A real trip

Check out the NYC messenger riders cruising the streets. This is almost a spiritual experience.



Got it from Kloky on FB.

STIR 2011 - the promo vid

What do you reckon, did we do a decent job? Think it'll promote the event well?



By the way, if you're 16-27, then consider registering and getting along to STIR 2011, 21st-23rd of January. It's a conference for youth and young adults to be stirred up to serve Jesus in your local church for the year. Great time of fellowship, challenge, fun and encouragement.

Kutz: Dad or Cad?

Which of the early church fathers are you? Apparently...

You’re Tertullian! You possess many gifts, but patience isn’t one of them. You’re tough on yourself — and on others. You’re independent, too, and you don’t like to be told what to do. You wish the Church would be a little tighter in discipline. As for the pagans, you’ve pretty much written them off. Sometimes you think the Church would be a better place if you were in charge. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

Recommended retirement age

An awesome quote I read this morning, despite being from a man who has raised my ire on more than one occasion. Beautifully put by none other than Sir Alex Ferguson:

Retirement is for young people. I’m too old to retire.

The real St. Eutychus?

Was Paul truly boring? I've got a new theory. Perhaps he was a bit more like Driscoll. In fact, perhaps he was better! Maybe he was really funny and interesting. I mean, why else would people listen to him preach all night? I bet he had heaps of hilarious stories from the baths that would keep the gentiles entertained for hours.

All things to all men, does that sound like someone who doesn't know how to hold an audience to you? Chris Rock has nothing on old St. Paul.

How can you reconcile this now-proven reality with the data contained in Acts 20:9 where Eutychus 'fell asleep' while Paul was preaching? Did he have no sense of humour? Was he just a really young 'young man' and needed a nap? Was he narcoleptic?

I would like to suggest that perhaps a psychosynopticising reading of the text may provide the answer. And so, I present to you my alternative reading of Acts 20:9:

lachschlaganfall
n. a condition in which a person falls unconscious due to violent laughter

A perhaps confusing conclusion to an inadequate essay

Having looked at history through the eyes of Barth, it seems that he understood his great battle to be with prolegomena to Scripture. His view of revelation and his Christology were driven by his attempt to escape from the epistemological presuppositions of his time and to establish a pure way of allowing God to speak. McCormack rightly makes the point that while Schleiermacher was concerned to establish the independence and absoluteness of religion, Barth was seeking to establish the independence of revelation. In this, the two men find both their similarity and their difference. In his desire to remove God’s Word from underneath the scalpel of historical criticism, Barth separated the Word of God from the Bible and located it in an experience of the Bible instead. In this, Barth was unable to himself escape from a philosophical prolegomena which he himself had inherited from Kierkegaard, despite distinguishing himself from some aspects of it. Having charged others with the crime of the possession of a theological prolegomena, Barth himself is not immune to the charge.

Telos

The purpose of this blog was to help me capture certain thoughts before they run away. My thoughts tend to do this. Here one week, gone another. My memory is less than stellar. And less than Stella.

And so, in a conversation the other night, I heard someone say something cool and said, "That's cool. I'm going to put it on my blog."

But I've now forgotten it.

I've also forgotten who said it to me, though I think I've got an inkling of that.

What was it that was so cool but I've now forgotten? Was it you who was talking to me? What did you say?*


*Not actually being the person or having even said anything cool to me in the last 48 hours ought not to be an impediment to offering suggestions.

Control freaks

This is interesting/amusing:

In most elevators installed since the early 1990s, the “close door” button has no effect. Otis Elevator engineers confirmed the fact to the Wall Street Journal in 2003.

Similarly, many office thermostats are dummies, designed to give workers the illusion of control. “You just get tired of dealing with them and you screw in a cheap thermostat,” said Illinois HVAC specialist Richard Dawson. “Guess what? They quit calling you.”

In 2004 the New York Times reported that more than 2,500 of the 3,250 “walk” buttons in New York intersections do nothing. “The city deactivated most of the pedestrian buttons long ago with the emergence of computer-controlled traffic signals, even as an unwitting public continued to push on.”

From here.

Seeing as you're all addicts

Why don't I have a competition too?

You have to email me a drawing of your most 'elegant' Venn diagram that comprises of four regions. Ie, a diagram which most elegantly allows you to diagrammatically represent the possible combinations of four sets.

Ie, if this diagram is an elegant representation of the combinations of 3 sets:



then what would be one for four?

Rule #1: You don't talk about fight club.
Rule #2: No research. This has to come from your own head only. Google and wikipedia aren't your friends this time.

Best directions ever

Can I suggest using google maps to get directions to China from Japan? Check out direction number 43.

Sometimes losing is a win

The guy who scores the first goal (a minute or so in) in this video, Emmanuel Garcia, is one of the better roller hockey players on the planet. We also became good friends over in Colombia during the 1999 schoolboys' world championships.



We had to lose to Argentina by less than 10 goals in order to go through to the next round. After a few minutes Emmanuel had scored 3 and we were looking like we were in trouble. I came on and marked him for the rest of the game. He only scored one more goal that game. We lost 6-0 and made it through.

Using a machette to cut through red tape

Richard Clarke, just check your pacemaker before reading this one.


Courtesy of xkcd.

Lovin' it

So I was 'reliably' informed the other day that the word 'love' was not in fact a verb (Newsboys, you got a lotta splainin' to do) and had not been used participially before the advent of the McDonald's "I'm Lovin' it" advertising campaign run by Haye & Partner since September 2, 2003 (in German) and Septemer 25, 2003 (in English).

To this, I present:

IRVING BERLIN WROTE "I'LL BE LOVING YOU, ALWAYS" IN 1925. JOSEPHINE BAKER MADE THE FIRST RECORDING IN 1926.

FRANK SINATRA RECORDED THE SONG IN 1942. THAT SAME YEAR, THE SONG BECAME THE THEME MUSIC FOR "PRIDE OF THE YANKEES", THE STORY ABOUT LOU GEHRIG.

THE MOVIE STARRED GARY COOPER, TERESA WRIGHT, AND WALTER BRENNAN. IT WAS NOMINATED FOR ELEVEN ACADEMY AWARDS.

Source.

If in doubt, always check your language settings

On a scale from one to awesome

Check out these bboys. Freakin' amazing.

This oughtta make Simone happy... :s



What do you think about engagement with the occult in popular culture? Especially in relation to children? Have you had to take a position in it yet?

The thing that annoys me here is that Mark doesn't actually take the time to make any reasoned argument from Scripture. He harps on about being discerning, but then doesn't take any time to carefully discuss what discernment might mean.

In the words of a funny man, "That's not an argument! That's just contradiction!".

Strictly speaking

Check this out. The third (current at time of posting) episode is really interesting. The two brothers are quite erudite, thoughtful, nuanced and intelligent. And, so it would seem, Christians.

I found myself wishing that I had the freedom of the younger brother (Joe) where it seemed persuading you was more important than his hang-ups. But I found myself, a tad saddeningly, feeling more similar to the older brother (Nat) who was more stilted by his own self awareness.

Implications for preaching anyone?

This blog has become a noose around my neck. A crowd to please. An expectation to live up to.

