Pentecost

Welcome to the first of a new (hopefully weekly) series of short commentaries on lectionary readings. This is a great story that is rich with symbolism and imagery - it also features some excellent examples of why it’s not necessary to understand the text literally for it to be meaningful.

Acts 2:1-21
The word ‘pentecost’ (from the Greek Penthkosth) refers to the 50th day after Jesus’ resurrection. In the tradition of Luke/Acts, this is the symbolic timing for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Of course in John’s gospel, Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit into the disciples on Easter Sunday. The timing is not the issue - this is about theology (or maybe pneumatology) not chronology. If the number 7 symbolises perfection in the ancient Hebrew world, then something that could follow 7×7 would have to be very special indeed. Luke has already referenced the notion of the Jubilee, a 50 year symbol of liberation, in Jesus’ first sermon (Luke 4:16-21). Now he is going to take that same symbol and apply it through the disciples to the rest of us.

In the Jewish tradition, 50 days after Passover is the festival called (hag sabuôt) the 'Feast of Weeks' which after the Exile developed an association with the covenant of Moses and a legend involving 70 ‘tongues of fire’ - again a symbolic number representing every nation of the world. Reading this story through the lens of Hebrew history is critical to understanding what’s going on here. This isn’t about a new, secret, divine language - it’s about reversing the curse invoked in Genesis 11. Where the sin of hubris separates humans and confounds communication, the Spirit of Jesus brings people together in a radical new community of compassion.

A final thought: The quotation from Joel emphasises the universality of God’s new reign – it’s not just men and women, not just old and young, but even slaves are included! In fact, scholars have suggested that early Christianity was disproportionately represented amongst the slave class. Why? Because they understood that the gospel message was essentially about liberation.

Till next time…

"..THY WORDS IS TRUTH.."

THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
By: Dario D. Belviz

We read several testimony from so many religious leader predicted the date of Christ second coming, unfortunately all of them had failed to prove their prediction. But one thing is undeniable and no one can contest this fact; the Christ second coming is CERTAIN! But we never know when it will happen, no exact time and date revealed by the scriptures, but we are always reminded by the scriptures " Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come" – Matthew 24:42

THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST IS CERTAIN: It is unquestionably established by the testimony of the following; (1) ANGEL – "which also said, ye men of Galilee' why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven "- Acts 1:11 (2) APOSTLE PAUL – " For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first" – I Thess. 4:16 (3) APOSTLE JOHN – " Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." – I John 3:2 (4) JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF – " And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" – John 14:1-4. These are all the reliable testimony from the angel of the Lord, from the Apostles, and above all from the Lord Jesus Christ, He promised that He will "COME AGAIN" we can hold firmly this promised without any hesitation. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise" – 2 Peter 3:9

THE TIME IS UNKNOWN: When will Jesus come? No one knows..! God did not revealed concerning the exact day and hour "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever…" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Jesus Christ said: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father" (Mark 13:32). The scriptures teaches that Christ coming will be sudden "…the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night" ( IThess. 5:2). But sadly, despite of this truth that NO ONE KNOWS the exact date and hour of Christ second coming, still many had attempts and tried as date-setters for Christ second coming. But they are all wrong and become a deceiver of truth. Let the records speaks who are they;

a) WILLIAM MILLER – Founder of Adventist Movement, he Predicted that Christ Second coming would came in October 1843 but it was not so, again he reason out that he was miscalculated and predicted again that Christ come again in 1844. (D.M. Canright, Seventh day Aventism Renounced – Reprint of 14th edition, Nashville: B.C. Good Pasture N.D. Pages 68-80)

b) CHARLES T. RUSSEL – Founder of the religious group Known as "Jehovah Witnesses": He said the Lord came in 1874 ( Charles Russel, studies in the Scripture, series III, Thy Kingdom come, NY: International Bible Student Ass. 1899 Pages: 124, 127,133).
Now, it is clearly that the prediction of these religious leaders had failed and never fulfilled. They "spoke presumptuously" "prophesy lies" "they prophesy unto you a false vision". God said " When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shall not be afraid of him" ( Deut. 18:22 ; Jer.14:14).

