act, abortion is as controversial as ever. According to the BBC, "terminations in Britain are running at 450 a day." Although this is an outrage for some groups, for others its not even enough.

I actually believe that there aren't enough abortions
-- John Parsons, a consultant gynaecologist

Recently the UK's House of Commons select committee on science and technology concluded (amongst other findings) that there is no reason to lower the current 24-week limit for abortions. Now it appears that this cross-party committee was relying on the findings of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which has recently been accused of ignoring data supporting a lowering of the limit. So what evidence is this then? Apparently Professor Stuart Campbell and Dr KJ Anand have both been pioneering research into pre-natal life.

Campbell has produced new 4D imaging which "has produced vivid pictures of a 12 week-old foetus 'walking' in the womb." However it appears many Gynaecologists have dismissed these images, saying that although more detailed than what was available previously, they haven't brought anything new to the table. ("The RCN’s view is that 3D and 4D imaging only serves to reveal what is already known, but with greater clarity.")

Dr Anand, it appears, has established (through an as unyet unpublished paper?) that a foetus can experience physiological stress similar to and consistent with what we understand to be pain from around 20 weeks gestation.

My first comment on this complex issue is this: what is the big deal about feeling pain? If an regular adult was anesthetized so that she could not feel pain, would it be ethical to terminate them? As important as pain is, surely the debate needs to move beyond this to looking at defining sentience and human life.

BTW, for sources for unsubstantiated quotes, check out Ministry of Truth (*), which appears to be a pro-choice blog (can anyone correct me?). BTW for the avoidance of doubt, I cannot endorse the opinions and views presented on the Ministry of Truth blog.

Update: Ruth Gledhill (Times religion blogger) has a good summary on recent events concerning this.

Update 2: Channel 4 has covered this issue recently with their Dispatches programme.

This Blog is Not Dead

2007-10-29T21:22:00.000Z

Sorry for the lack of blogging. Moving house, and changing jobs has caused the last few months to be very, very busy. I hope to resume blogging soon. I note that some of my fellow bloggers in the local scene have also been very quiet recently. Hopefully God can grant us all some time to blog, assuming he still wants us to!

Still Alive

2007-08-09T11:07:00.000+01:00

Just a quick update to note that I've been on holiday for a month, interailing around Europe with my wife. Blogging will resume soon...

Manifesto of Hope for Edinburgh (What Scotland can learn from MH III)

2007-06-18T17:02:00.001+01:00

Barclay Church, Sunset on Bruntsfield Lynx

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the churches in Edinburgh, which is were I live. This frustration began shortly after I became a Christian. Now I don't want to blog a whole shed-load of negativity; rather I want to set-forth a manifesto of hope in Christ for Edinburgh. This is my dream: this is what the Bride of Christ in Edinburgh should look like; this is the church I am looking for. If I can't find it, maybe I will start a new one...

In this post, I pick up lessons we can learn from Mars Hill, and following their methodology, offer a vision of a contextualised church for Edinburgh which is shaped in response to the city and country.

Jesus At the end of the day (and at all other times!), if a church does not focus on Jesus, you might as well just forget everything else. Yet I know for a fact that many so-called churches in Edinburgh have forgotten their first love. If you think I am being harsh, simply pick up your bible, flip to the New Testament, and read a random couple of verses. If you don't find yourself reading about Jesus, I reckon you've picked up the wrong book. Now compare to how many times you hear him mentioned in your church service. If you hear something or someone else mentioned more often, then you know what I mean. Increasingly, I've noticed that Jesus is literally everywhere in the bible. You can't get away from the man! Mars Hill Seattle have really shown me the importance of exalting Christ. I'm not alone here, as Adrian Warnock blogs on how blessed Terry Virgo is as a result of the Christ-focused teaching of Mars Hill.

MissionI am looking for a church in Edinburgh that spends the bulk of its time, money, prayer, and energy on Edinburgh. Hardly a novel idea, you would think, but its a fact that many churches devote themselves to easier tasks such as blessing overseas ministries. This is of course to be admired, but I am looking for a majority focus on Edinburgh, not a token amount of prayer/outreach money after the bulk of resources has been used up by non-missional activities.

Relevant Scottish Worship I don't know why churches don't get it. Why is there a different musical genre when one walks in from a pub or club into a church? Of course I realise that worship will sound different to other types of music; but there is no excuse for the boring, dreary, cheesy annoying sound that to be honest is barely better than the old pipe organ. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, take a look (and listen!) to the music playing which everyday normal people listen to. Is it so hard to then use this genre and redeem it for Christ? Scotland is home to an entire movement of techno/rave, but the only time I've heard it used in worship was when I was spinning the decks myself. The Edinburgh clubs are filled with hard rock bands, yet reach out to them and you'll be forced to tell them that Christian worship in Edinburgh is 30 years behind their musical expression. Folks, this is not about worship wars: this is about worship being contextual, being missional, being relevant, and quite simply keeping with the times. Where is the Celtic worship? Where is the folk worship? Again, Mars Hill scores points here: their music (and they have about 7 different genres represented in their musical worship) may not be your cup of tea, but that's the point: its Seattle's cup of tea, which is all that matters.

Neither religious nor anti-religious Many churches I have visited fit into one of these categories: either they have a spirit of religion over the church, permeating much of what they do; or, there is a weird spirit of "anti-religion", which ends up being the same thing. Its hard to explain the latter, but its this attitude of "we aren't like the religious churches" sort of thing, which becomes a religion of its own. Thankfully Mars Hill doesn't fit into either category. We need more churches in Edinburgh which can say the same.

Celtic Spirituality: Signs & Wonders I believe that Edinburgh needs a greater emphasis on this than is present at Mars Hill Seattle. Our country has a wonderful heritage of the supernatural, thanks in part to the ancient Celts. We are a spiritual nation, in the broad sense of the term. The great powers of spiritual darkness over Edinburgh need to be broken in Jesus' name in part through the supernatural signs of his Kingdom.

Unity - breaking the spirit of tribalism & sectarianism Compared to other cities in the UK there is a disturbing lack of unity amongst the churches of Edinburgh. Surprisingly, there is a lot of grass-roots inter-fellowship between the various churches. Yet most churches simply plough on doing their own thing. And in the nation at large, we are plagued by tribalism on the small scale and sectarianism on the larger. The whole East vs West thing in Scotland is another example. This is one area that the church needs to demonstrate to the Powers that it is One in Christ, and that all peoples should be One in Christ.

Land of the Book Scotland was once a land that revered the Word of God. Edinburgh is also very much an educated, humanistic and elitist city. The church I am looking for needs to be both soaked in God's word and be able to present an intellectually credible faith for the educated masses of Edinburgh. It must also be able to oppose and denounce any and all philosophies which turn our attention away from Christ.

Financial Generosity Unfortunately I believe Scotland suffers from a poverty spirit. One of the ways this needs to be broken is by the wholehearted proper funding and resourcing of Mission, along with a new generosity which will blow the city away by the amount of time and money the Edinburgh Church gives to its own city, and especially the "poor".

Celebration If there is one thing we can do well in Scotland it is to party. This is something the church simply MUST capitalise on. People often ask my why I don't dance more often in church (I love to dance). The answer is quite simply: well play some darn music that makes me want to dance! The Church Edinburgh needs is a church that is caught up in God's Joy and in the celebration of the victory of Christ. Currently, quite frankly the non Christians in Edinburgh are doing a better job of celebrating than the rest of us. Its high time this changed. In the Old Testament, an entire 10% of Israel's income(the whole tithe was over 30%) went towards community celebrations. How much money does your church spend on parties for the city? Last time I checked, it was the Pagans that were funding city celebrations. Shame on us.

direct confrontation of the Pagan Powers Edinburgh has its fair share of Pagan activity. The church needs to stop avoiding this issue and hit it head on, now. And before anyone jumps in, I would be the first to say the church can learn from many of the pagans and witches and whatnot. They have a unique view of spirituality that we can learn from. But ultimately, the spiritual background to their faith is demonic. And we can't sit around and ignore their activity any longer. Its high time the church of Edinburgh got their act together here.

Finally, raising up the Warfare generation. Scotland is plagued with inactivity, indifference, "what do I care?" attitude. The spiritual power has influenced the church as much as the rest of the land. Its high time for the church to start fighting back. In prayer and intercession, I might add. There is so much disinterest in prayer. And I include myself in that sweeping generalisation. Warrior prayer is needed to apply Christ's victory to our darkened land. And this applies even more so to the men: because they are the ones who are absent from most prayer meetings. Men of Scotland, get yer freakin' act together, unite, and form a prayer army, and lets pray for our city and nation.

So what do you folks think? Does such a church exist? Am I just dreaming of the impossible? Should I hold out to find this church? Should I try to bring this vision to where I am currently at? Or should I just attempt to find some like-minded souls and start a jesus-centric, Kingdom-working, Missional, Relevant, Contextualised, Charismatic, Evangelical, Warfare, Partying church? One thing is for sure, I have no more time for "business as usual" or "church as usual". Forget it.

Oh, and before I sign off, one more thing. The Scottish church of tomorrow will need large dose of a "senses of humour" :-) Cos we're gonna need it...

Mars Hill Church: part II: what can Scotland learn?

2007-06-08T09:54:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I blogged about the time my wife and I visited Mars Hill, Seattle. Today I will continue to discuss Mars Hill and without further ado highlight what I think contributes to their success. I should note that I am an outsider to Mars Hill and I would welcome comments from those who consider this their home church, as I am sure you know much more than me.