If I write a blog which contains only that which I really want to write, at the rate which I want to write it, who would read it? Would it create the type of hub that I'd hoped for, with people gathering to offer helpful thoughts on my posts and help me to learn and think more? Or would it mean that those few things I did post were simply words for the wind? Letters being delivered so rarely that no-one bothers to check the mailbox.

Thus the noose is of my own making. Desiring to create something which I have not the desire nor ability to maintain. Deciding to win a gold medal in synchronised swimming routine that never ends.

I choose to take my head from the noose. I can stand without.

I now own a piece of rope. There's just enough of it. But I don't have to use it if I don't want to.

Ill-incepted

I went to see Inception last night (I know, I'm behind the times) and only then because a 2 for 1 ticket that I had expired yesterday. I really enjoyed it.

***Spoiler warning!***

My brother told me that he thought I'd pick the twist. By half an hour in I thought I had, got annoyed at how boring that twist was and then settled in to enjoy the rest of the movie. With 20 minutes (or so) left I realised that my proposed twist wasn't right, and then watched as their really was no twist, just a slow revealing of secrets.

The tension that had to be resolved to make things right was Cobb (DiCaprio) needed to finally deal with his grief, let go of his residual-memory version of his wife and allow himself to be forgiven of the guilt of his role in his wife's suicide. It was one heck of a therapy session though, mixed up in industrial espionage, matrix-like alternate reality combat and storming a snowy stronghold. Better than a couch, any day.

On the way out, my wife remarked that it wasn't what she'd expected after having read a review of the movie in Eternity. The review slated the Cobb character as preferring the dream to reality. It further attacked him as promoting the idea of seeking happiness in whatever virtual realm you can find it and avoiding the truth.

Which is a tad strange, given that the whole point of the movie is Cobb moving towards the final moment where he DOES embrace the truth, deal with reality and face his fears, thus returning to reality. The whole point of the tension in the final scene of the movie was the exact opposite of what the reviewer claimed.

Did anyone else read that review and get really ticked off?

We had an agreement!

Apparently, at his wife’s behest, in 1954 vice president Richard Nixon wrote down on paper:

“I promise to Patricia Ryan Nixon that I will not again seek public office.”

He wrote the date on the slip, folded it up, and stored it in his wallet.

Six years later he ran for president.

Sucker love is heaven sent

On the joys of sugar:

A placebo has no pharmaceutical properties; if it works, it works only because of my own belief in its efficacy.

If I know that I’m taking a placebo, it will be ineffective.

So while the placebo cures me only because I believe it will, I can’t believe that it will cure me only because I believe it will.

Peter Cave

Local sports clubs the new local church?

This was an interesting article. Firstly because of the requests being made, but secondly for the social analysis made towards the end of the article.

Cam Butler (Chaplain of the AFL Melbourne Football Club in the AFL and National Director of SCA) is claiming not only that the role of church has been usurped by sport (a tension long felt by those dealing with Kids' sport on Sundays), but also that spiritual guidance has shifted from the cathedral to the locker room.

"May I suggest that the closest thing to a pastor for most young Australians is their local club coach. The closest thing to a church, or refuge from life’s ills, for most Australians, is not the church, but rather their local sports club."

An area of struggle for many local churches is to be able to meaningfully engage with their community as a church entity. Perhaps the local sporting club is an avenue which could bear fruit for the gospel.

Our generation

Cool guys aren't passionate fighters anymore. The more bored you look when blocking the enemy's roundhouse kick while sweeping his standing leg, the cooler you are.

See?



Ok, so this could just as easily be Keanu acting very excited. Bad example.

Still, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has taken bored-fighting to an entirely new level. Even this image can't capture it. You have to watch the movie to feel his sheer boredom during the fight.

What would you answer? pt 1

I was a subject for a documentary being done by an old friend from uni. He's putting together a mini-doco on 'Devotion' and I'm one of three participants who answered a few of his questions about devotion. I was chosen for my alleged devotion to Christianity, another guy for his devotion to his child and a third for his devotion to Stargate.

I thought I'd post some of the questions Pat asked me, to see what you guys would say under the same circumstances. Just a few at a time.

1 . What were you doing five years ago?

2 . What are you doing with your life at the moment?

3 . What are the five great loves of your life? What are you passionate about?

4 . When did your devotion to God begin?

5 . How would you describe your relationship with God?

6 . How long did it take you to form this relationship?

Ecclesiastes: what some other people reckon

These aren't the perspectives that I promised would be analysed in detail, but just some summaries from commentators.

St Jerome (c. 347 – 420)

Saw the book as a call to embrace the ascetic life in order to escape the vanities of this world. Strangely, he also says "the Hebrews says that ... this book ought to be obliterated, because it asserts that all the creatures of God are vain, and regards the whole thing as nothing, and prefers eating and drinking and transient pleasures before all things." Weird

Crenshaw (1987)

"life is profitless; totally absurd. The world is meaningless. Virtue doesn't bring reward. The deity stands distant, abandoning humanity to chance and death."

Ogden (1987)

"The book's thesis ... is that life under God must be taken and enjoyed in all its mystery."

Like any of these? Why not?

Inappropriate

My wife yesterday:

(Excitedly) 'Apt' is such a fitting word!

Fear and loathing

Sometimes I'm not motivated to get into a particular task. Often, that's because I don't think I'll have the time or energy to do it really well. It won't be up to the standards that I hold up others' work to. I never felt scared, but fear in a way has removed motivation. Fear of my work being pathetic.

Or, I could obey God's word, instead of just reading it.

I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

Ecclesiastes: what do you reckon?

Over the next few weeks I'm going to post a few thoughts on Ecclesiastes. Particularly, I'll be using two or three different approaches from different commentators and seeing how they hold up. Which has the best explanatory power for the material found in a book at once so easy to relate to and at the same time so difficult to understand?

I've found Ecclesiastes to have be far better represented in the 'favourite book of the Bible' stakes than the 1/66 chance which probability would afford it. In fact, I've heard more people quote it as their favourite than any other. And all have a strong opinion on its message. And most of them conflicting.

Thus it will be interesting, not to claim to know the answer, but to post thoughts to provoke those who're interested in this multi-faceted book.

So, to kick off, what do you think is the main point of the Teacher?

Is it normal to... #1

I'm trying to work out whether some of my responses to everyday situations are normal or complete over-reactions. What do you think? Would you be just the same?

Would you:

Be minorly-moderately annoyed if someone grabs your arm and moves it from where it was happily resting on the table while you're involved in conversation elsewhere? But here's the kicker: What if the person who moved it was your spouse?

Kutuzov family history

I've been doing a little bit of delving into my family history over the last year or so, and it's yielded some interesting results. Tales of Communist v Tzarist battles, Cossack warlords, indigenous Australian history and even apparently some French blood. :o

Firstly, I thought I'd start with the Kutuzov side, and some easy background. My dad is Russian from Harbin (North-eastern China). My babushka (grandmother) is alive, but my dyedushka (grandfather) died when I was about 2. Here's my dyedushka with my dad:



And here's my babushka in her first ball gown:



Subsequent history posts will have amusing stories too. Don't fear this will become an exercise in slide-show-death-by-blog.