HIS COMING WILL BE VISIBLE: Some teaches that Christ Second coming is "secret" but the scripture teaches us that His coming will be visible "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him," (Rev. 1:7) " For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" " And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumphet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matt.24:27,31).

WHEN JESUS COME: The earth will be burned up (2 Peter 3:7-10), the dead shall be raised incorruptible (John 5:28-29, I Cor.15:22, 24, 52; 15:40), "the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books" (Rev. 20:11-12; Rome 14:10-12; IICor. 5:10).

CONCLUSION: Friends let us head the solemn warning from the Scriptures "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 24:44) "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares" – Luke 21:34

New post

Brother Mitozyl Sanchez officiating the baptism..!

New post

Photo of brethren after the baptism..!

Baptism at Sandoval Area-4 church of Christ in Roxas, Palawan..!

Few days ago, I received photos of Baptism from Brother Mitozyl Sanchez who work with the Lord church at Sandoval area-4 in Roxas Palawan. Once more he wants to share this good news to us all… "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also save us,.." – I Peter 3:21
-Bro. Dario D. Belviz-

New post

Brother Mitozyl Sanchez and the new baptized sister – Julieta Santillana, she is a widow and formerly a member of Bible Baptist Christ. Thanks to the Lord that finally she obeyed the gospel…!

New post

Our sister carefully watching their steps, while going to the river, one of them was sister Nizhy Sanchez, beloved wife of brother Mitozyl Sanchez..!

New post

Our brethren at Sandoval area-4 church of Christ. This picture was taken after their Sunday service; all are almost ready to witness the baptism..!

Time for a Change

After much thought and not much blogging, I’ve decided that it’s time to try something new. So, from next week I’m intending to do a weekly blog based around lectionary readings. I see this as having the following aims:

1. Hopefully it will give significant enough change in focus to diminish the amount of repetition that I sense comes through in much of my writing to date. (Perhaps you don’t feel it, but I do).
2. I think there may be the potential to challenge some biblical illiteracy that underlies many of the views that I have opposed so far.
3. I know a number of people are struggling to find new ways to read the Bible having discarded a solely literalist interpretation. Is there anything left? I think there is.

Don’t worry, there’ll be plenty of justice raves and holy heresy still to come Stay tuned…

The Bible As History

When I first became a Christian, I was told that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, a reliable historical source that would tell me how things were, how they are and how they will be. My first lessons were in prooftexting - taking selected verses out of their context and applying them literally into my own. However I was soon keen to start reading the Bible for myself and this inevitably challenged such understandings again and again.

One doesn’t have to go very far - take these three texts from the first book of the Bible as an example: Gen 12:10-20; 20:1-18; 26:1-13. This is clearly the same story repeated three times with minor changes in character and setting. If the stories are historical they demonstrate either unbelievable co-incidence or bizarre manipulation on the part of the protagonists and/or God (if God is thought to be the shaper of history).

Taken individually, the stories are quaint and even vaguely amusing at times. However together they cannot fail to challenge a historical literalist view of the Bible. Is it more likely that God twists historical circumstances towards deja vu experiences or that ancient storytellers reframed their tales with new characters and settings to re-iterate moral points?

New post

Our Schedule of services here in the city of Puerto Princesa. We extend a sincere welcome to all of our visitors; it is an honor to have you in our services.

New post

Our brothers jointly working to connect the sign board to the main post made of galvanized Pipe.

New post

Brother Marlo Agbisit firmly holding the sign board – He is presently working at Bureau of Fire Protection as Fire chief Investigator in the Province of Palawan, he and his family is a faithful member of the Lord church here in the city of Puerto Princesa.

PUTTING-UP THE SIGN BOARD..!

Our brothers in the church jointly working together in putting-up the church sign board at the main street going to our place of worship here in the city of Puerto Princesa. Apostle Paul said – "From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Eph. 4:16).

New post

– Our brothers in the church at Puerto Princesa City gladly digging the hole in putting-up the church sign board here in the city.

New post

Finally, the church sign board here in the city was already installed at the main street going to our meeting place, this would be beneficial to all the visiting brethren coming from different places in Palawan who would want to attend the church services.