Community - right off the bat, its obvious that there exists a great sense of community at Mars Hill. I find this interesting for two reasons: 1) I don't get the impression that Driscoll stands around preaching on the importance of community, as some churches have done. Yet I get the impression that, despite the size of the congregation, the community at Mars Hill is one of the appealing aspects of the church. The other reason I find this interesting is that the Sunday service itself is not designed to be community inclusive: its not as if everyone gets up to share a word, as happens in some churches. Yet despite (or because of?) the from-the-front emphasis of the Sunday service, the rest of the church life appears to major on community.
Professional attitude. I have always said that the problems with many Christians and churches is that when they do something for God or ministry, its always in a half-hearted way when it comes to the level of professionalism and the amount of financial investment. I think of the number of clapped-out church sound systems I have come across, for example. Or the quality of the coffee I've been forced to drink over the years since I became a Christian. I am happy to report that when Mars Hill does something, it does something well. I simply love this - and in Edinburgh I believe this is something we really need to learn. We often operate under a poverty-spirit, a spirit which has afflicted Scotland for some time now.
Missional worship. Another topic I have been banging on about for years, but no-one seems to be listening. Its clear from listening to the podcast feed that Mars Hill Worship attempts to bridge the gap between Christian worship and "secular" music. This whole sacred-secular thing is a pile of nonsense. Why are Christians forced to listen to cheesy, trite worship songs which bear no musical relation to the music we all love to listen to? Why does Christian music sound like the secular music of 20 years ago? When I am at home or in my car I listen to all kinds of music, including funk, hip-hop, techno, country, etc. But so often these genres are not to be found in church. And why don't we here any Scottish folk music in Scottish churches? At least we sing the old hymns, which often have a Celtic feel to them. But nothing more contemporary.
No religious mumbo-jumbo. Many churches are have their own lingo and jargon, which although sometimes is helpful, often simply alienates and further distances the congregation from the "real world" (TM). In accordance with modern missional thinking, I'm happy to report that Mars Hill avoids all such Christian babble. All of their spoken output seems free from the incessant nonsense that comes out of many churches.
No charismania. I love the Holy Spirit, and I love when he moves powerfully through anointed speakers. I love all the gifts of the Spirit. But since I became a Christians I've had the misfortune to come across a tribe of people known ascharismaniacs. You know of whom I speak. These people always have a "word" for you (its never a biblical one, and often a condemning one), fall of their chairs during worship services, and make strange animal noises when being prayed for. Now there is a time and a place for everything, and the annoying thing about these people is simply that they don't put a lid on it. Curiously, they are almost always single, and female. Mars Hill, whilst embracing the gifts and ministry of the Spirit, seems to be walking the line and avoiding excesses of charismania. Actually, I think they seem over cautious. From my perspective, they seem like evangelicals first and charismatics second. My own church background would be the opposite.
Focus on the city Mars Hill is on a mission, and is clearly focussed on bringing Seattle to Jesus. This is a stark contrast to many churches I know, which don't really seem to have any clear vision for their own city. They are often active in second or third world countries, but have little money or time or thought left for Scotland. If you don't believe me, just compare the amount of money some churches allocate in their budget for overseas "ministry", and compare that to the local outreach fund. Normally the overseas ministry spends an order of magnitude more. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against foreign mission, but if a church is not spending the lion's share of its prayer, money and time on local mission, something is seriously wrong.
They are cool. Controversial I know, but it seems that most Edinburgh church buildings I have visited seem to be described by one or more of the following: old-fashioned, cheesy, trite, childish, overly feminine, drab, ugly, shambolic, boring. Take your pick. I really feel like we have lost something here. Maybe it was the fault of the reformers, but many of our churches do not have a theology of beauty and aesthetics. What could speak of God more than beauty? Beauty is one of the values of Mars Hill. I think Scottish churches need to recapture this.
They speak out on relevant issues Finance. Sex. Dating. Marriage. Work. Things that people are interested in, and things that matter. Real stuff. They make theology interesting, and practical. Unfortunately many church leadership teams in Edinburgh are living in denial as to the world in which their congregation lives in.
They don't assume everyone in church is a Christian. The entire church service is missional: its equally relevant and accessible to Christians and non-Christians. I've been hammering on about this for years as well. Churches over here make two mistakes, typically, when it comes to this issue. Either they completely alienate visitors with obscure preaching and out-of-date music, or they force visitors to put their hands up half-way through the service. Talk about a big no-no. No wonder these churches are struggling to grow.

I could go on and on, but this will do for now. Hopefully we can see that Scotland has a lot to learn from Mars Hill. In my final posting on this topic I will wrap it all up, and perhaps reflect on a few ways that the Scottish church needs to forge ahead in a different direction from Mars Hill.

Mars Hill Church: Part I: my own experience

2007-06-06T09:25:00.000+01:00

Been a little busy recently, folks, so I apologise for the lack of blog posting. For a few posts I want to change topics and talk about Mars Hill, before going to issues such as hermeneutics and the atonement.

Mars Hill Church, Seattle WA, is a great success story. Starting off as a bible study in Mark Driscoll's living room, the church has grown consistently at around 60% per year after a few initial rocky years. Every time you check out their numbers, the size of the church appears to have grown. Last time it was around 6000. I think they peaked at around 10,000 for their Easter services.

Some people, when told of the growth and size of Mars Hill, simply mutter something about "oh, its in America, its different over there". Indeed, in the Bible Belt states, much of the population considers itself a Christian, so its no surprise to hear of large churches. However, this is not the case in Seattle, which is very much a liberal, educated, left-wing, alternative-lifestyle city, which along with Portland, OR, has the lowest figure for church attendance in the US. Most people on Sunday mornings are in Starbucks, not church! Further more, the few churches of note in Seattle tend to be in the more wealthy sub-urban areas, rather than in the city itself. This makes the success of Mars Hill all the more intriguing.

Having visited Mars Hill, heard hundreds of their sermons, read numerous interviews and articles, and both of Driscoll's books, I would like to offer some insight as to where they have got it right, and why they are doing so well. I may also offer a critique or two in a few places, although the thrust of this article is to look at what they are doing right. To begin with, I'd like to recount the time my wife and I visited Seattle and checked out Mars Hill.

7.30am We were staying in a nice hotel in the Queen Anne district. We have decided to visit the 9am service, for two reasons: (1) we wanted to spend the rest of the day sight-seeing, and (2) we had heard it is difficult to actually get into some of the later services, as they are so popular. Don't you just love that: how many churches in Edinburgh (or Scotland for that matter) have to turn people away ? I long for the day when this starts to happen in my own city. Anyway, after a healthy breakfast of muesli and Seattle coffee, we called a taxi and asked to be taken to Mars Hill, in Ballard. He knew where it was without further direction. I was impressed: the only time a taxi driver knew where a church was in Edinburgh, it turned out he was a Christian. Not so in this case. I make a mental note: this church is known in the city.
8.30am The first thing I noticed as we approached their building is its simple exterior. Its a converted warehouse, painted in industrial grey, with a large clear sign. The building looks contemporary, and certainly doesn't look churchy. We walked around outside for a while, since we were quite early.
8.40am As I walked in, I was impressed by a huge work of art adorning a wall to my left. I've never seen anything quite like it. It was a huge painting of the crucifixion, the work of a local artist. It just blew me away...I waited here for a while whilst my wife went to the bathroom. One thing I did notice is that no-one came up to me and tried to speak to me. On one hand, I appreciated not having an artificial conversation with a "greeter". On the other hand, it would have been nice if someone had said hello.
8.45am As we walked into the auditorium, we were immediately struck by the low light level and a soft chilled out sound coming from a DJ's decks. It was very peaceful and relaxed. There was no band faffing about on stage, or anything like that. There was a sense of people coming together in anticipation. Rather surprisingly, even though the service was about to start in 10 minutes, the place look less than half full. "So much for not even getting in", I thought. Perhaps these stories were just exaggerations. Perhaps the 9am service was a quiet one. I took the opportunity to nip out to use the bathroom.
8.50am Walking into the men's bathroom I was impressed by the quality. It was very stylish, with a low light level, stainless steel, and quality fittings. Probably the nicest church loos I've ever used... OK, so it won't start a revival but it doesn't do any harm to have a decent bathroom! By now I got the impression that Mars Hill was consciously trying not to look and feel like a regular church. I thought this was good. Ask most people what they think of when they think of a church building, and I'm pretty sure they would not describe anything remotely like this...
8.55am Back in the main auditorium, I was absolutely amazed to see that the place had filled to the brim. I could barely get back to my seat. I immediately thought this was a huge contrast to my church-going experience in Edinburgh, where people wonder in casually throughout the entire service, meaning the service starts half-empty. Here, everyone was keen to arrive early!
8.58 Waiting for the service to start, I read some of the notices that were being displayed on two large projections screens to the left and right of the stage. One good thing about the services here is that there are no announcements. Ask most people what they would change about the church service they attend, and its "less announcements". Sometimes I get the impression that churches make up things to say during this slot, as if by some Holy Command the worship must be interrupted to hear mundane news that 95% of people aren't interested in. At Mars Hill, announcements are done by video projection before and after the meetings, and by email, newsletter, and podcast.
9.00 Pretty much bang on time, a worship team appears on the stage out of seemingly nowhere, and we are invited to stand. As the music starts, I am impressed by the quality of the PA. It sounds better than most gigs I have gone to, and better than any church sound system. I learned later that it was one of the best sound systems in Seattle, donated by one of their members. We sing a hymn and then sit down.
9.10 Mark Driscoll has appeared on stage. He starts speaking as the band are still putting down their instruments. "They don't waste any time here", I thought. The lighting adjusts to help us focus on Mark, rather than the band. Without further ado he launches into the text for today. It was quite a contrast to some services I have visited, where up to five minutes can be wasted as people faff around trying to get the next part of the service ready.
After the preach we are encouraged to pray with one another, confess sins, take bread and wine and enter into the worship. Every week the congregation takes bread and wine as part of their worship. The whole experience was quite different to what I was used to, yet I clearly felt God in and through what was going on. We worshipped for about half an hour, maybe a little less. Then Pastor Lief appeared on the stage, reminding everyone about the BBQ that was on later that day.
After the service I grabbed a free cup of real Coffee and I approached a help desk and asked if it was possible to speak to Mark. I was told that would not be possible. Oh well. So we picked up some free literature and left to enjoy our day.