The agony of choice

Back from mission, but no blogging impetus to speak of. I'm completely wrecked after a week of firstly being nervous about a kids' talk that went well and then worrying about an evangelistic talk which didn't go so well.

The kids' talk was made considerably easier by the fact that I used one of the excellent Kidswise talks by Sandy Galea and some awesome props made by my wife.

The sermon on the other hand, was agony!

The loose theme we'd been given was 'Life Matters'. I had initially wanted to do a talk about the tension between life and death in Ecclesiastes. The tension is created by death's ending of life and thus frustrating and cutting off all humanity's work and relationships. Hence, they are in vain. The talk would finish in 1 Corinthians 15 with the resurrection and its result: your labour in the Lord is not in vain.

The problem, though, is that I wanted to explore some different ways of dealing with this tension between life and death. Options such as denial, religiosity and acceptance. After a couple of weeks agonising over preparing this kind of talk, I gave in. I can't do a talk like that well enough yet. To be able to connect that philosophical stuff to real life in an engaging way in a 15 minute evangelistic talk to your average person from the street was a bridge too far.

So I decided to do an exegetical talk on John 11 (Lazarus' resurrection). But by then I only had a couple of days to prepare, and I wasn't really 'feeling' the passage as an evangelistic talk. So it wasn't so crash hot.

I'm not sure if any non-Christians were there. Very few people at church at all on that rainy day.

Still, it was good to stretch myself. Now I've got some thoughts about my limitations as a preacher to explore.

A break in transmission

Sorry. Can't blog. Missioning.

Still, Some bits of my preaching prep for Sunday morning. Prayers appreciated.

- - -

John 11

The two different responses to Jesus.
You can see the miracles themselves, even believe that they’re real, and still not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. The issue isn't believing the miracle. The issue is: "having seen the miracle, would you believe that Jesus was the Son of God?".

The bloke who wrote this down was there. He saw it happen. He saw Jesus do heaps of amazing things. But why did he write this episode down? Why was this one recorded?

He tells us. Right at the end of his book he tells us why he chose this particular sign to record. “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

John wrote down what happened that day for you. In fact he wrote the whole book hoping and praying that you would believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Why? Because he wants you to have life. He doesn’t want death to be the end for you.

Just when you thought the job was done

Just so you know, this is NOT what it looked like when Nathan's goalkeeping performance won us the Grand Final (yes, it is Worthy of Capital Letters) on Saturday.

Christian terrorism

Now thankfully, pastor Terry Jones has called off his threat to burn copies of the Qur'an. Yet, the article which reports this good news has failed to fill me with any joy.

In it, Jones claims that he's made a deal with the Imam of the proposed Ground Zero mosque, with the result that

"has agreed to move the location."

Now, I doubt that this is true. But, if it is, then what is this but a successful act of terrorism? Someone is doing something perfectly legal which someone else doesn't want them to, so they threaten to destroy something valuable which the other person value very highly in order to blackmail them into giving up their original project. Manipulation is not God-honouring, Mr Jones.

"The American people do not want the mosque there, and, of course, Muslims do not want us to burn the Koran."

Nine years later, phenomenally different in scale, but how much different in principle?

Eagle in flight

How cool is this pic of the Eagle nebula?



That one and heaps more here. The Transter was where I was linked to it from.

Unity and Distinction, but not Balance

Unity and Distinction: some helpful thought tools. Here's the guts of it, from Graeme Goldsworthy:

Everything in existence has some point of unity with every other thing. Every thing in existence has some point of distinction from everything else. Unity and distinction form the structure of reality, and it is so because that is the ontological essence of God and the way he has made all things. This enlightens us about all aspects of reality as we try to understand relationships. The examination of the biblical data in their salvation-historical progression leads us to concerns about the relationship of the parts to the whole, including the relationship of the OT to the NT. Unity and distinction, along with their perichoretic relationship, also points us to the relationship of biblical, systematic, and historical theology.

/End simple bit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For you hardcore theology nerds out there, an excerpt from this article by Graeme Goldsworthy over at Beginning with Moses.

The article is a response to Carl Trueman's article, which somewhat blames the dominance(?) of biblical theology for the paucity of doctrine in protestant churches.

The payoff, however, isn't so much in their discussion of that issue, but in the helpfulness of Graeme's thinking. He suggests that in theological discussion, thinking of balance between issues such as God's sovereignty and human responsibility is unhelpful. He suggests that unity and distinction are better categories to use.

I haven't just quoted it because it's saying what I've been saying for a bit, but because I think the whole paradigm of thinking that he uses is so much more helpful than the alternatives.

To return to the Trinity, perichoresis is a term used to describe the fact that we cannot assert the unity of God without also asserting the distinctions of the persons of the Godhead. Thus, Christian theism is neither a modalistic-monistic theism, nor a co-operative tritheism. In the words of Cornelius Van Til, unity and distinction are equally ultimate. I would add that to assert equal ultimacy is not served by balance as well as it is by coinherence or perichoresis. We can see the ravages of balance when we look at the Trinitarian and Christological heresies that led to so much systematic formulation in the early church. Balance suggests an interchangability that, in the end, produces modalism. The insight of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was that, in the matter of the two natures of Christ, balance does not suffice. It was the nature of heresy to try to balance the two natures. Both Ebionism and Docetism said balance could never be achieved under any circumstances and, therefore, one or other nature had to be eliminated. Apollinarianism attempted to balance by removing the spirit of man from Jesus so that the Spirit of God had somewhere to fit in. The ultimate balancing act was Nestorianism, which asserted that the two natures of Jesus could only mean that he was also two people 'glued together' (as it were).

The Christian theistic understanding of the ontological Trinity, then, directs us to the way ahead in the question of all relationships.

As it is in the Trinity, says Graeme, so it is in all of reality. Unity and Distinction.

Theologised history

Karl Barth can be great for a pithy quote at times. His view of Enlightenment man is fairly underwhelming.

Upon discovering that the earth was not the centre of the universe, humanity didn't feel more humbled that he was on a small speck of dust on the edge of the cosmos. Instead, he declared himself to be the master of the infinite new space which he had discovered. Barth's summary:

He moved from a geocentric view of the universe to an anthropocentric one.

Faith

What is it, eh? Is it being a trusting enough person? It can almost seem like a work in itself. And if the Paul isn't arguing about Jewish legalism but about Jewish exclusivism, then how does Romans 4 fit in?

(That was just to get your mind whirring. The important (and less confusing) bit is below)

I've been wondering whether there's enough in Romans 4 for me to argue that faith there is particularly the 'throwing your fate upon Jesus' kind. It uses the Greek word 'upon' instead in 'in' when it says that we're saved by 'faith in Jesus', so do you think that the immediate context gives you enough to say that this isn't just about believing in God, but about putting your lot in with Jesus and relying on his faithfulness to bring you through?

Disappointing day

After a massively stressful day on Friday, today Gunther (our car) overheated on the way up to Brisbane from the farm. By the time RACQ got there, the towing had happened, worked out Gunther wouldn't restart and Dad had driven down to Ormeau from Brisbane to pick us up, I got to our football semi-final just after half-time. Unbeknownst to me, there's a rule in our league that you have to have signed the card by the end of half-time in order to play any part in the match. Found that out rudely when I got there.