"..THY WORD IS TRUTH.."

WHO IS THE LAST PROPHET?

by: Dario D. Belviz

The Qur'an of Islam said "…No Prophet will come after him. Allah the exalted says: Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah, the last of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All_Aware of everything". ( Qur'an 33:40) – (The Foundation – Islamic Studies, call and guidance of the Philippines – Page: 37).
For the Muslim believers they believed that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, the LAST (emphasized mine: D.D.B.) of the Prophets. But Friends, if we will only be honest to search the scriptures (John 5:39; 2Tim. 3:15-17) we could find the true Saviour & Prophet and not be deceived by so many false Prophets (Matthew 24:24).
God promised to raise up a prophet "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in his mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him, And It shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him" (Deut. 18:18-19). This passage was speaking only of Christ not to any person pretending to be the last Prophet. Peter quoted it in Acts 3:22-23 and applied it to Jesus Christ. Stephen also quoted this same passage in the sermon which cost him his life (Acts 7:37).
The New Testament always speaks of Jesus Christ as "The Prophet". It was in the Galilee that Jesus Christ Fed the 5,000.00 people with "five barley loaves and two small fish" (John 6:1-14). When the people had been fed and there was still bread to spare, they said, "This is truly the Prophet, who is come into the world" (John 6:14).
Jesus is God's final Spokesman – the final - The last Prophet - The Hebrew writer reminds us of how "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time, past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoke to us by His son …" (Heb. 1:1-2).
God said "whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him" (Deut. 18:19).

The Hebrew writer mentions the consequences of neglecting the message of Christ – the final Prophet. (Hebrew 2:1-4).

"..THY WORD IS TRUTH.."

WHO IS THE LAST PROPHET?

by: Dario D. Belviz

The Qur'an of Islam said "…No Prophet will come after him. Allah the exalted says: Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah, the last of the Prophets. And Allah is Ever All_Aware of everything". ( Qur'an 33:40) – (The Foundation – Islamic Studies, call and guidance of the Philippines – Page: 37).
For the Muslim believers they believed that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, the LAST (emphasized mine: D.D.B.) of the Prophets. But Friends, if we will only be honest to search the scriptures (John 5:39; 2Tim. 3:15-17) we could find the true Saviour & Prophet and not be deceived by so many false Prophets (Matthew 24:24).
God promised to raise up a prophet "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in his mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him, And It shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him" (Deut. 18:18-19). This passage was speaking only of Christ not to any person pretending to be the last Prophet. Peter quoted it in Acts 3:22-23 and applied it to Jesus Christ. Stephen also quoted this same passage in the sermon which cost him his life (Acts 7:37).
The New Testament always speaks of Jesus Christ as "The Prophet". It was in the Galilee that Jesus Christ Fed the 5,000.00 people with "five barley loaves and two small fish" (John 6:1-14). When the people had been fed and there was still bread to spare, they said, "This is truly the Prophet, who is come into the world" (John 6:14).
Jesus is God's final Spokesman – the final - The last Prophet - The Hebrew writer reminds us of how "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time, past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoke to us by His son …" (Heb. 1:1-2).
God said "whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him" (Deut. 18:19).

The Hebrew writer mentions the consequences of neglecting the message of Christ – the final Prophet. (Hebrew 2:1-4).

Parliament of the World's Religions

Whilst stuck on a long drive today, I was lucky to come across an interview with Rev Dirk Ficca, Executive Director of the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions. The Parliament is meeting here in Melbourne in December this year and I’m looking forward to being a part of it.

Dirk spoke intelligently and articulately about purpose of the Parliament, making two important points about what they are trying to achieve:

Firstly, they are aiming for harmony rather than unity. The point is not to pretend that all religions are the same or to blend them into a universal, homogenous belief system. Rather, acknowledging and accepting our differences, we learn to live together peacefully and in harmony with one another.

Secondly, trust is more important than agreement. There are people that agree with me on many things that I still may not trust, just as there are those with whom I might have significant disagreement but feel that I could trust with my life.