Next post I will offer some thoughts on what Scottish churches can learn from Mars Hill.

Worst Worship Songs Ever

2007-05-25T12:23:00.000+01:00

Things are getting a little heavy round here (theologically speaking). Its Friday today, so to lighten it up a little, lets talk about the worst worship songs. You know, the ones you hate, the ones you don't sing, the ones which either the music or the lyrics make you want to puke up all over the lady next to you in her Sunday best. The songs that enrage you so much, you almost think for a minute about changing teams and joining another religion. You get the picture :-)

Inspired by this post, I want to list my own top five worst worship songs ever. Please feel free to comment and add your own lists, just remember to give a reason why you nominated each song.

His Banner Over Me, by Kevin Prosch. No offense Kevin, but I don't know what you were smoking when you penned this one. Its just awful. Musically, it makes me sick to the stomach. Not only that, but the theology is just terrible, and in fact, down-right wrong. Taking verses out of context left-right-center, the song demonstrates an utter failure to grasp the basic meaning of the message of the Song of Songs. What the KJV or NIV means by the "his banner over me was love", is quite plainly, "He desired to make love to me.". Basically, under the guise that we are singing about the Father's Love, we are really singing about How's your Father? Please. If that doesn't want to make you hurl, this trite line will: "You do all things well, just look at our lives.". Saint Paul, when looking at his life, said he was the chief of sinners. If there is one thing that does NOT give God glory, its the flippin' mess we make of our lives!

I Could Sing of Your Love Forever, by Delirious/Martin Smith. I Know, Martin Smith is an amazing guy, and I don't want to offend him, but this song is plain pish. Its trite, its silly, and it has three main flaws:
- "I could sing of Your love forever" -- maybe so, but I sure couldn't. I'd get bored after a while, and get a sore throat as well.
- "Oh, I feel like dancing - it's foolishness I know" Really? Try telling someone in a nightclub how foolish it is, and then run out before he chucks his pint over you.
- "they will dance with joy, like we're dancing now." One truly hopes that the world categorically DOES NOT dance the way most people dance during this verse. Every time I sing this, I look around and see people nervously fidgeting and perhaps tapping a foot or nodding their head, usually out of time to the beat. If anything, lets pray the world will dance with joy UNLIKE we're dancing now.
Come, Now is the Time to Worship, by Brian Doerksen. OK, before reading further, let me just say that Doerksen is Da Man, and my wife and I even used some of his music at our wedding. But this song is just plain daft. Instead of getting to worship God, we just look around at each other, inspiring one another to come to worship. But since we are all assembled to worship, why the heck don't we just start praising God, rather than telling everyone to start worshipping! Its catch-22.

Heart of Worship, by Matt Redman. Now Redman has written some amazings songs, no doubt, but this one is a stinker. I'll cut to the chase:

"For a song in itself Is not what You have required". Here we have the absurd situation that we are required to sing a song telling God that he doesn't want to hear us sing the very song we are singing. Genius! Only a Christian song could come up with this logic.
"I'm sorry, Lord, for the things I've made it" Why in Flaming Hell am I apologising to God now? Rather than getting on with praising Him, the song makes you mumble a half-hearted apology about some supposed "thing" that we have made worship. I love worship. The only "thing" that gets in the way is the triteness of the lyrics we are forced to sing!
"Though I'm weak and poor...". The irony of all those well-fed, Middle-Class White Christians singing such a line...

There's some song about the Father's Love that has to qualify as one of the worst songs of all time, Christian or otherwise, but thankfully I can't even remember its name.

There's loads more, but that's all I can think of for now.

What songs would you nominate? And why?

Fierce God At War: Part III - The Gospel

2007-05-22T14:46:00.000+01:00

Photo courtesy of Ted Szukalski's
Digital Photo Gallery

There has been much banter going on recently about what the gospel is, and what it means, and whether evangelism involves proclaiming the gospel. Before I spill the beans on the ultimate theory of atonement (UTA), I'd like to thrash out perhaps the most important question every Christian should ask themselves, namely "What is the Gospel?".

First, lets do some lexical footwork. We'll start by looking at the Greek word used for the gospel, as found in your Bible. The word in the manuscripts when transcribed into Latin script is literally euaggelion but is often written (and pronounced) as euangelion. This breaks down into two words, thus:

eu — good, benign
angelion — message, from angelos, messenger.

According to Vine: "[it] originally [i.e. before N.T. usage] denoted a reward for good tidings; later, the idea of reward dropped, and the word stood for the good news itself. "

It seems that caught up within the idea of the good news is the intrinsic concept of it being proclaimed, announced, preached, told-forth, etc. This of course goes back to the image of a messenger arriving with exciting news. So we see the word gospel used along with the following Greek words:

kerusso, "to preach it as a herald," e.g., Matt 4:23; Gal 2:2 (see PREACH);

laleo, "to speak," 1 Thess 2:2;

diamarturomai, "to testify (thoroughly)," Acts 20:24;

euangelizo, "to preach," e.g., 1 Cor 5:1; 2 Cor 11:7; Gal 1:11

katangello, "to proclaim," 1 Cor 9:14;

douleuo eis, "to serve unto" ("in furtherance of"), Php 2:22;

sunathleo en, "to labor with in," Php 4:3;

hierourgeo, "to minister," Rom 15:16;

pleroo, "to preach fully," Rom 15:19;

sunkakopatheo, "to suffer hardship with," 2 Tim 1:8.

I want to underscore what should be obvious from above: the good news or message that Christians have should be proclaimed, heralded, spoken-forth, announced and otherwise made known!

Now some people have the taken above as a warrant to pitch up uninvited or unwanted and to subsequently start shouting out about God's judgement on the wicked, or the need to repent. The problem with that is a failure to properly contextualise the examples of the Apostles. The Apostle Paul reminds us: "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!". Since Paul was specifically called to take the gospel to the Gentiles, I am not sure we can all apply that verse to ourselves. But I do think it stands a general encouragement to consider how seriously Paul saw the gospel and its telling forth.

Now the astute among you may be wondering what the heck this has to do with Fierce God at War. Without further ado, lets drill down into what exactly the message of Christianity actually is. Scholars such as Walter Brueggeman and N T Wright have argued that the essence of the gospel is God's Cosmic Victory and the idea that Jesus is King. My attempt to put that together is the following:

The gospel is the narrative proclamation of Jesus as King over all, a triumphant King who has defeated all the powers of darkness, including Sin, Satan and Death itself. The arrival of this King has put the World under judgement, and salvation is found by "changing teams" and aligning and pledging allegiance (repentance) to this King Jesus, who is God in person as a human being.

I had to stop there, but I was going to put in loads more stuff about the resurrection, the New Creation, and so on. I will look at all this soon through the lens of the unfolding drama/narrative of the gospel throughout the bible. In the meantime, I want to return to the original word, euangelion, and propose its meaning thus:

The phrase literally means, at a grammatical level, "good news"
The connotations extend the meaning to include the idea of a message being proclaimed, a victory being announced, a war being won, and even the proclamation of a new king being enthroned. In the that lase sense, it was a summons to allegiance, to pledge your life to the new King. Remember, so far we are just looking at the nuances of the word as used in its historical context, before it was even used by Christians.
Looking at the phrase and concept in the narrative of scripture, we come across in Isaiah the Herald in the mountains — a messenger is running across the mountains, with an important message for Israel: “Your God reigns!”, he shouts. He has come to announce the best news in the world: God himself — Yahweh — is personally returning to Zion, to Israel, in order to sort out Israel and sort out the world, by becoming King of Israel, dealing with Israel's enemies, judging Israel, judging the pagan nations, and somehow through and in this dealing with Evil, Death and Sin itself. After this we see the Glory/Paradise/Shalom of God come to cover the whole earth, peace comes to all creation, heaven on earth, everyone is full of joy, wolves and lambs making babies, etc, etc.
Looking at New Testament usage, we see the word in the most basic sense refers to the basic facts of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In other words, we could say it refers to the Christ Event itself, and in particular, his Passion.
Beyond that, the word by extension refers to the proper interpretation of these facts: in other words, the gospel is the personal, social, national and cosmic consequences and implication of the Christ Event. This is where finally we see the notion of the Kingdom of God: the legacy of the Cross.

Finally, I leave you with this story, an good example of how to do evangelism ("preach the gospel") in this post-modern world.