Absolutely gutted. Day ended up being a big, massive pile of nothing.

The boys did win, so there's a game next week to play in.

Shudder

I just read a blog where a guy was bemoaning the lack of excitement in watching women's sports. Now, there's an extent to which I share this sentiment, but that's about as far as I go in solidarity with this guy's position.

Essentially, the reason that I don't watch women's sport is because I can't handle watching women act like men. Watching ladies compete in any sort of physical competition where they must hurt, hit or use sheer brute force to overcome each other is not my cup of tea. That's why football (soccer), tennis (except when the Williams sisters are playing) and lawn bowls are less distasteful.

But this guy I was reading was exactly the opposite. There wasn't enough competition in women's sport for him. Until, he was transfixed by women's rugby:

For a brief moment last night that changed, when bald headed women ploughed into the ribs of other women and fought with their last drop of sweat to prevent an egg-shaped ball from crossing a line. In one moment an England player punched an Aussie to the floor in self-defence.

Yeah. Great stuff. Really.

Gunning for the future

An interesting quote here from an ex-Arsenal employee. Paul Burgess, former groundsman (the guy who makes sure the playing surface is in top condition) of Arsenal FC has moved on to Real Madrid, and made this interesting comment about the cultures of the two clubs:

"There is a different kind of pressure here compared to Arsenal," he admitted. "There, the club is more about the future whereas at Real Madrid it is all about today. If they don't do well today there is no tomorrow, so winning is everything.

"That transcends down to the groundsman as well. Everyone at the club has to have a winning mentality and if you don't have that, then you aren't part of the make-up of the club."

Interesting to chew on, that.

From the Master's Apprentices to the Animals

This is the third post of a series on Genesis 1-3 which started here, with part 2 here.

Another of Doug Green's thoughts on humanity is that if we were, as is fairly commonly held, that dominion and mastery is at least part of the divine image which we are to fulfill, then the first domain of dominion ought to be ourselves.

That is, if we are made to be Masters of the Universe (TM) under Yhwh, little gods representing the Big God, then the primary arena for that rule to be expressed ought to be our own person.

This, says Doug, is one of the most obvious features that marks us off from the animals. The mark of true humanity is that we exercise appropriate dominion and control over ourselves. And so, after the fall, we end up being humans who are less than human because we do not exercise dominion over ourselves.

He cites the story of Esau as paradigm of fallen humanity. Note how many things present Esau as animal-like. His body was like a hairy garment. He inhabited the open fields. He was a hunter. In order to be like an animal, like Esau, Jacob covers himself in the skins of animals.

Thus, we should not be surprised that Esau lives by instinct. He sells his birthright to satisfy hunger. This is the nature of fallen humanity.

Interestingly, 'beastly' is also how Peter describes a certain set of false teachers, while the ultimate judgement on Nebuchadnezzar for his pride was to become like a beast. (More on 'loss of reason' as a product of the fall in another post)

This is beautiful because it gives a positively glorious perspective on the Christian ethic of self-denial and restraint. Western capitalist culture sees nothing in this ethic other than repression (or oppression?) of natural instincts, the curbing of true humanity. Our age can see no positive virtue in deciding, for example, not to have sex before marriage. Why suppress yourself? Why not be who you are?

Yet Scripture holds the exercising of self-control as a mark of true humanity. We are not utterly beholden to our instincts. Nor should we be. Being re-made in the image of God (back to true humanity) by Holy Spirit includes the fruit of self control! Our age is pretty up on asceticism being stupid, but not so much on unbridled self-expression being stupid.

I'm very glad that Jesus that he did not obey his instincts but was truly human, and set his face towards the cross.

Aesthetic irony

Perhaps this may bring accusations of shallowness, silliness or harshness, but after having caught public transport to and from Toowong train station for nearly 8 years of my life, I've decided finally to ask the hard questions that need to be asked.

How on earth can an institution bearing the name Queensland School of Beauty have uniforms so ugly?

Call me harsh, but after watching otherwise perfectly normal looking purple penguins go off to beauty school for 8 years I've finally had to let it out.

This has to be good!

What to do for my 200th post? This has to be special. It has to stand out in lights. It has to be one of the best things I've ever posted!!

Where's my inspiration? Where's that fascinating insight that's evaded humanity for centuries? Where's that pearl of wisdom, that cure for spiritual cancer that comes second only to the Cross in its power to heal the ills of humanity?

. . .

Drat.

I think this is a little self-indulgently vacuous. Not quite what I was looking for.

soli deo gloria

A new thought that I've been having about preaching and what's going on in that process: sheet music as an analogy for the interaction between Scripture and preacher.

The analogy has two parts.

The text of Scripture is analogous to the notes on the musical score. They're the content. The right notes. They're already there, and anyone (who can read) can read them.

Preaching, in this analogy, is like the dynamic markers on the sheet. The time signature, the little marks (<) denoting a crescendo, the style and tempo headings (allegro, presto, con motto), the coda sign. They don't tell you what to play, but how to play it. (When is something repeated? Is this bit quiet in order to be solemn, or should I be playing these notes with joy? Where is the grand finale that I'll never forget?) They help you understand the movement of the piece, the effect it intends to have on its hearers and itself provides much of that impact.

A part of the value of this analogy, for me, is that it mirrors the reality that it is the Word of God that changes hearts. Preaching convinces, cajoles and/or exhorts the hearer to be moved by the text, much as dynamics grip, sooth and/or assault the senses in order bring the hearer into the experience of the music.

One of my ideals for preaching is that its purpose is to be an exposition. It ought to expose the truth of the text to the hearts of the congregation, in all its colour, strength, rebuke, gentleness, beauty, healing, grace and power. Put another way, perhaps more speculatively, just as dynamics allow the listener to hear the significance of each note, a sermon gets across the significance of each part of God's Word to the hearts of His people.

/end creative flow

Most stylish referee ever

Heaps old, but I've met a few people lately who've not seen it. Camp as a row of tents.

Traps for young players

Just been thinking about myself.

Tip #1: Don't twist the way in which you serve your girl into a means of making yourself feel ok about yourself. Measure your service by whether it makes your girl feel important, not by whether it makes you feel important.

Saul vs David

A paragraph from my assignment to chew on:

I would suggest that in the same way as Eli was judged for not giving God what was due him, so the people are also judged in being given Saul as their king. It is worth noting that despite Saul having already been chosen by Yhwh and pointed out to Samuel, Samuel nevertheless goes through a process of drawing lots in order to determine who will be king. McCarter perceptively notes that Samuel introduces this process as divine judgement. This aura of judgement is further enhanced by its similarity to the judgement scene in Joshua 7, when Achan’s family was taken in an identical process of lots. The inter-textual reference is confirmed later when Saul himself follows in Achan’s sin and disobeys God’s commands with respect to the devoted things (kherem). Thus we are invited to see the appointment of Saul as a judgement on the people for their rejection of Yhwh.

A poke-history of Australian politics

All you Gen Yers who're into politics should love this. Even if you won't admit to it.

A quick thought

Is reading/hearing/using a description of a reality and assuming that description to be the totality of that reality one of the biggest problems in people's thinking?

I reckon there's a chance of that.