You can find out more about the Parliament at http://www.parliamentofreligions.org

Taking the Bible Seriously

I’ve written on this subject before, but this time I’ll let someone else speak for me. Enjoy…

April 6, 2009 8:06 pm

The Importance of the Prophet

I heard something this evening that started me thinking about the important role of the prophet in Christianity. Before I explore this a bit, let me clarify that I’m not talking about the Nostradamus kind of prophet whose main role is to try and predict future events. I’m talking about the kind of prophets that are known in the Hebrew Scriptures, who have at least 2 distinct roles:

Firstly, they call the people to repentance. The prophets are the self-critical flank of religion. They refuse to get so caught up in authority, tradition and dogma that they lose any perspective on what we might have done wrong or where we may be going astray. Repentance is important to both individuals and communities. All too often we can be reluctant to admit or acknowledge our mistakes and we must do so if we are to be serious about living in a better world.

Secondly, prophets speak truth to power. The prophet is the voice of justice that is unafraid of negative repercussions. Of course, this often ends badly for the prophets (including Jesus) but it is not a fate that they pursue unwittingly. Prophets are not self-righteous, but rather are carried forward by a cause much larger than themselves.

It seems to me that there’s also something important about the actions of a prophet. Prophets don’t have to lead perfect lives (many of them have had obvious human flaws) but they do need to reflect something more than strong words.

March 29, 2009 4:00 pm

A Matter of Perspective?

I’ve been wondering today how much of life is simply a matter of perspective. I’m naturally inclined to be a ‘glass half full’ person. Sometimes this optimism plays out just as I’ve hoped it might and other times I’m left disappointed. Nevertheless, it seems that next time I’m just as likely to hope for the best regardless of previous failures.

Don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of times when I can be as cynical and skeptical as the next person. However, on the whole, I seem to lean on the side of hope. It’s not that I don’t learn from my mistakes either. I know that the glass which is half full is also half empty but it’s not merely a matter of judgement, it’s often a matter of choice.

When faced with two equally likely possibilities, which pathway should we take? Do we play it safe and expect to lose out or do we take a chance and risk disappointment? I suspect that there is often something self-fulfilling about these choices. I’m not talking about the Universe (or God for that matter) rewarding us for our confidence, but simply that embarking upon life’s journey with a sense of faith and hope will more likely result in serendipitous circumstance than the alternative.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Lost in Translation

I’ve just been thinking about some of the challenges inherent in communicating the gospel. I guess they start with identifying what the ‘gospel’ is, what is the good news of Jesus Christ? Already some of the more eager among you are raising your hands, “I know this one - Jesus died for our sins, right?”

Well, I’m not going to say that you’re wrong but here’s a few things to consider:

1. The message that Jesus died for our sins is only useful if people believe that they are sinful. This isn’t the starting point for a lot of people today and I’m not sure the right response for us is to try and get them there by telling them how bad they are or trying to scare them with Hell.

2. A significant number of biblical scholars now suggest that a better translation is that Jesus died because of our sins. That is, a God-infused presence like Jesus of Nazareth who challenges the powerful and stands up for the disenfranchised will always end up dead. The aspect of sin emphasised here is the corporate seduction of power and influence that reacts violently to any threat.

3. Even in the New Testament, there are a number of opinions about what the most important thing is for Christians to remember. The gospels tell us that Jesus identified loving God and your neighbour as the essence of his religion.

4. It seems that Jesus was critical of the sacrificial system of his day. Isn’t it strange then, that Christians created a sacrificial understanding of Jesus to replace the sacrificial understanding of the temple?

Now I realise that this is a highly divisive issue and that some of you have already lost my point about communication because you think that I’m questioning the idea of Jesus’ sacrifice. Actually I don’t have a problem with Jesus’ death being understood as a sacrifice but that’s a topic for another day. What I’m trying to illustrate is that even the most simple, apparently central aspects of Christianity are open to a number of valid interpretations and should be able to withstand rigorous questioning. If you lost that point, then you just proved it because it demonstrates the difficulty of communication. Of course, it’s possible that communication is much easier than I think and that I’m just not very good at it. I’m open to that possibility as well.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Rethinking Christmas

I used to enjoy debunking the Christmas myths. You can start with the nativity scene and begin removing the pieces that don’t even appear in the gospels (like the animals and the stable for instance). We tend to add the wise men from Matthew’s account to the shepherds from Luke’s, though the former gospel suggests that the (more than one, but not necessarily three) wise men came some time after Jesus birth and visited Joseph and Mary in their house. It’s all too easy if you just read the scriptures and are able to temporarily suspend what you think you know in the story.