Fierce God At War: Part II - Christus Victor

2007-05-16T14:44:00.000+01:00

With all these furor going on about penal substitution, and whether or not Steve Chalke is possessed by a demon (OK I exaggerate!), I thought it would be time to push the debate on to a very much neglected theory of atonement: Christus Victor. For some reason it seems that when this phrase is mentioned, some folks just shake their head and mutter something about ransom to Satan being absurd. And with that, the entire theory is dismissed.

Enter Gustaf Aulén (1879-1978), a Swedish theologian and scholar, who authored a ground-breaking book on the atonement, entitled Christus Victor. Wikipedia picks up the story:

Aulén argues that theologians have misunderstood the view of the early Church Fathers in seeing their view of the Atonement in terms of a Ransom Theory arguing that a proper understanding of their view should focus less on the payment of ransom to the devil, and more of the liberation of humanity from the bondage of sin, death, and the devil. As the term Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) indicates, the idea of "ransom" should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin.
-- Wikipedia, "Christus Victor"

Far from being a rehash of the idea of Jesus selling his life to Satan to buy humanity back (the Ransom theory), Christus Victor is the idea and drama that Jesus came to fight against and triumph over the evil powers of the world, the 'tyrants' under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God reconciles the world to Himself.

If I understand this correctly (I haven't actually read the book), we would see the following elements included within this "theory" of atonement:

freedom and deliverance from evil spirits, the occult, etc. (Col 1:13)
the disarmament, shaming, and triumph over the Powers (Col 2:14-15, Cf. 1 Cor 2:6)
overcoming the "world" (John 16:33)
liberation from the elemental spirits/false gods (Gal 4:3,8-9)
the defeat, binding and assured future destruction of Satan and his evil angels (Heb 2:14, 1 John 3:8)
the victory over Death & Hades (Heb 2:14)
redemption from the curse of law (Gal 3:13)
freed humankind from Sin & Death (Rom 8:2-3)
the unification of mankind; the breakdown of hostilities and ethnic division (anybody got a verse for this?)

If the above isn't enough, some folks would even add reconciliation of the entire world to God into the bargain. Now, with such a great motif, is there any need for other theories of atonement? Well, actually there is, and I will blog on that very soon. But for those that whine on about "Penal Sub Only" (PSO*), let it be known that heavy-weight theologian N T Wright is a big fan of the Christus Victor theme. And those who listen often to Mark Driscoll will know that he often describes the atonement as Christ's victory over Satan, Sin and Death. Greg Boyd also holds to Christus Victor, and weaves it into his warefare worldview (which has been critiqued by Jeremy over at Parablemania). So dwell on this for a while, beforeI move on to talk about my grand theory of atonement... :-)

* - I just made this up, from the KJO = King James Only phrase...

Fierce God At War: Part I

2007-05-13T18:18:00.000+01:00

I've just finished reading Satan and the Problem of Evil, by Gregory Boyd, a scary sounding book with an even scarier front cover. Apparently eyebrows were raised when this book was delivered to the children's charity where my wife works! Far from being some dark nefarious tome, filled with incantations and insights into the demonic, this book is actually a thesis of how free will and God's ultimate control (omnipotence) balance out. I haven't got the space and time to delve into Boyd's full thesis, but rather I want to reflect on his dominate theme: God is at War. Contrary to the idea of the somewhat Greek philosophical concept of the omnipotent God in complete and utter control of creation, Boyd asserts that the scriptures themselves do not paint such a picture. Rather, the primary motif we find in the bible is one of divine, heavenly and spiritual conflict. Something has gone seriously wrong with the fabric of creation: the whole world, seen and unseen, is rebelling against its creator. Greg calls this viewpoint the trinitarian warfare worldview.

I may at some point delve into the philosophical implications of this viewpoint, but at the moment I want to stay on the theme of warfare: the idea that God, the Father-Son-Spirit, are in some sense in a battle against evil, against Satan and his "hosts of spiritual wickedness". I also want to explore a parallel idea: the notion that Christians, being "in Christ", join in with this spiritual battle.

I find this idea in the writings of another favourite author of mine, John Eldredge. In a fantastic book called Waking the Dead, Eldredge warns his readers concerning the danger of dismissing the warfare worldview, by which he means, the notion that as Christians we are fighting a spiritual battle against Satan and his allies. Jesus himself told us that "the thief comes to steal and kill and destroy", yet according to both Boyd and Eldredge we often just roll over and accept much of our life as "God's will".

The warfare paradigm of scripture is not very popular these days. Our bible translators do their very best to hide it from us. We read words like "Lord Almighty", and think of some lofty god, when the actual Hebrew means something like "the God of angel armies", or "the God of the armies who fight for his people" (Waking the Dead, p160). Over at The Resurgence, Anthony Bradley tells us the story of Jesus In A Pink Dress, a mural he saw in a church building which has subsequently shut down due to the death of the congregation. My point? That perhaps the feminisation and pacification of Christianity, Christ and Creation is doing more harm than good. I know this is going to be controversial and offensive to some, and I welcome pushbacks. But I believe I am onto something here.

Eldredge writes further on:

The attitude of so many Christians today is anything but fierce. We're passive, acquiescent. We're acting as if the battle is over, as if the wolf and the lamb are now fast friends. Good grief -- we're beating our swords into plowshares as the armies of the Evil One descend upon us. We've bought the lie of the Religious Spirit, which says, "You don't need to fight the Enemy. Let Jesus do that." ... Seriously, just this morning a man said to me, "We don't need to fight the Enemy. Jesus has won." Yes, Jesus has the won the victory over Satan and has Kingdom. However, the battle is not over."
-- Waking the Dead, p168.

I've got loads more to say on this topic, but I'll leave you with the words from one of my favourite films:

Théoden: "I know what it is that you want of me. But I would not bring further death to my people. I will not risk open war."

Aragorn: "Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not."

Is the contemporary church and the contemporary Christian more akin to Théoden or Aragorn? Why has Jesus been seen in a pink dress? And are the rumours of Jesus driving around the Middle-East in a Volkswagen Cabriolet offering aromatherapy really true?! Watch this space... (and feel free to comment!)

More Controversy

2007-05-01T09:40:00.000+01:00

This blog would probably not even exist if it wasn't for Bishop N T Wright and Pastor Mark Driscoll. Both these men, in their own very different ways, have encouraged me to dig deeply into the scriptures in a fresh and new way. Ironically, although they would probably disagree with each other on many topics, taken separately in moderate doses, both men provide a wealth of great teaching and preaching.

In what appears as another wave of controversy to sweep the Western Evangelical church, both Wright and Driscoll are again making headlines.

Wright: According to Adrian, the Presbyterian Church in America have recently concluded that Wright is Wrong, primarily because what he is suggesting is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith. To those that have read Wright, this comes as no real surprise. Wright is arguing for the reformed church to be always reforming, and if you reform something, its clearly not going to fit into what came before.

Driscoll is another chap that would repeat the mantra of Semper Reformanda, although perhaps he would see this reformission more in terms of methodology than theology. However, Mark has been causing waves again, this time by releasing a controversial and subsequently "banned" church planting video to be shown at the National New Church Conference (Florida, USA). According to Mark: "Apparently the video was shown at the event, was well received by the attendees, and then criticized by Bill Hybels from the stage.". Check out Mark's take on it, and be sure to watch the video! For an alternative view on the issue, check out Ben Arment's blog.

update (02/05/07): For a ~~final~~ wrap-up of the Driscoll video carry-on, see TallSkinnyKiwi, who was at the conference and sets the record straight for us.

Further update (14/05/07): Seems like the video was "banned" after all. See Bob Blog for details. Having now seen the video myself, I can't really see what all the fuss is about. I get the impression that if Jeremiah or one of the OT prophets were around today, we would all be blogging how offensive he was!

Was Jesus condemned on the cross?

2007-04-26T10:23:00.000+01:00

Continuing our look at the cross, we now drill down to the heart of the controversy: did it please the Father to crush the Son the cross, condemning him to die? Was the Father furious and mad at sin and sinners, and since all that sin was piled up onto Jesus on the cross, did the Father delight in the smashed up body and death of Jesus, knowing that his wrath was satisfied?

As I have discovered in the past few days, there are many models of substitutionary atonement, and indeed many models of penal substitution. I think I understand enough to outline the various different positions I have come across.

pagan propitiation model: In this understanding, the Father was mad because the wonderful people he had made in his image were all running around, committing sin, and therefore hurting each other and alienating themselves from God. "Someone has to pay!" is the Father's somewhat annoyed response. Looking around, the Father sees perfect Jesus down on earth and decides he will do. In fact, no-one else will do, as the Father requires a pure sacrifice and only Jesus is 100% pure and without sin. So Jesus dies so that the sin can be taken out of the sinners. This act appeases the wrath of God, and he is no longer mad at the sinners, because their sin has been taken away. To me, this model is based on a pagan understanding of propitiation and is therefore sub-biblical.

I think some Christians with a poor understanding of the scriptures can sometimes espouse this model. I've certainly heard someone share a "vision" they had of heaven which pretty much summed up this model: in the vision the Father was mad at some "sinner", but Jesus stepped in front of the Father's wrathful gaze, put his arms around the sinner, and said "Mine!" or some such. Clearly nonsense, as the Father and Son and not in some eternal battle over the atonement!