Inspired by glancing at this post on Driscoll's blog, actually. :s Will post thoughts as to why later on.

They were like us: part deux

Here's another angle on Doug Green's take on Genesis 3:22.

I've never really been too settled on the identification of the 'we' in Genesis 2 and 3. Who are they? Who are the 'us' that God makes us like? Who is the 'us' that Adam and Eve either became like or were once like?

Many people in my circles (Australian evangelicals) have taught in sermons that 'knowing good and evil' is the concept of usurping God's role. It means to determine good and evil, something that is not our place to do. This is because they take the more traditional translation that Adam and Eve 'have become like us' as opposed to Green's 'were like us'.

One exegetical consequence of this is that the identity of the 'us' is more limited. In 3:22, the 'us' are the 'knowers' of good and evil. If the phrase 'knowing good and evil' is understood to mean determining good and evil, then the 'us' can only include the divine. 'Us' cannot mean the heavenly court. (and, by the way, if you take Doug's take on 3:22, there's no exegetical problem with taking 'us' as the heavenly court anymore)

Thus, you're left with some kind of plurality within Yhwh being mentioned within the first couple of chapters of the Bible. A proto-trinitarian statement. It seems to me that God is not referred to in this way throughout the rest of the Old Testament, despite certain ambiguities later on in Zechariah, Malachi, etc. I personally would find it very strange were it to be the case here.

I can't see any evidence internal to Gen 2-3 that favours a 'determining good and evil' interpretation of that phrase. Can any of you? Things I've missed?

Becoming domestic-like

Some wonderful friends of ours, K and B, loaned us a book 'Spotless: Room-by-room solutions to domestic disasters'. After getting some pollen on my suit jacket a few weeks back, I've decided that this week I'm going to use this little recipe to see if I can get it out. Here's the excerpt:

Problem: Pollen stain on carpet/fabrics.

What to use: Kerosene, cotton balls, methylated spirits, paper towell; plastic bag.

How to apply: If the stain has set, damp it with kerosene applied with a cotton ball. Then damp the stain with methylated spirits applied with a cotton ball. Dry with a paper towel before repeating. Do this until the colour is removed. Some pollens will be easy to remove, others will need several attempts.

A few seconds in my brain

[stream of consciousness]

Realisation that I feel uncomfortable at times.

Analysis to discover what is common to these particular episodes that make me feel awkward.

Recognition that the triggers are generally things in popular culture that are unethical or unacceptable to my one of my (post?)modern, Western, white, male or Christian sensibilities.

Fear registers! Recognition that I don't like being controlled by those reactions!!

Question. Why?

Hmmm...

Thought: Am I scared of getting old and the requisite loss of coolness that goes along with it? Becoming a Christian bigot?

Thought: Am I not an open-minded enough Christian to simply expect to be exposed to sin and be able to ignore it while enjoying the good of culture?

Thought: Am I becoming a critically minded, disconnected from fun, fundy?

Mental searching of Scriptures: Micah 3:2.

Perhaps the reactions are ok then?

Nagging thought that I'm missing something.

Stupid thing still won't go.

Recognition of a second fear! I think I'm scared that if I have this natural revulsion I'll not be able to engage with people where they're at!

How can I connect with and be a servant to those whom I alienate by my negative reactions?

Recognition that I'm just a bit scared of offending people.

Recognition that it's ok to be myself and have my own reactions.

It's love not lack of offense that will genuinely connect with people.

Thoughts about the pressure of my young adult social circle to not be typical white, middle class and to have experienced the down and out and 'gritty real life'.

Recollection of the feeling that I fulfilled the stereotype that they were decrying.

Will stop now, in Hebrew class.

[/end stream of consciousness]

What's the difference?

Let's play a game of 'spot the difference'. Here's our two subjects: Saul and David.



Ok, perhaps we can have a slightly less wussy David:



Those 17th century painters sure have a lot to answer for.

Baroque art aside, why did God accept David and reject Saul as king of Israel? Such is the question for my current Old Testament essay.

Any thoughts from you godly, brainy droppers of grains of truth out there?

I'll post what's been jumping around in my head in a couple of days.

Soooooooo tempting

Reckon I'd make a good Family First candidate? I wasn't far away from clicking the submit button. I'm wondering what questions they'd ask me to ascertain my suitability. Any suggestions?

Kutz4senate. It's got a ring to it.

Or maybe I should do their web maintenance for them:

They were like us

It was suggested by Doug Green that a possible alternate translation to Genesis 3:22 was perhaps more correct than the traditional one. Traditionally, it reads something like:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-- ESV

However, the Hebrew verb rendered there as 'has become' allows for a certain degree of ambiguity in terms of tense. It is simply Hebrew perfect tense of the verb 'to be'. Given the ambiguities of Hebrew, the verse could thus be read as:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man was like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--

On this reading, the original state of humanity is 'knowing good and evil' and it is only upon the eating of the fruit that their minds were 'scrambled' and that they could no longer distinguish the good from evil.

So, is there any possible way that this could be a good translation? Well, from my admittedly limited Hebrew knowledge, I'd say these two examples make it possible.

Firstly, in the immediate context, you have the same word being used in what appears to be a past tense.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field (Gen 3:1 ESV)"

And yet, this isn't so satisfying because you could argue that it's a past-tense of narration, where the language is describing something that was true at the time of the events being described. So what we really need is an example where it occurs in direct speech, as it does in Gen 3:22, and is still rendered as a past state of being. Interestingly, there's one even in Genesis:

They said, "We see plainly that the LORD has been with you." (Gen 26:28 ESV)

The same verb, translated as a state of being that was true prior to the actual speaking of the words.

If Doug's thoughts are right, then the irony of the situation is that the serpent who deceived Eve in telling her that she would become 'like God, knowing good and evil' has in a sense deceived a lot of translators over a lot of years. :P As Doug pointed out, pehaps Eve's response should have been,

"But I'm already like God. I'm in His image. And I know good and evil, God told us what that is."

More thoughts to come...

Now the basic design is in place...

Does anyone have any suggestions for a good blog font?

I've got a decent eye for design, but not a great deal of experience in fonts. Do any of the resident font nazis want to give an ignoramus a hand?

Any further comments on the new design? Thanks for the tip re the comments link Nath, I'm working on a solution.

My new tattoos

Are pretty awesome. I've got one on each arm.

They were designed by Ben. Check 'em out at at Simone's blog.

In further news, I've also turned into an ocker Australian Biker named 'Bash'. My handlebar 'tash is sweet.

Cool Chatter...

Nathan helpfully drew my attention here to the anti-cool phenomenon. This round of anti-cool attack seems to be particularly in response to Blue Like Jazz, a collection of reflections by Donald Miller. No doubt the reaction is partly due to the by-line: "Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality".

In other blog news, Al discusses 'the cool' here, firmly placing himself behind the book.

However, this 3-point post from Mikey just nails it. So nails it.

Maybe I should actually read this book...

Nah, I'm off to read some Clifford Simak.

Much respect

A big-up to Andrew Richo who did an impromptu re-tailoring of his sermon tonight in the space of ~8 minutes. Watching his face as 45 teenage girls from Clayfield College walked through the doors was pretty funny, to be honest. I don't think I've ever seen that obvious a reaction on Andrew's face. Ever. Hilarious.