However, this is perhaps the perfect time to recognise a third path between a constrictive, literal interpretation that is increasingly difficult for modern people to sustain and dismissing the Christmas story altogether. John Dominic Crossan, who is perhaps the pre-eminent historical Jesus scholar in the world today, says of the Emmaus road tale in Luke 24 “Emmaus never happened and Emmaus always happens”. Crossan rightly asserts that truth can be found outside the realm of historical veracity. The same is true of Christmas.

Very few people believe that Jesus was really born on December 25. Most scholars don’t even think we got the year right - between 4 and 6 BCE is more likely. However, the danger of getting bogged down in debates about whether particular elements of Christmas were ‘true’ or not is that we miss the primary point - God was found in Jesus. Now that takes some explaining and although we might do it differently now to the way they did it in the first century, we are seeking to capture that same experience. So enjoy the donkey and the star for a moment for what they are: pointers to an incarnational presence that changed the world.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Unfair to the Fundies?

I paused today to consider whether I have been unreasonably critical of fundamentalists. In a previous post, I noted the traditional definition of Christian fundamentalist beliefs as including:

1. Inerrancy of Scripture
2. The virgin birth
3. Substitutionary atonement
4. Bodily resurrection of Christ
5. Supernatural nature of miracles

On the basis of this list alone, I’m not sure that I can sustain the argument that fundamentalism always results in violence. However, there are some related ideas that can create the kinds of problems of which we are all too well aware.

I think that one of the difficulties is an exclusive claim to truth. Whether the ‘inerrancy of scripture’ is cause or effect of this claim is unclear but there are inherent dangers (not to mention great arrogance) in thinking that God has been revealed only to our special group and that all other expressions of religion are misguided. This isn’t just about the nature of truth as absolute or relative - it’s about avoiding an extreme point of view that categorically dismisses any external challenge or dissident opinion. If God’s will has indeed been communicated especially to us (or me), then who has the right to question what I do in God’s name?

A related area is the claim to foreknowledge of people’s eternal destinies. Whether or not you believe in a literal heaven or hell, does any human being really have the right to assign you to either? Based on a particular interpretation of scripture, some people firmly believe that they can predict the eternal destiny of others because of their beliefs or actions. I find such power a frightening concept, yet many are willing to wield it as reward or punishment to ensure that others ‘toe the line’.

Ultimately, I’m more concerned about people’s actions than their beliefs. However there is a dynamic relationship between these two things that cannot be ignored. I’d still prefer a fundamentalist that genuinely loves their neighbour than a liberal that was apathetic to human need.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Is fundamentalism inherently violent?

My studies this semester are leading me to a closer examination of the nature of religious fundamentalism. I have a reading list that includes some of the best known athiests of this time such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. There are two questions that have been prompted for me this week:

Firstly, does fundamentalism always result in violence? I mean this to include spiritual and psychological forms of violence such as condemning people to Hell. Secondly, do religious moderates unwittingly align themselves with such violence by tolerating these views?

I have few doubts about the first question. I think there are clear links between fundamentalism, fear and insecurity. Its not a big step to see a variety of forms of religious violence being the outcome of this combination.

The second question is more challenging but unavoidable if we resolve the first in the affirmative. I suspect you’ll see many more posts on this subject…

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Doing Public Theology

Public theology is a challenge for the church. Theology is essentially ‘God-talk’ and there are a number of difficulties that become obvious when engaging in ‘God-talk’ in the public domain. Firstly, not everyone believes in God and those that do may not believe in the same God that you do. Even within the Christian church this cannot be taken for granted. When we do public theology badly, we reinforce an image of a church that is outdated and irrelevant, only interested in making moral pronouncements on the rest of society (and too frequently ignoring the ‘log’ in our own eyes).