"hard" penal substitution. In this traditional, reformed viewpoint, the Father and the Son worked together in love to rid the world of sin and to avert the Wrath of God. Although God (inc the Father and the Son) loved the world, he was angry because of the all of the harm and hurt that existed within the world. His solution involved sending himself, the Son, to become human and live among his people. He would take upon himself the sins of the world, and respond in grace, not anger. Ultimately, he would die on a Roman cross, and somehow as the Last Adam our sin was transferred to him. God then crushed Jesus on the cross, and condemned him, as Jesus in that moment ~~became a sinner~~ became infused with the sins of the entire world -- he became sin -- even though he was sinless man. Then the Father turned his back on Jesus, as the scripture says that God cannot look upon sin. ~~As a sinner~~ As a sin-filled sinless person, he then died, but since the sin wasn't really his, Death couldn't hold him, and he rose again.

Is this the Calvinistic point of view? It certainly sounds like it. I believe new-reformed-charismatics such as Mark Driscoll hold to this particular model. Adrian Warnock has also defined his view of the atonement in a similar way, and he notes that John Stott has also explained the atonement in a similar fashion. I also believe that it is this kind of model (and certainly the previous!) that Steve Chalke has rejected. I also used to believe in this model, but I'm now thinking, thanks to Wright, that this might not be the best model (see next paragraph!)

"soft" penal substitution. Starts off the same as above, but note what Wright says: "Paul says explicitly that God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ ... he does not say that God condemned Jesus; rather, that he condemned sin; but the place where sin was condemned was precisely in the flesh of Jesus, and of Jesus precisely as the Son sent from the Father. And this, we remind ourselves, is the heart of the reason why there is now 'no condemnation' for those who are in Christ Jesus." (N T Wright, The Cross and the Caricatures). We should also note that in this viewpoint, we have something which is more akin to penal union than anything else: this model remembers the biblical truth that in some real way, we died in Christ as he died, and we will rise as he rose (from death), if we trust in him as our Lord. Also, I am not sure if Wright had said this, but I believe that those that believe in this model would say that the Father DID NOT turn his back on Jesus during his darkest hours.

Regarding this model of atonement, apparently J I Packer says something similar, as does John Stott (although he has appeared to affirm the "hard" model as well -- see above), so perhaps Steve Chalke isn't so crazy after all. (Although Peter Kirk has proposed an alternative model (see below), he has emphasised in the comments section of this post that he has no problem with model.)

non-penal substitutionary atonement. Peter Kirk has proposed this tentative model: "We humans sin and as a result our fellowship with God is broken. Nothing that we can do can restore this fellowship. God could punish us for our sin. But he chooses not to punish those who repent and believe, but to forgive them. However, this does not fix the problem of our broken fellowship with God. We cannot fix this problem. But in some way which we cannot understand, the eternal Son of God was able to fix it, and when the Father asked him he voluntarily agreed to do what was necessary. By becoming a man, dying on the cross, and rising again, he was able to restore the fellowship between God and humans."

This model seems to be saying that basically Jesus died, but it had nothing to do with the wrath of God, and he certainly didn't die instead of us. (He did die for our sins, however.) Jesus' death somehow manifests God's forgiveness for all humanity, which is offered without anyone "paying the price" per se. It seems God is simply willing to forgive and forget, now that Jesus had died. Some people would find philosophical problems with this viewpoint: if you have a spare hour, read Why can't God just forgive sin, instead of demanding justice?, by Glenn M. Miller, a defense of the penal nature of the atonement.

Some of my readers may be wondering, "what the hell does this have to do with anything?". Well, I think its important for many reasons. If we are sharing the gospel, and we end up turning people away for the wrong reasons, we have failed. Also, if we get the wrong view of the atonement, we will probably have an incorrect view of God in general. Which is never a good thing. I also think that if we get the atonement wrong, we can end up believing strange things, such as hell doesn't exist any more, or that everyone will end up in heaven (because the atonement is simply that God is love), things I have personally heard Christians start to say.

BTW, its not easy to summarise all this stuff, so if I have misquoted anyone, or misrepresented anyone's position, please add a comment and let me know!

Other folks discussing this: see Peter Kirk's blog posting on "What is Penal Substitutionary Atonement?".

The Wright view of the cross

2007-04-26T09:40:00.000+01:00

As we ponder the meaning of the gospel, its perhaps appropriate that we focus into what is arguably the key event in the Christian story: the suffering and ultimate death of Jesus on the Roman cross. Yes, I know lots of other things are important too (his birth, his life, his teaching, his resurrection, his ascension to name a few!), but we can't get away from the fact that his death is a major theme, not only in his own understanding of his mission, but in later writers such as Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews.

Recently there has been a bit of a fuss made over the evangelical doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, a doctrine which basically means that Jesus suffered and died for us and instead of us. Leading evangelical Steve Chalke in particular has been accused of blasphemy and charged with abandoning the gospel.

So it seems its important to have the right view of the cross, or rather, the Wright view. N T Wright, who is the best theologian I have ever read, and probably one of the finest in the world, has weighed in on this important and controversial topic. In typical Wright style his essay is long and wordy, but definitely worth a read if you are into this sort of thing. For those without 30 mins to spare, I'll give you some highlights:

In going to the cross, Jesus acted out his own version of the total story, according to which Israel, represented by himself, must be the people in and through whom the creator God would deal with the evil of the world and of humankind. The cross, as the execution of Israel's Messiah outside Jerusalem at the hands of the pagans, was thus the great summation of Israel's exile, which was itself the fulfilment and completion of the ambiguous and tragic story of Israel as a whole. At the same time, the cross was the supreme achievement of Israel's God, returning to Zion as he had promised, to deal with his people's sins and their consequences.

It is to be observed . . . that in the New Testament the "love" and the "wrath" of God in relation to sin and forgiveness are closely connected, and that is an important sense in which the assertion of God's "wrath" against sin is the indispensable presupposition of any properly Christian doctrine of forgiveness. There can be no forgiveness where there is indifference towards either the offender or the offence.

The Cross is a satisfaction for sin in so far as the moral order of the universe makes it impossible that human souls should be redeemed from sin except at a cost. Of this cost the death on the Cross is the expression ... Thus the Cross is a "propitiation" and "expiation" for the sins of the whole world [*]

The biblical doctrine of God's wrath is rooted in the doctrine of God as the good, wise and loving creator, who hates - yes, hates, and hates implacably - anything that spoils, defaces, distorts or damages his beautiful creation, and in particular anything that does that to his image-bearing creatures... If God is love, he must utterly reject, and ultimately deal with, all that pollutes, distorts and destroys his world and his image-bearing creatures.

There are so many more great bits, but you must simply read the article itself. I'll finish with a quote regarding this whole Steve Chalke nonsense:

There are several forms of the doctrine of penal substitution, and some are more biblical than others...[Steve Chalke believes that] on the cross, as an expression of God's love, Jesus took into and upon himself the full force of all the evil around him, in the knowledge that if he bore it we would not have to; but this, which amounts to a form of penal substitution, is quite different from other forms of penal substitution, such as the mediaeval model of a vengeful father being placated by an act of gratuitous violence against his innocent son.

[*] N.B. : Peter Kirk has argued against this quote, which came from a previous Anglican report on the atonement (a report which was quoted in Wright's article, but probably does not represent Wright's own viewpoint). Check out his blog here, and if I get time I will try to figure out what is this debate is really about.

No News is Good News?

2007-04-23T15:36:00.000+01:00

There is saying in the UNIX world that "no news is good news". The context was that when a program finished running, if it did not print out any output, you could assume everything worked. Actually the saying goes back to King James I. Anyway: here I am talking about the gospel - that is, the good news. But in some churches it seems that the gospel has fallen out of fashion. There is no longer any good news preached...which is not good news at all, in any sense of the phrase!

Further confusion abounds in that many Christians are unsure as to what the good news actually us (i.e. see previous blog post). Others are more sure as to the news, but believe that "no news is good news" - in other words, they will not share the gospel unless forced at gunpoint. We are somehow led to believe that (Apostle) Paul would have done a better job if he had just stuck to making tents and waiting for his customers to ask why his tents has fish logos sewn all over them, or something. At least that way he would have not started all those crazy riots...

OK, sarcasm aside, many folks these days would say they are not sure about sharing the good news, but they are down with this Missional church thing. Certainly I am happy to stand up and be counted in the missional church camp. But I also think we need to continue to emphasise the importance of sharing the gospel: no news is bad news in this case. So, it is in the context of discussing where "sharing the good news" - evangelism - fits into missional church that I have posted this comment on Rupert's blog, and I encourage folks to join in the conversation. Please comment on Rupert's blog if your comment is relevant to this discussion there, otherwise feel free to comment here.

So what is the good news then?

2007-04-17T09:56:00.000+01:00

Rupert is currently blogging about mission. I recommend folks go over and check it out. Don't be afraid to comment! On a kind of parallel theme, I think its time to think again about what the gospel (Good News) actually is. I've blogged on this before, but I didn't exactly cause a storm. I'm hoping to get some more response this time.

So, as well as thinking about what our mission is, we need to think about what our message is. Previously, I said this:

These days its all too common for people to talk about the love of God. The gospel has become "God loves you and died for you", or sometimes just, "God loves you". But is that the gospel? Did Jesus incarnate, die, rise again, and ascend to heaven just to ensure he got his message through that God loved the world? Is the atonement just that God loves us?