And yet, he managed to turn one and half chapters of a heavy Romans talk on sin into a semi-evangelistic Bible talk pointing the girls to Jesus as the only solution to our universal problem. Well played sir! God graciously answered our prayer for wisdom and clarity.

Pray that he also brings conviction and salvation to those of the girls who don't know Jesus yet.

Reserved for possible future use

You never know when it might be useful to link someone to this.

Edit: Oh, and nearly forgot this.

Who does the church belong to?

Again and again I've heard Bruce Winter say,

“Don't you dare talk about your church.' It is not your church. It's not the elders' church. It is Jesus' church.”

He wants to make sure that young ministers (literal translation = servants!) don't start to slowly over time get the wrong idea about what church is. Church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. (Ephesians 4:15-16) She is his bride, whom he bought for the princely sum of his blood. (Ephesians 1:7, 5:25-32) Even our individual bodies are not our own, but are rooms for Holy Spirit to live in and are owned by God. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

So, even my theology was perfect in theory, what's my actual manner of thinking about my church?

I don't always think of my head pastor as Jesus. I don't always preciously value each person as God's possession, for whom Jesus died and in whom Holy Spirit lives. I don't always recognise that my decisions and service aren't the final word, but what the sovereign Lord chooses to do through it is.

Are you like me sometimes?

The Best of Splendour: Religion

It seems that the church of booty is the popular religion at Splendour in the Grass. It's very much a Christus Victor view of things, isn't it?

Known unconvictions

There are many things that I've heard before. Particularly the kinds of things that preachers say. Even the kinds of things that theological lecturers say. And, dare I say it, things that principals of theological colleges say.

Am I the only one who switches off when I hear something that I've heard before?

I think in the context of theological education there's a problem with my attitude. I'm pretty sure that there's a reason that Bruce keeps banging on about the same things and it's not because he's getting old and has forgotten that he's just said the same thing 5 minutes ago.

What ends up happening is that by the time I get really frustrated enough with Bruce for repeating the same things so many times over, I actually start to think about it. And I can tell that he's not repeating it so that I know it. It's because he wants me to be convicted by it. So convinced, that it will shape my life and ministry in ways that will keep me faithful and protect God's people.

In the times that I get to that point, it's a little easier to listen. Even with a fuzzy head.

The Spiritual Meth-od

Feelings of uncleanness? Freaking out about your sinful heart? Need some accountability in your life?

You need John and Charles Wesley's Holy Club!

Seriously. That's what they called their accountability group. Bet they didn't cop any flak for that one.

And really, 'methodist'? Surely they could come up with a better name than that! They even had two hymn writers on staff! Even just one Simone would come up with something far snappier than that.

And their hymn didn't even come close in the poll...

The Best of Splendour: Passion Pit

I now have the pleasure of introducing you to something beautiful. Please welcome, Passion Pit.

I was wondering what kind of band it would be that would get the gig before Mumford & Sons and the Pixies at Splendour. Having been locked out of Florence and the Machine because the Woodford amphitheatre was dangerously full (that would have to mean well over 12,000 people, I reckon), there was little doubt that this was a prize spot on the bill. Would it be a rubbish fill-in band whose record company paid up big to get them the exposure? Would it be a rave to get energy up? An 'Xican idol' winner?

Not knowing what to expect I began looking around for a bit of space on which to sit. The man two blades of grass over from me looked on with amusement. "Don't worry about finding a place to sit.", he said. "You won't be sitting down for long."

And he was so right.

Moments into the first layers of synths and keys mixed in with smart drum beats, I was standing up, and moving as only a white man can. I've never been more at home with a man singing in that register! (Including the time Dan Saunders and I shocked our pastor by singing 'Take Your Mama Out' on Singstar in the correct register. Some lyrics he wasn't quite prepared for.)

It was pop. Nearly pure pop. But it was also complex, subtle and had some freakin' energy! It's hard to capture a feeling of fresh excitement. Being made happy by someone's music whom you'd not known of moments before. An anxious afternoon transformed into joyful jumping is no mean feat when an intense Russian male is involved.

And yet, it was so.

Hats off.

For your listening pleasure, can I suggest, Passion Pit? Live, if you can possibly arrange it.

Sorry for the temporary ugliness

Sorry, just playing around with blog templates. Don't mind me.

I'm glad that...

God only reveals to me as much of my own sin as I'm able to cope with at the time.

:)

Connections in Romans

An interesting one is that between 1:18-32 and Romans 12:1-2.

The first passage traces the consequences of suppressing the truth about God and swapping him out of your God slot and swapping in some dodgy replacement component instead (aka, idolatry). The consequences of sin get worse as the argument progresses. The last bit of the process finishes with God giving people over to a messed up mind. At this stage a person is not only sinning, but doesn't even recognise it as sin any more.

In contrast, Romans 12:1-2 talks about the renewing of minds. It's something that comes along with God's mercy. It seems God not only forgives sin but also undoes some of the damage it's done to us.

An point for discussion though: How can Paul command you to have something done to you? He commands you to 'be transformed'. It's in the passive, so what's Paul getting at?

Thoughts?

Thoughts on process

I'm sure plenty have thought these thoughts before, but I've not, and so I'm going to post a bit about them.

It's interesting that God chose to act within a history. Within time. He didn't simply make heaven in an instant and keep things rigidly that way for eternity, but instead he decided to stretch that creation process out over the course of human history. Not only so, but God's saving action is recorded for us in an unfolding of his character that took place over centuries.

It's also interesting that God is not bound by this process-type-thing of history that we're stuck in. He's all those 'omni-' words. Impassable and all that. Particularly, he's not bound in time as we are.

So why did he stretch things out into time like he did? What are the implications of it? How can he interact in time if he's omni-everything? (Ie, how could he ever 'react' to something we'd do? Or change his mind, or be surprised?)

So, I'm going to have a crack at thinking through a few implications of this reality over the next few posts. You guys all with me? Going to come help out and correct my thinking where it's messed up?

Great! See you soon. :) I'm off to Splendour.

Some more equal than others?

An very helpful angle being played here by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of Infidel and Nomad. Her perspective is that while individuals are equal, not all cultures are. While people all must be treated as having rights, the same ought not to be said for all cultures.

I like the fact that she cuts against the grain of a unilateral deification of tolerance in western culture. She points out that citing 'cultural tolerance' is no justification for supporting a culture that promotes human rights abuse. She'd prefer all cultures to be equally up for critique.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with everything she says, but the principle of individual rights over and against the right for a culture to exist seems to me to have something going for it. How can you claim to protect individuals and at the same time protect a culture that abuses them?

NB. This post is not a shot at any culture in particular, but a protest that we all ought to open ourselves up to the examination of others.

Honest!

I swear I'm hurt. Really, I am sir!

It's not often I choose to dislike a player, but I truly dislike Sergio Busquets. A genuinely fantastic footballer, but...

Anything goes in Texas

Apparently the Texas House of Representatives doesn't really bother looking too closely at the fine print of the bills that it passes. Back in April 1971, Rep. Tom Moore thought he'd see just how bad it could get. So he sponsored a resolution honouring the venerable Albert de Salvo:

This compassionate gentleman’s dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology.