Very occasionally, healthy, intellectually engaging, genuine theological discussion emerges in the public arena. One of the reasons that I’m a big fan of the TV show, The West Wing, is the way that religous topics are handled. The episode “Take This Sabbath Day” explores some of the political and religious dimensions of the death penalty. The show’s creator, Aaron Sorkin, consulted with a priest, a rabbi, a Quaker and a Baptist minister while working on the episode. Here’s a snapshot from one scene:

Toby: The Torah doesn't prohibit capital punishment.
Rabbi: No.
Toby: It says, 'An eye for an eye'.
Rabbi: You know what it also says? It says a rebellious child can be brought to the city gates and stoned to death. It says homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death. It says men can be polygamous and slavery is acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time, but it's just plain wrong by any modern standard. Society has a right to protect itself, but it doesn't have a right to be vengeful. It has a right to punish, but it doesn't have a right to kill.

That’s the kind of honest, public theology that I think we could have more of.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Are we all evil?

Increasingly, thinking Christians are beginning to wonder whether the concept of ‘original sin’ has had its day. I’m certainly confident that as an evangelistic strategy, the message that ‘you are entrenched in evil from birth’ is not going to be a successful starting point for conversations with most people today.

To be absolutely clear, I’m not saying that there isn’t an important element of truth in this doctrine. Most honest (or sane) people will acknowledge that their best efforts are often marred by imperfection. Too often are we haunted by temptations to do something that we probably think we ought not do. The weight of self-consciousness and the burden of human moral choice can indeed be equated with the idea that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’.

However, it is perhaps long past time to wonder whether this should be the singular lens through which Christians view the human condition. I would argue that not only does it decrease our capacity to dialogue with sensible 21st century people, but it doesn’t even do justice to a wider reading of the Biblical record. Given that most Christians would say that the idea of original sin is based on the story of Adam and Eve, would it surprise you to know that Jewish people do not share this concept? How is it that Christians came to think that we had a better understanding of Genesis than Jews? How have we lost sight of the blessing of creation and the judgement that it was good? (For more on this, read Matthew Fox’s book ‘Original Blessing’).

We cannot continue to ignore the psychology behind our beliefs and the potential for overzealous interpretations to unwittingly harm the vulnerable. The reality of human sin is clear, but do we in fact do ourselves a disservice if we only allow the gospel to be heard in this single context?

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Where is God?

It’s the end of my third day at the Whittlesea relief centre and though tired, I continue to be amazed at the outpouring of public support for victims of the Victorian bushfires. Christians, Buddhists and Scientologists were visibly present today amongst the people offering practical assistance and emotional support as required. Of course many of those helping have no visible faith representation and may not subscribe to any religious belief at all. Yet presently all are united in the task of helping people to cope with tragic loss and face the question of ‘what next?’.

I have heard people publicly questioning the existence of God in the aftermath of these events. Some are able to maintain that despite their loss, they continue to have a sense of God’s presence with them. An article by Joseph May in the Officer magazine some years ago entitled “Where is God in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attack?” captures a similar feeling to my own of late.

When I was at the Pentagon serving the men and women trying to rescue and recover the victims of the plane crash, I saw God. I saw God in the firemen who were trying to rescue hurt people… I saw God in the men and women, Salvation Army volunteers, who were providing meals to recovery workers, offering them a cup of cold water in Jesus' name.

It’s significant that this definition doesn’t only apply to God’s presence in Christians. God is present in the helping encounter. There are no prerequisites or tests of faith for this. It is simply a reflection of the character of God, who is recorded in the Scriptures as caring particularly for the poor, the widow, the orphan, the vulnerable.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Who wants the poor?

Today I was a representative of The Salvation Army at an ecumenical service for the opening of the legal year in Melbourne. The service was attended by judges, magistrates, lawyers and others associated with the legal profession, as well as the leaders of a number of Christian denominations.

So it was before the service that a group of clergy were discussing who would be responsible to read out segments of a prayer in the service. After delegating prayers for the Queen, for peace, and the environment, we discovered that the person nominated to pray for the poor and neglected was missing. After a number of glances around the room, I finally could not resist and announced “The Salvation Army will take care of the poor and neglected”. And so it was…

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Can a Christian be an Atheist?