Clearly not. Surely every good jew must have known already that Yahweh loved his covenant people dearly, as a husband loves his bride.

On other hand, proclaiming that God hates you, is mad at you because you a filthy sinner, and you will burn in hell unless you believe in Jesus, is not in any shape or form the gospel either.

I am asking my readers to chuck in their tuppence worth, and comment on how they understand the gospel message. To get the ball rolling, here's what various folks say the gospel is:

N T Wright: "the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work."

Loraine Boettner: "The Gospel is the good news about the great salvation purchased by Jesus Christ, by which He reconciled sinful men to a holy God."

Jeff Purswell: "The gospel is the good news of God's saving activity in the person and work of Christ. This includes his incarnation in which he took to himself full (yet sinless) human nature; his sinless life which fulfilled the perfect law of God; his substitutionary death which paid the penalty for man's sin and satisfied the righteous wrath of God; his resurrection demonstrating God's satisfaction with his sacrifice; and his glorification and ascension to the right hand of the Father where he now reigns and intercedes for the church."

Adam Walker Cleveland: "The gospel is the uncontrollable and uncontainable inbreaking of God's hopes and dreams for this world, and beyond. Through the gospel, God the Creator, God the Redeemer and God the Spirit, bring peace, love and hope into the world, while also presenting an alternative way of life, challenging the powers and principalities that be in the world today."

Brian McLaren: "The core gospel message is the kingdom of God and [it] contains all the dimensions of Jesus' mission: the social, the personal and the saving work of the cross."

What do you think? How would you put it? After a while I will post a sequel to this post, with some of my thoughts on the gospel.

The best news since year one?

2007-04-09T19:45:00.000+01:00

I've just finished reading Megashift, by James Rutz. An enjoyable book to read, if you can get past the the hype.

The book is all about the new (as opposed to the historical) house church movement, which is picking up speed all across Western world. The book starts by looking at the examples of house churches in primarily non-Western countries, noting countless miracles and healings that occur in their midst. The book is worth it simply for this first chapter alone.

Jim is convinced that traditional (and by that I think he includes most of contemporary) Christianity is going downhill, fast. He sees cities full of small house churches, interconnected by relationship. These holy-spirit filled house churches would meet up city-wide, say once a month, for encouragement, corporate worship and apostolic input.

I think Jim is partly right. I do see this coming to the Western world. In the United States, its now a fact according to Barna that there are more Christians out of church (unchurched/dechurched) than there are in church. Barna reckons that 100 million US Christians are currently not tied to a local church. Lets face it folks, church as we know it is not cutting it! I don't know the statistics for the UK, but I've often estimated that around 50% of Christians are unchurched, dechurched, or floating aimlessly between churches.

Why is this? I think there are two, probably related reasons.

1) Cultural connection: traditional and contemporary churches often seem to be locked into various layers of culture which increasingly push people away from the church. The main cultural issue for the church to address currently is the broad shift from modernity to post-modernity.

2) Somewhat related to the first point, there is a move across the church worldwide (even in cultures that are not experiencing post-modernity) to practise church with what can only be described as an organic Hebrew methodology, as opposed to the prevalent Roman/Greek methodology that the traditional and even contemporary churches identify with.

3) Further points, perhaps related to the above two points, would also includes movements such as post-evangelical, post-charismatic, post-protestant and for some it seems, post-Christian.

So when you chuck all this into the melting pot, what comes out? The answer is of course, the emerging church.

Going back to Jim, I do believe that one expression of the church of tomorrow will be the emerging house churches. However, as others have said, I also think that the Megachurch model, in second and first-world countries at least, is here to stay. Despite all the predictions to the contrary, Megachurches continue to grow and prosper, even with younger post-moderns members (originally it was said Megachurches would only appear to the Baby-Boomer generation i.e. Willow Creek). For example, Mars Hill Church, Seattle, started off as post-modern post-evangelical post-charismatic bible study. Its now has over 6000 members and shows no sign of stopping its constant 60% growth. Meanwhile, over here in the UK, we think 6% church growth is a practically a Holy-Spirit fuelled revival! Other churches have no growth to speak off and continually make up reasons why this is a good thing. "Its not all about numbers", people continually chant in some sort of weird mantra. "A perfect community has less than 100 people" is one I've heard a few times as well. Last time I checked, each "number" was an individual soul (person), loved by the Lord Jesus, who earnestly desires his or her salvation. Is there a verse in the bible that says "And the Lord said thus: It is not about numbers". If anything, it is about numbers, if the book of Numbers teaches us anything :-) Even the Yellow Pages folks realise that.

So Jim, I love the book, but I think we need to make room for other expressions of the body of Christ. I anticipate many house churches starting up in my local scene over the next 10 years. No sign of a mega-church yet, though :-)

This post has brought up a bunch of other thoughts in my mind, so if I get time I will blog some more on all of this. Especially on this meme going around that preaching no longer works (only if you suck at it, according to Mark Driscoll!).

What's wrong with the gospel ?

2007-03-23T15:06:00.001Z

updated: 28/03/07

I've recently finishing reading the excellent biography No Compromise, the life story of Keith Green. I thoroughly recommend this book to any Christian serious about their faith. Its absolutely fantastic! Very challenging as well.

Now I want to provoke my readers a little and post a little from one of Keith's talks mentioned in the book. If you want to hear his sermon in full then you can buy it on DVD
or read the transcript in full. I'm just going to give you the highlights.

I believe with all my heart that Jesus would be ashamed of most of the "gospel" messages and sermons that are being preached today, mainly because they lack almost every major point He Himself preached on...

Keith goes on to mention the following categories. I'll added my own comments in italics.

We have removed the Blood of Jesus from the gospel.
Seems true in my experience. I did hear a preach on the blood of Jesus at New Life Church Kelowna, Canada last summer. To be honest it wasn't the best preach I'd ever heard...I think its hard to talk about this to a post-modern audience. Derek Prince tells us that "It is when we testify personally to what the blood of Jesus does for us that we can claim all the benefits that God has provided for us through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross."
We have removed the Cross of Jesus.
Yes! So many folks are saying this: Alistair Begg, N T Wright, Mark Driscoll...
We have removed the Threat and Terrors of Hell, and the Guilt of Sinners.
I can't remember the last time the word Hell was even mentioned in church, let alone preached. I honestly think many Christians no longer believe in it. I do think that many of the images of hell in the bible are metaphorical / symbolic, as that is the nature of prophetic imagery. The emerging church has done a pretty good job at deconstructing hell. But its now time for the emerging church to reconstruct hell.
We have removed the Law of God Preached to Convict One of Sin.
This is basically what Ray Comfort bangs on about (A friend of mine calls this the "sick-boy method" -- don't ask). I think this works for some people, but not totally sure about its validity. Any thoughts, especially from evangelists?

updated: Synchronicity strikes again: it just so happens that Ed Stetzer has blogged on "beginning a conversation about Christ". He discusses the "Way of the Master" / "sick-boy" method, which he explains thus: "remind people they are hypocrites, liars, thieves, and adulterers in the first two minutes and bring up the "lake of fire" in the third.". Check out the his blog for more about how to share the gospel in today's world.
We have removed the Fear of God and the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Absolutely. The very notion of fearing God is some quarters causes shuffling of feet and stifled coughs. And Christians being judged or rewarded? Come on! That's so medieval, right?
We have removed Repentance as Necessary for Forgiveness.
I think I know why Keith said this. He encountered so many "forgiven" Christians living worldly lives and shaming Jesus. They needed to "repent", that is, to have a change of mind. Both N T Wright (emerging evangelical) and Bill Johnson (charismatic) have done excellent preaches on Repentance. If you haven't heard them -- you should! (Email me for the mp3s.)
We have removed God's Sorrow and Broken Heart Over Sin.
Totally agree. But how does the cross factor into this?
We have removed the Necessity of Holiness to Please God.
What does this Hebrews verse actually mean? Anyone venture an exegesis? The blood of Jesus makes us righteous, but not holy, is that the starting point here?

Some folks have commented that the church today is experiencing prophetic aftershocks -- "exhortations, teachings, and prophetic insights delivered years, decades, and even centuries ago that the Holy Spirit is now using to challenge and inspire the body of Christ.". I would agree with this. Keith's message seem more relevant than ever today (even if we would phrase things differently or perhaps tweak his emphasis).

Keith Green often offends Christians. As one blogger put it, "he was just a little immature in his communication skills [but] the message he had was right on the money." I don't think we should let his bluntness put us off him.

Another blogger commented:

Green brought streams of Christianity together, too. He incorporated the holiness movement, the charismatic movement, the Jesus People movement, the missionary movement, the worship movement, and old-fashined tent revivalism into one foundation. I can't think of anyone in recent memory who was able to pull off this feat so well.

Keith, I don't know if you can read blogs in heaven, but if you can, I for one salute you. We need more leaders like you. My prayer is that Jesus would raise up more radical Christians ready to walk in the footsteps of men like Keith.

We may have a more nuanced understanding of some things today, such as Wright's work on Jesus and Paul, and if Keith were here today I am sure he would recast his message in today's language. But lets challenge ourselves and take heed from this amazing man.