Moore's facts are ostensibly correct. He did, however, omit to mention that Albert de Salvo's particular contributions at 'population control' were also the activities that earned him the moniker "the Boston Strangler".

The measure passed unanimously.

Here comes the bride...

A few weeks ago my wife was opining that banana skins don't really appear to be that treacherous, and that perhaps their reputation has been garnered more on the back of slapstick shtick and cliche rather than genuine intent to effect the downfall of unsuspecting by-treaders.

I have since discovered, in the carpark of a Lutwyche shopping centre, that banana skins are indeed slippery. Very slippery.

Exams are over...

Phew...

I feel about as exhausted as these guys must be.

Old, but...

Ok, one more...

Neighbourhood watch is really lax these days.

Ice Hockey's a dangerous game

I don't know why, but blogger doesn't allow animated gifs. Bogus.

Still. Click here to see the perils of playing goalie on a team that boasts a Sith Lord as a defenseman.

Courtesy of senorgif. Where you can also see this World Cup themed Jedi trick.

Millsom on Paul on 1st Century slavery

When you use a metaphor, you're not meant to apply all aspects of the object being used as the metaphor to the subject. Ie, Rodney is a machine! Rodney's not actually a mechanical device, but there are aspects of a machine which are very similar to Rodney. So when we read about Paul as

So when Jesus died and rose, we were bought with a price. So we are owned by God as slaves. And yet, Paul also describes us in Romans 8 as no longer operating under a spirit of fear as slaves would, but in a Spirit of Sonship. The dynamic is not identical to a typical 1st Century slave-owner fear and domination relationship. So not all aspects of the metaphor apply.

And yet, we are owned by God. His slaves.

This is as true as our intimacy with God.

Why does my bum hurt so much?

Having played soccer this afternoon, and drawing 2-2, my bum hurts. Particularly, somewhere in the joint behind my right gluteal muscles. I don't really know why. I'm not sure if it's in the hip joint itself, is the bum muscles or the side muscles or what. It just hurts. And I'd like to know why.

Now my knees hurt, but I know why that is. I'm pretty sure that's just wear and tear. Or perhaps it's simply (as described by my friend Laura) 'dicky knees' that I've inherited from my mother. I definitely blame my mother.

Perhaps I'll ask my brother about mybum tomorrow. He's done exercise science or something like that

And no, I did not score a goal today, although I did give the last pass for both of our two goals. It could well be argued that each of those passes didn't make a significant contribution to the goalscorers in their goalscoring duties, however.

As a pastor...

When is it right to have a chat with a member of church about their amount of time spent at work and suggest that their immediate and church families could use some more of their energies?

Discuss. There should be plenty of tangents to take this one on. Don't settle for just one!

A message. 10:25pm, Saturday.

To my dear brothers and sisters,

The Holy Spirit lives in you.

In Him,

Peter.

That is all.

Why so similar?

Firstly, Fort Knox.

Secondly, the Mormon Temple in Brisbane.

If you just photoshop out the palm trees...

:O

Quote #1

From Augustine:

He that is kind is free, though he is a slave;
he that is evil is a slave, though he be a king.

Naomi and Mara

Naomi leaves the promised land.

Naomi loses everything. Except Ruth.

Ruth is blessing to Naomi, despite Naomi telling her to leave.

Naomi returns.

Naomi becomes Mara.

Or should that order have been reversed?

Ruth goes out and seeks favour.

Boaz offers favour.

Boaz redeems Ruth

Thus also Mara.

Mara is restored, despite the humiliation of her return.

Mara becomes Naomi.

Humiliated, helpless, bitter, unable to redeem oneself but rescued by another. A story repeated offtimes through history.

Credit update: Thoughts inspired by my discussion with my wifey this morning.

Competitiveness and Scripture

For a little while now I've been thinking about a question: What does the Bible say about competitive sport?

A very difficult topic, because it doesn't say anything directly on the topic.

Thanks to Dave, I've recently read an essay on the topic which was quite helpful. It essentially saw sport as a neutral activity, but one in which it is very easy for sin to be masked as acceptable.

I'll be posting more on this as I work through it, but my current thought is about Sport as a revealer. I don't think that sport necessarily produces greater ungodliness, but is instead a revealer of ungodliness that is already there. In short, it reveals the person underneath.

This, however, can also be a beautiful thing when great sportsmanship and honourable play are demonstrated, or pursuit of excellence without cheating despite great pressure to do so. The high-emotion arena of sport is "a true revealer of character" as the great Stan Coombs once said.

What do you think about competitive sport, is it a good part of our created humanity? Or just pride dressed up in respectability?

Clarification

In case anyone was wondering whether my post (Those People) about people who make critiques of other people all the time was about them, it wasn't. As the ending hopefully hints at, it was as much about my desire to do the very same thing and the irony of that.

Apologies if anyone out there in blogland is fretting over having offended their most admired and respected blogger. *coughchoke*

To a tea

This afternoon:

My wife and I start discussing what's going to be on for dinner tonight. She starts explaining to me that her sisters are coming over and that they'll be having High Tea. Now I start wondering what High Tea truly is, by definition, having experienced not only the traditional cucumber sandwiches but also some pretty crazy treats that bear little resemblance to said staple.

Melissa informs me that it's essentially lots of different little things eaten together as a meal. I suggest that this is just a posh English version of Yum Cha.

I then suggest that perhaps the dodgy finger-foods served at certain larger functions (Ie, mini spring rolls, curry puffs, meatballs, etc) ought thus to be labelled 'Low Tea'.

Low Tea. I like it.

Those people

I find it silly that so many times I see comments that snipe negatively about something or other about the culture of a particular church or denomination. I don't mean jokes about Presbyterians never changing anything, I mean things like “all those Xs worship their favourite preachers instead of Jesus” in a case when it's really not a big deal.

It makes me want to write a big post attacking people who snipe at ...

…

Oh.

>:-|

Top 'o the league

Our futsal team is top of the league table, where we belong.

Warning: That's us at the top of the ladder before we won again this evening, 5-2. So we could be further out ahead, depending on results.

Our team name is 'Name of Team' in French. Classy, eh?

Team members:

Nathan and Robyn

Steve

Ross

Mattias

Sarah

Amy

Jamin

Me and Meli

Phew! That's a lot of people.

Ecclesiastes: THE book about faith in the Old Testament?

Just reading Jeffrey Meyers' commentary on Ecclesiastes, and loved this quote.

Life in itself is unable to supply the key to the questions of identity, meaning, purpose, value and destiny. Only God holds the key, and he must be trusted with it. He does not make copies of the key for us to use. You do not get to keep God's key in your back pocket. Sooner or later, if you are a believer, you are going to have to actually trust God to keep the key of life.

Love that bit about no copies. Beautiful.

I'm the best uncle ever

Just taught my nephew his first dribble. Not the saliva kind, he mastered that ages ago. He dribbled his mini Arsenal soccer ball quite well a couple of times before deciding he wanted to practice his throw-ins.

Back!

Just had a great weekend at Suffolk Park, a few clicks south of Byron Bay. A pretty awesome place to stay, but just make sure that you get the manager when booking, otherwise there could be confusion over rates and minimum nights, etc...