Is it possible to be a Christian and not be a Theist? This is one of the critical questions facing Christianity in the 21st century. Of course it’s roots are deep within the last century and trace back to at least the Enlightenment.

Paul Van Buren’s 1963 book “The Secular Meaning of the Gospel” is a good example of one of the first forays into this kind of thinking. Probably the best known contemporary proponent would be Don Cupitt, whose books include “Taking Leave of God”. New Zealander Lloyd Geering also makes a stand in this vein in “Christianity Without God”. At first the idea seems non-sensical, but it arises from some of the best theological minds of recent times including Paul Tillich who described God beyond personal terms as the ground of all being. Bishop John A.T. Robinson popularised some of this thinking and in doing so divided the church of the 1960’s.

There are actually 2 distinct streams of thought. The first group find the concept of God now to be irredeemable, though they may retain respect for the teachings of Jesus. Those in this category typically see Christianity on its last legs, perhaps offering some general moral direction to the community but on the whole we are left with a rather pale imitation of religious faith.

The second group affirm a real God experience but are discarding the projection of human attributes onto the character of God (anthropomorphism). In simple terms, God exists but should not be understood as the big, white bearded guy in the sky. This kind of thinking challenges some biblical images, such as the angry or jealous God, which may be welcomed. However, it also calls into question the incarnation of Jesus as the decisive manifestation of God. If we can’t project our humanity onto God, can we really project God’s divinity onto a human being?

Can we have a personal God without making God into a person? Doesn’t this ultimately go against the commandment against making divine images? None of these questions have easy answers but they are worthy of some honest thought, discussion and perhaps even debate.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Losing My Religion

I ran an elective workshop today called Losing My Religion at Insane. The session was aimed at 18-25 year olds who often have a high drop out rate from church life. There’s a lot of reasons for this, but the area I was most keen to focus on (and probably the only one I am really competent to lead) was based around stages of faith.

For a long time, the major work on this subject has been James Fowler’s 1981 book which suggests 6 distinct stages. Fowler acknowleges that the stages represent snapshots and therefore the reality of people’s lives is that they move between them more fluidly than a simple linear progression. He also emphasises that the stages are not sotierological - that is, you don’t get closer to salvation the more stages you conquer. Over the years, my regard for Fowler’s model has waned a bit though his basic ideas still have much merit.

My preference is for a three stage model of faith. Stage 1 is the stage we all begin with in childhood. It emphasises creative imagination over critical analysis. In Stage 1 we are open to all sorts of fantasy, tale and myth without concern for historical veracity. Santa is great because we get gifts at Christmas and we really don’t need to know any more than that. Noah can get all the animals into the ark because we don’t know more than 20 different species.

We usually enter Stage 2 before we realise it. We don’t get to make a choice about it, it just happens. An older sibling lets loose about the Easter Bunny. We learn about dinosaurs at school and start to wonder where they fit into the biblical account. Reading the Bible makes us question what others once told us about it. In Stage 2, our beliefs are challenged by critical thinking. Stage 2 is uncomfortable for many, if not most, but is a critical time and cannot be ignored. It also provides a number of pathways that can determine how a person’s faith will be affected in the future.

The first possibility is that someone will stay in stage 2 for a prolonged period - for some people, this could be all of their lives. A second possibility is that they react against the doubt and uncertainty that characterise this stage and return to some form of stage 1. This is the path sometimes taken by people who find fundamentalism attractive with its black and white perspective and reaffirming certainty. The third pathway is the way out of religion. For those who cannot go back, who can’t remain perpetually living in doubt and who also are unable to find another way forward, the only solution appears to be to leave. I believe that there is a fourth pathway and it leads to what I see as a third stage of faith.

In stage 3, people begin to come to terms with reliquishing certainty. Those in this stage no longer feel the need to fight against science or protect their religion against reason. They don’t give up because their experience validates the meaning that they are finding in faith. They search for new ways to articulate faith and experience that make sense in the modern world. They have a renewed appreciation for the power of myth and the meaning in metaphor that doesn’t rely on one particular interpretation of history.