Sex God [updated 13/03/07]

2007-03-07T13:49:00.000Z

Rob Bell has authored a new book on sex, entitled Sex God. There are some initial comments at Jesus Creed, plus Ben Witherington has a detailed review. With chapter titles such as "God wears lipstick", "Sexy on the Inside", "Leather, Whips, and Fruit", this looks like the sort of book the church needs to embrace :-)

A comment from Jesus Creed sums up my response as well:

Interestingly, I have had a number of older folks tell me that in all their years of going to church they have NEVER heard a message on sex! Seeing how sexuality is a significant part of our humanness, as well as the ways it has been distorted throughout human history, I think we need to be talking about it. Especially since Jesus talked about it!

I look forward to reading this...

Why is the church so reluctant to talk about sex ? Perhaps we should take a cue from Salt 'n' Pepper?

update: Check out Part 1 of McKnight's response, and Part 2, his critique.

Do bones of Jesus disprove Christianity?

2007-03-02T00:01:00.000Z

Reach out and touch faith
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers

-- Depeche Mode, "Personal Jesus"

The media and blogosphere is abuzz (is that even a word?) with talk of the bones of Jesus being found by James Cameron, of all people.

Apparently Channel 4's Richard and Judy held a discussion on how this discovery, if true, would affect the Christian faith.

According to my brother [HT: James Roberts] who watched it (I can't find a youtube link):

The debate was actually pretty complicated for teatime viewing, and although hugely hypothetical as how would you prove Jesus' bones were his, it was interesting to see such things being discussed on Richard and Judy including the quoting of scripture and Richard and Judy giving there views - Judy that she would still be Christian regardless and Richard agreeing with the viewpoint that Jesus' rise from the dead was so critical to Christianity that would prove untenable to still be a Christian if you accepted that Jesus' bones had been found.

In my opinion, if Jesus died (and therefore has not been ressurected and bodily ascended), then our faith is based on nothing more than legend, myth, folklore, fable, and feelings. Its value is reduced to nothing more than a personal philosophy, a self-helping post-modern belief which has no real substance and which ignores the solid data of history and reality. We enter the realm of meta-physics, of relativism, where each faith becomes equal. In other words, the historically based faith of Christianity collapses into generic religion or some form of paganism or new-age belief. (What do you think?)

For those that want the detail, this has been covered fairly well elsewhere in the blogosphere, try Scott McKnight, Mark Goodacre and Ben Witherington III for much more detail and analysis.

Again, my question is, if this was true, how would it affect your faith?

Women, Men & Sex

2007-02-24T17:34:00.000Z

I've just finished reading Men and Women in the Church, by Sarah Sumner. Its a refreshing and challenging stab at the decades-old issue of how men and women should relate, looking at headship and leadership both in the home and in the church. It challenges both those who hold to Grudem/Piper-esque Complementarism, as well as those who believe more in Egalitarianism.

She points out that both camps make assumptions and both camps depart from the teaching of the bible. In doing so, she points to a third way. She isn't the first to do this (Craig Blomberg has suggested something similar). Nevertheless, her book is a fresh and provocative overview of the whole issue, and left me reconsidering my beliefs.

At the end of the book she looks at some issues surrounding the core debate, one of them being the issue of sexual sin in the church.

It should be normal for men and women to fight together for sexual purity. Most of the time the subject it so taboo that we feel way too ashamed to admit out temptations, much less to confess to our sin. Thus we tend isolate from each other rather than ministering to each other. We practically pretend that none of us have any hormones. Consequently, many Christian men are rarely held accountable for the suggestive and demeaning kinds of things they sometimes say to Christian women. And women in the church are rarely held accountable for the way they dress.

How can the people of God win the world for Christ when we are unwilling to modify the way we express our sexuality? Much of us know that the issue of sex and modesty is a hypersensitive subject in church.

I believe the church could greatly recover from a lot of our sin if Christians would be more willing to confess our sins out loud and repent.

-- "Men and Women in the Church", Sarah Sumner. 2003.

What do you think? Do you agree with Sarah? Is she on to something here?

Wright fuming over UK adoption fiasco

2007-02-01T17:05:00.000Z

I can't take much credit for this post, as its pretty much nicked from Times Columns blogger Ruth Gledhill. But since N T Wright is much appreciated round here, I thought this was worth reposting:

There is no way that the Catholic Church is going to change its mind on this one given 18 months or so...This completely fails to take into account the views and beliefs of all those involved. The idea that New Labour - which has got every second thing wrong and is backtracking on extended drinking hours, is in a mess over this cash-for-peerages business, cannot keep all its prisons under control - the idea that New Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church after 2,000 years - I am sorry - this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.

Legislation for a nouveau morality is deeply unwise. That is not how morality works. At a time when the Government is foundering with so many of its policies - and I haven't even mentioned Iraq - the thought that this Government has the moral credibility to be able tell the Roman Catholic Church how to order one area of its episcopal teaching is frankly laughable. When you think about it like that, it is quite extraordinary. I suppose the hope is that in 18 months time there will be a different Prime Minister who might take a different view, and this will kick it into the long grass until then.

Whoa!

See the full story at Ruth Gledhill's blog.

Field Report: God's Glory in Kenya?

2007-01-28T19:50:00.000Z

Western Christians often long for their marginal faith to become predominant in society, both in the number of souls that would profess Christ as Saviour, and in the influence and reach of the local and national church.

A friend of mine is in Nairobi, Kenya, a country where it is claimed that there are "13 million bible-believing Christians" (from a total population of approximately 35 million.)

He recently blogged thus:

In the UK, some people yearn for a faith that is constantly present and visible and active in society, but seeing it in Kenya I am pleased we have moved past that...Overly established Christianity leaves itself so open to arrogance, superiority, abuse, corruption, rigidity and intolerance of difference. This is a constant problem of a religion that was originally inspired by a man who came to challenge the arrogance of an established order of his day.

He goes on to say that he was somewhat alarmed at a prayer in a local church which asked god to "protect us from the wave of Islam that is threatening the country." (Islam is a minority religion in Kenya but is apparently growing. According to one source, Christians are being increasingly persecuted and attacked.)

He goes on to bemoan the incessant blaring of Western Christian contemporary music, often in public space such as buses and supermarkets.

Much for us to chew on...Two immediate issues come to mind here (feel free to comment on others!).

1 - its a crying shame that the Christian mission in Nairobi has been somewhat mixed up with neo-colonialism. I love the fact that so many Kenyans love Jesus, but as my friend laments, what has happened to the indigenous African culture? Where are the African songs and dances to Jesus? Obviously not "being on the ground", I cannot say whether my friend's assessment accurately sums up Christian worship and music, but it does clearly point to the failure of contemporary church to authentically engage with the culture. This is not just a problem for Nairobi, this is a problem everywhere, including where I live, Edinburgh.,

2 - Islam. First, don't they worship the same God anyway? What's all the fuss about? Reported killing, torture and persecution aside (!) N T Wright, the renowned Anglican Bishop of Durham, has some theological and historical thoughts on a similar subject, namely Do Christians and Jews worship the same god? [same link as last]. Secondly, if Christians believe in Habakkuk's prophecy (see below), isn't it meant to be a good thing that we all come to know God? Does it matter if we know him through a non-Christian religion?

Ultimately, it comes down to (surprise surprise) the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth. According to Wright:

The New Testament writers claim that, though there is only one god, all human beings of themselves cherish wrong ideas about this one god. In worshipping the gos thus wrongly conceived, they worship an idol. Pagans worship gods of wood and stone, distorting the creator by worshipping the creature. Jews, Paul argues in parallel with this, have made an idol of their own national identity and security, and so have failed to see what the covenant faithfulness of their god, the god of Abraham, had always entailed. Christians, as the addressees of the New Testament writings, are not exempt from idolatry, of using the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' while in fact worshipping a different god. Our study of the history of Judaism and Christianity in the first century leads us inexorably to the conclusion that both cannot be right in their claims about the true god.
[The New Testament and the People of God; see link above for full context and discussion]

Whatever we think about Christian Mission, or indeed Islam, we must always focus on the person of Jesus, whom according to the writers of the New Testament, uniquely revealed in himself, and in all that he did, the person and love of the One True God.

For as the waters fill the sea,
the earth will be filled with an awareness
of the glory of the Lord.

Habakkuk 2:14 (New Living Translation)

On Origins, Creation & Intelligent Design [updated 02/02/07]

2007-01-18T09:56:00.000Z

This post originates from a comment on this thread on Uncommon Descent. Using it as a starting point, I've fleshed out a little analysis of the current theistic creation beliefs.

Its time to shake up this blog and bring in some "non-churchy" topics!

Those who consider themselves believers in Jesus Christ (and indeed, followers of Islam, Judaism, and other theistic religions) hold to a number of different beliefs when it comes to the origin of humankind, evolution, creation, age of the universe, age of the earth, etc.

Below I've attempted to briefly summarise the various different positions and camps, with particular emphasise on the scientifically credible Intelligent Design movement.

Neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution
Otherwise known as 'Blind' Evolution or ontological materialism. The standard scientific world-view and belief, that of an unguided natural process of evolution, from inert chemicals to human beings like you and me. The Talk.Origins and Pandas' Thumb crowd represent this point of view. Known supporters include Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Steve Jones, author of Almost Like A Whale.

Theistic Evolution.
'Guided' Evolutionary process. Big bang, old universe, old earth. God guided the processes of 'nature' to evolve inert chemicals to the modern man and woman. A brief refutation of theistic evolution, by "Propadeutic". I believe Glenn R Morton (DMD Publishing) would be classed in this category. Simon Conway Morris, author of the book "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe", also holds to this belief. For a classic defense of the compatibility of evolutionary theory and the Christian faith, see Can a Christian Be an Evolutionist?.

Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is a scientific disagreement with the claim of evolutionary theory that natural phenomena are not designed. ID claims that natural laws and chance alone are not adequate to explain all natural phenomena. Intelligent Design implies special creation, but is not dogmatic about who or how this would come about.

It can be said that that intelligent design (ID) theorists pretty much break into two general camps:

Common Design - These guys suggest that one day the designer started with a previous work, and reworked a new species — humans. In this view there was clearly a first human pair — Adam & Eve. Some would say William Dembski holds to this view.

Common Descent - This community believes that if we trace our origins back, we find some ape that also was the ancestor of the chimp and the Neanderthal. So-called "front loaders" would also be in the category (see below). It also includes Michael Behe.

(On Common Design vs Common Descent, see this blog at The Design Matrix.)

Common Descent itself can be broken up into two clear groups:
- One group, the front-loaders and others, believes that the pattern that gets to humans already existed in that common ancestor. It naturally unfolded, just like a flower grows out of a tree. This camp contains players such as Mike Gene (pseudonym), Krause, and Dr. John Davison.
- Another group assumes that there is evidence of active genetic engineering (agency) in the recent lineage of man. They would point to customized human DNA that doesn’t seem mutable by natural processes such as the HAR1F gene. Some would say that Behe falls into this latter camp.

Progressive Creationism (Reasons To Believe / Hugh Ross).
This believes that God created progressively, the seven days not corresponding to literal human days. Micro-evolution (changes within species) and speciation is taken for granted. ChristianAnswers.NET have written a condemning rebuttal of this position. From an opposite point of view, Glenn R Morton has also written a rebuttal of Hugh Ross's beliefs. See Also: New Creationism page. I think Answers In Creation, formed in response to Answers in Genesis, provides a good defense of the old earth viewpoint.

Youth Earth Creationism (YEC)
Also known as scientific creationism. Young earth and young universe. Usually believes in a recent global flood, and asserts that entire fields of modern science are completely wrong (geology, radiometric dating, cosmology) as well as condemning evolution. Usually believes in a form of micro-evolution (change/mutation within species), and even speciation (new species forming), as long as said changes do not introduce new genetic information which is seen to be beneficial (as only a Designer God could do that). Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis provides a defense of this viewpoint.

Most young-earthers would not associate themselves with Intelligent Design. A few intelligent design folks, such as Salvador Cordova, are apparently wide open to considering a young earth perspective.

Update: I've stumbled across a blog series called Science and Christianity which looks promising, although I haven't looked at it in any detail.

Wright blasts new Anglican movement [updated 29/01/07]

2006-12-18T12:04:00.000Z

N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham and renowned theologian, has severely criticised 'A Covenant for the Church of England', a new document which ostensibly sets out to affirm a conservative, evangelical/charismatic free-church inspired movement within the Anglican tradition. Here's an excerpt:

Not least, it should be said, in that the document is a slipshod piece of work simply at the drafting level; I have been assured that it took a year to write, but it reads as though someone put it together hastily on the back of a few envelopes, and didn't trouble to stand back and reflect on it.

Fans of Wright know that he is hardly one to fight against church planting or renewal of any kind. However it appears that those behind this 'covenant' are not in step with much of the theological renewal which has been going on with and without the Anglican communion. This whole affair to me seems very much relating to ongoing disputes within the body of Christ at large. There seems to be an increasing amount of in-fighting, rebuking and general disturbance throughout the Western church. Over the past few weeks we have had names like Wright, Driscoll, Piper, Grudem, McLaren and MacArthur popping up over the blogosphere as each one either receives or hands out rebuke. What on earth is happening to the Church? Personally I think we are in a time of great transition...and not everyone is liking it.

So what are the areas of contention? The hot issues seem to be:

homosexuality. In Anglican circles the question is whether a gay man or lesbian women can serve as a minister or bishop. In other circles the question is to how homosexuality is approached by the church, both theological and practically. And in some Emergent circles, the topic is avoided altogether, due to concern over offending gays and lesbians.

(For those that don't have the luxury of holding out on a theological position on homsexuality, this emergent blogger gives his own personal reflection, which according to Andrew Jones, is probably what many in the emerging church believe.)

egalitarianism vs complementarism. Wayne Grudem has recently come under heavy fire on the blogosphere for alleged theological flaws in his defense of the traditional view. This is just one mini-debate out of thousands which are currently playing out in this arena. (From an outsider's POV, it looks like Grudem is losing this particular skirmish at Better Bibles)

emerging/Emergent church. John MacAruthur has recently blasted both Driscoll and the entire emerging church. Driscoll is blasted because he speaks in the vernacular, rather than in the language of 'polite society'. Whatever.

I'm not sure if Wright's rebuke fits neatly into any of the above categories, but a quick reading through his posting shows all of the above issues lurking under the surface.

Goto Tall Skinny Kiwi's blog for more.

VIntage Jesus 5: Where is Jesus Now?

2006-12-07T16:03:00.000Z

Also you can download the audio and notes.

What about those who have never heard? [updated 19/01/07]

2006-11-21T16:24:00.000Z

I passionately believe in sharing the gospel with those that do not know Jesus. I also passionately believe in the love of God for all people. So what happens to those that just never get to hear the gospel?

Scott McKnight puts it like this:

I think the glaring question is this: Is it consistent with the grace of the God of the Bible to think one must hear the gospel in order to respond? Or, is it more consistent to think God’s grace would somehow reach each person? Here’s a big one: How does one’s view here impact one’s understanding both of evangelism and missions? Is there a softening going on among evangelicals or is there a more consistent understanding of God’s redemptive work in the world?

The view questioned above is normally called exclusivism. Although this position has the support of the bulk of the New Testament, it does seem just a tad bit narrow for many Christians. Would God condemn to hell the tribal leader who would have accepted Christ had not the missionary died before reaching him?

Consider accessibilism (apparently coined by William Lane Craig), the belief that God’s redemptive work includes some who do not know and who have not heard about Jesus Christ, but that the religions of the world are not designed by God as “instruments” of redemption. This is apparently the view of Richard Baxter; Gerald McDermott thinks there are inklings of such a position in Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley affirms it, as did Lesslie Newbigin, Norman Anderson, and Alister McGrath.

Blogger Robert E Mason tells the following story:

A Baptist missionary was witnessing to a Buddhist priest about his faith in Christ. The missionary noticed a tear rolling down the priest’s cheek. Sensing that the time was ripe to invite a commitment to Christ, the missionary asked if the priest was ready to ask Jesus to come into his life. The priest responded, "I know this Jesus; he lives in my heart, but until today I did not know his name."

Accessibilists believe in the uniqueness of Jesus as Saviour but they do not believe that God has confined his application of the saving benefits of Christ’s work to those who are members of the covenant community, now the church. In distinction from some Inclusivists, this position does not claim that the work and grace of Jesus is mediated by other religions.

To find out more about a. you can read Who Can be Saved, a book by Terrance L. Tiessen.

You can follow the full discussion on McKnight's blog.

Hotting up the marriage bed

2006-11-17T16:49:00.000Z

Too many Christians believe in a watered down theology of sexuality. Mark Driscoll says it well:

Sadly, too often the message of the Christian church to men and women is be a virgin until you get married and do not commit adultery when you are married. While this is true, it is also incomplete. What is sometimes lacking is full, free, and frank teaching from such books as the Song of Songs about the sexual liberties that can be enjoyed by married couples.

Personally I cannot remember ever hearing a sermon (in church) on Christian sex. Strange, because a lack of wisdom, teaching and discussion in this area can lead to sexual sin which causes immense damage to relationships, families, children, churches, and communities. People often ask probing questions about the theology and life of their leaders and teachers, in order to ensure they are under proper "covering". But I think a more appropriate question would be to inquire of their sex life.

Thankfully Internet ministries such as Marriage Bed and XXXChurch (see links on right) are tackling this area head on, for the glory of God. However its about time this frank discussion filtered down to off-net communities as well.

Please use this thread to comment on the issue in general. All perspectives welcome!

Watering down the gospel

2006-11-17T16:09:00.000Z

These days its all too common for people to talk about the love of God. The gospel has become "God loves you and died for you", or sometimes just, "God loves you". But is that the gospel? Did Jesus incarnate, die, rise again, and ascend to heaven just to ensure he got his message through that God loved the world? Is the atonement just that God loves us?

Clearly not. Surely every good jew must have known already that Yahweh loved his covenant people dearly, as a husband loves his bride.

On other hand, proclaiming that God hates you, is mad at you because you a filthy sinner, and you will burn in hell unless you believe in Jesus, is not in any shape or form the gospel either.

Yet each extreme contains fragments of truth.

The New Testament makes clear that the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ is central to the gospel. But what is the gospel? Comments please!

Vintage Jesus 4: Did Jesus rise from death?

2006-11-16T15:49:00.000Z

Also you can download the audio and notes.

New NET Bible

2006-11-14T14:01:00.000Z

From the NET Bible website:

The NET Bible - Reader's Edition is now available. With its larger print size and lighter weight, this is a perfect Bible for personal devotional time, public teaching environments and gift (ministry) needs.

Resurgence vs Emergent

2006-11-14T10:42:00.000Z

Gary Shavey, from Resurgence recently attended the You Say You Want a Revolution Conference, hosted by Off the Map. Check out his blog to get the low-down on the good, the bad, and the ugly.