Totally enjoyed it: Beach soccer, losing at chess to Christina, nearly losing to myself in chess but being rescued by Daniel, hanging out with little Ruby Kovac, kayaking in the surf, eating fish and chips, sleeping in a non-snoring tent, eating gelato, drinking 2 cappuccinos in two days :-o , learning to play stand-ball,* telling kids' stories around the circle, swimming, playing break-the-line,** eating bacon and eggs for breakfast and celebrating my wifey's birthday.

Very good.

* I'm not going to tell you how to play stand-ball. It was, however, invented by Karl Pacholke and his future brother-in-law.

** See diagram for how to play break-the-line

Thoughts from the floor: Ecclesiastes

How does Ecclesiastes speak to you? What bits in it make you think, "That is SO it. This guy understands."? Any favourite bits, especially those which relate to a particular frustration/joy/aspect of real life?

Writing a Bible talk here people, need your help body of Christ.

Sad tidings

I don't think any of you reading this are Arsenal supporters. So you'll not understand my pain at linking this article. Nor will you be annoyed that I've spoiled the game for you.

Barcelona 4 - 1 Arsenal

:'-(

An invitation

I'd love to hear Jeff's, Dave's, Anna's, Arthur's and Tamie's views on all this as well.

The sort of thing that you have to deal with in eternal damnation...

From here.

A clarification of a fun discussion

There's been a big bunch of discussion on all things sin and depraved going on lately between Simon (here and here + comments) and Nathan (here and here + comments) and myself.

My thoughts (here and here + comments) aren't actually centred on quite the same focus as Simone and Nathan's, from what I can tell. My point is merely to give an anthropology which gives an acceptable approximation of the Scripture's testimony about us. In so doing, I've dealt with the area of sin as a matter of necessity.

My point, though, hasn't been to create a method for dealing with temptation. No how-to guides here.

And so, in this way, I say a hearty 'amen' to many of the points made by both Nathan and Simone. Particularly, to many of the things that Nathan said from Romans 6 in his post on righteousness.

I'll try to engage with their thinking on temptation (which, to me, seems ultimately to be the context for Simone's thinking) and the 'stance' of the Christian life in general (which seems to be the context for Nathan's thinking) in the next couple of days.

Should Catholics and Protestants have a group hug? (part 2)

Sorry about that break in transmission.

To add to the weight of Kung's theory that we should all just get along, Karl Barth wrote a letter to Kung (that Kung has placed in the front of his book) saying that what Kung says about his doctrine is all accurate. He's not twisted anything that Barth believes.

Sounds good, doesn't it! A protestant and Catholicism agreeing on Justification!

Unfortunately, it's not as good as all that.

Firstly, Kung's version of Catholicism isn't what the infallible words of the Pope (backed up by the council of Trent) actually teach. It's the opinion of some modern (and more Biblical) Catholic scholars, but not the official teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic church. More's the pity.

Secondly, the bits of justification that Kung is dealing with are so narrow as to make it pretty easy to get agreement on it. They essentially are both anti-Pelagian, and that's about as broad as the agreement can be said to extend. Alistair McGrath has noted that in this sub-section of doctrine, even Calvin and the Catholic church could be said to agree! Even I agree that Manchester United play football, kinda.

Lastly, the implications of the doctrine of justification, all the things that are implied by it, are massively different across the protestant and Catholic divide. While the words may be the same, the implications are a world apart.

Should Catholics and Protestants have a group hug?

Hans Kung, in his doctoral thesis "Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection", proposed that the Protestant Karl Barth was in 'fundamental agreement' with the Catholic teaching on the issue of Justification.

Essentially, he's saying: Why are we all arguing? Protestants and Catholics have overdone the differences between us just in order to keep a difference between us. Why not recognise that we're more similar than we think and just get along?

To be continued... chatting with my wifey. Sorry to keep you in suspense.

Darn I'm wrecked

Insufficient sleep makes Peter something something.

What's going on inside (part 2 of 2)

See part 1 here.

This helps us to understand something about ourselves and sin.

When people talk about 'working out who you are', my answer was: I know who I am, a dirty, rotten sinner and pathetic to boot. So the process of self-discovery isn't actually a beneficial one.

Using the tripartite view of a Christian that we looked at in part 1 means that we can now investigate something of person 1 from the messed up combination that we have now become.

Example: A person has a strong desire to lust sexually. Now the devil never created anything good, but only twists something good that God has made. My hypothesis is that the desire for something wrong has its basis in a good desire that's been twisted.

It's like archery. When you shoot and hit the bullseye, it's fun for everyone. When that good thing gets pointed in the wrong direction, someone's bum gets an extra hole.

So, the process of trying to work out your God-given passions becomes a process of working out something: What good thing am I desiring that my sinful nature is twisting and making evil?

So, in the case of lust, an example could be that the person desires a fulfilling and intimate relationship, but is reaching for something else to scratch that itch, or reaching for it in a wrong way.

I find this way of thinking helpful because it allows me to give my humanity, sin and redemption the full recognition they deserve:

1. My humanity, because I recognise that God created me so well.
2. My sin, because I have messed up so thoroughly something that was so good.
3. My redemption, because it ... (this is a fuzzy area in my thinking, so I'll leave it until I've sorted through the implications of my thoughts.)*

Lastly, it helps me to work out how I can rightly 'be myself'. It doesn't mean just doing what I feel like. It means unravelling the threads that have been knotted by sin, correcting yourself and working to be the man I was created to be with the help of Holy Spirit.

Thoughts?

*Yes, the redemption part hasn't been well-worked in this theory. Contributions towards that would be appreciated.

The art of not knowing everything

It's a lot harder than it sounds. I'm very tempted to assume that my perspective on life, the world and everything is sound, consistent and the most perceptive and worthwhile that there is. This occurs on multiple levels.

I've found that I have a habit of trying to defend my paradigm of thought, instead of opening myself up to understand things from another's perspective, and thus enriching my thinking. But of course, it's not just about enriched thinking, but enriched relationships where I can really respect the other person's views and treat that person and their thoughts with tenderness and love.

I find that the less I am protecting myself or my paradigm of thinking in any given conversation, the more genuinely I engage in meaningful interaction with that person (given a safe context, of course).

What's going on inside (part 1 of 2)

Over the last year or so, I've been reflecting on how I've often heard about the two natures struggling within us. That is, our sinful, fleshly nature and our new life in Christ by the Spirit. What I've realised is that I think that I've not heard as much as I should have about the third nature that we have, and how it relates to the others. That is, my original creation in the image of God, sustained by His common grace.

What I'm getting at is that:

1. I was created good. *
2. The good image of God was twisted in sin, and more as I sin more. **
3. I died to the second life, and was raised with Christ into a new life. ***

Thus, I actually have 3 natures, in a way. With me so far? I'll go further on the significance of this soon. (Or you could just spoil it for yourself and see what Simone reckons here. Or you could be patient and wait 'til tomorrow. I'm not going to decide for you.)

________________________________________

* Insert trite prooftexts here.

** No prooftexts required for an evangelical readership.

*** Also, perhaps, able to be viewed as a redemption of the initial nature, though exactly how that works is as yet unclear to me.