This isn’t a ’stairway to heaven’. I move regularly between stages 2 and 3, though I spend more time in the latter. I gave the analogy today of stage 2 being like the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years. Stage 3 isn’t the promised land but it is perhaps a greater level of contentment about being on the journey. Those in the wilderness may thirst and sometimes suffer from the heat, but we cope best when we accompany one another along the way.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

New Songs for Worship

Perhaps I didn’t know where to look, but I used to find it so difficult to find songs for worship that I really liked that eventually I resorted to trying to write my own. I wanted something modern enough to use ‘you’ instead of ‘thee’ but with more depth than the ‘awesome’, ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ type choruses. I’ve managed to do this at the startling pace of less than one per year and before now, never really had any real record of them outside my own head. So, for what it’s worth, here are some of my efforts:

Called To Be God’s Hands

Celebrate Life

Grace In My Life

Great Is The Lord

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

The Audacity of Hope

My holiday reading has been a book called The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama. I confess that I continue to be impressed by Obama the more that I learn about him and hear from him. Whilst I might not be in total agreement with him on issues such as US foreign policy, there are many areas in which I find strong correlation with his views. His background as a community organiser in a poor neighbourhood, civil rights lawyer and college lecturer also draw some of my sympathies.

When I was in the US a couple of years ago, I did an interview for the Roundtable on Religion and Social Policy (you can read the full transcript here) where I made an off the cuff comment about the Australian people’s general lack of enthusiasm about our own politicians. As a general rule, we tend not to love or hate our prime ministers with any great measure of passion - certainly not in comparison to the idolatry (or sometimes demonisation) that can happen in other countries. When Kevin Rudd was elected, there was an unusual surge of hope from people in the social service sector. Whether that hope was justified or can be maintained is only just beginning to be played out.

Anyway, here’s some words from Obama on the subject of faith:

For one thing, I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. Out of necessity, the black church had to minister to the whole person. Out of necessity, the black church rarely had the luxury of separating individual salvation from collective salvation. It had to serve as the center of the community’s political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life; it understood in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world. In the day-to-day work of the men and women I met in church each day, in their ability to ‘make a way out of no way’ and maintain hope and dignity in the direst of circumstances, I could see the Word made manifest.

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Some holiday listening to get you thinking...

Happy New Year! I’m on holidays for a couple of weeks, so won’t be posting for a while. However, to keep you busy in the meantime I’m leaving a couple of MP3 files from sessions that I’ve run at the Aggressive Christianity Conference over the past couple of years.

» ACC 2007: Exploring a Christian ethical response to homosexuality (mp3 8.8 Mb)
» ACC 2008: Understanding the meaning of salvation in the Officer’s covenant (mp3 7.8 Mb).

Enjoy!

March 28, 2009 2:00 am

Proof of God?

At the risk of sounding like all that I do is watch television, I will confess that this blog has been prompted by watching “The Story of God”, a 3 part series presented by Lord Robert Winston. Those who have seen the well known documentary series, The Human Body, will recognise Winston who this time explores the relationship between science and religion. Winston, who is both a professor of science and practicing Jew concludes that certainty should not be a part of either science or religion.

For my own part, I have ceased to be interested in the subject of apologetics - I do not believe that I can prove through logic, science or scripture that God exists. I have played on both sides of this game before (trying to prove that God does or does not exist) and both are ultimately fruitless. The best alternative that I can offer is what religious people simply call testimony. I can talk about how I have experienced what I understand as a God presence in the world. For instance, I attended a funeral in Zambia earlier this year where several hundred people gathered on top of a large hill to celebrate the life and mourn the death of a man whose life was ended too early. I count this as one of the moments where I felt a tangible God presence in the world, yet I know that this is an act of interpretation and faith more than empirical evidence - and I’m happy for it to be so.

The significant questions for me then are not about whether God exists (for this is beyond my capacity to prove in either direction) but if, based on my experience, God does exist - then what is God like and how should we respond to God’s presence in the world? This is where I believe theology and the quest for justice meet.