Gospel of John Duthie

Philip Yancey "Reaching for the invisible God"

2010-10-25T22:12:00.000-07:00

I enjoy reading books by Philip Yancey, and have just completed reading this book "Reaching for the invisible God".

Here are some parts that stood out...

Words in church tend to confuse people. The pastor proclaims that "Christ himself lives in you" and "we are more than conquerors," and although these words may stir up a wistful sense of longing, for many people they hardly apply to day-to-day experiences.

How do you sustain a relationship with a being so different from any other, imperceptible by the five senses ?

Sigmund Freud accused the church of reaching only questions that it can answer. Some churches may do that, but God surely does not. In books like Job, Ecclesiastes, and Habukuk, the Bible pose blunt questions that have no answers.

Modern churches tend to feature testimonies of spiritual successes, never failures, which only makes the strugglers in the pew feel worse.

Writers of the Bible lived in the "Holy Land", where bushes burst into flame, where rocks and volcanoes gushed sacred metaphors and the stars bespoke God's grandeur. No longer. The supernatural world has seemingly gone into hiding, leaving us alone with the visible.

Doubt is the skeleton in the closet of faith, and I know no better way to treat a skeleton than to bring it into the open and expose it for what it is; not something to hide or fear, but a hard structure on which living tissue may grow.

Doubt always coexists with faith, for in the presence of certainty who would need faith at all ?

The church owes a great debt to loyal traitors. At various times, church officials insisted on an earth 6000 years young, opposed medicines as obstructions against God's will, supported slavery, and ranked certain races ( and also women ) as inferior beings. Doubters questioned these and other dogmas, often bringing on themselves condemnation and persecution.

I have to face the honest fact that Christians live in poverty, get sick, lose their hair and teeth, and wear eyeglasses at approximately the same rate as everyone else. Christians die at exactly the same rate : 100 percent.

Christians often read the bible in such a way that exaggerates God's promises, setting themselves up for later disillusionment.

Many Christians quote the verse Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him," with the implication that somehow everything will turn out for the best.

A friend of mine, paralyzed in an accident, traces her turning point in faith to this very principle. She could not face a life of total paralysis, she could, however, face one day at a time, with God's help. The bible contains 365 commands to "fear not" - the most reiterated command in the bible - as if to remind us daily that we will face difficulties that might naturally provoke fear.

Throughout church history, Christian leaders have shown an impulse to pin everything down, to reduce behaviour and doctrine to absolutes that could be answered on a true-false test. Significantly, I do not find this tendency in the bible. Far from it, I find instead the mystery and uncertainty that characterize any relationship, especially a relationship between a perfect God and fallible human beings.

An ancient Orthodox writer wrote, "God cannot be grasped by the mind. If he could be grasped, he would not be God." We are profoundly different, God and I, which explains why friendship is not the primary model used in the bible to describe our relationship. Worship is.

Why doesn't God answer my prayers ? I do not know, but it helps me to realize that Jesus himself knew something of this frustration. In Gethsemane he threw himself on the ground, crying out for some other way - and there was no other way.

Jesus admired people like a Roman soldier who cared for his dying slave; a tax collector who stopped to help a man accosted by thieves; a sinner who prayer a simple "Help!" prayer; a shamed woman who reached out in desperation to touch his clothing; a beggar who ate crumbs from a rich man's table. He disapproved of religious professionals who refused to help the wounded for fear of soiling themselves; a proud clergyman who looked down on sinners; the rich who offered only crumbs to he hungry; a responsible son who shunned his prodigal brother; the powerful who lived on the backs of the poor.

God's withdrawal behind human skin, his condescension to live inside common foot soldiers, guarantees that all will sometimes doubt and many will reject God altogether. The plan also guarantees that the kingdom will advance at a slow, tedious pace, which God, showing remarkable restraint, does not overrule. It took eighteen centuries for the church to rally against slavery, and even then many resisted. Poverty still abounds, as does war and discrimination, and in some places the church does little to help.

Jesus never brainwashed anyone. To the contrary, he depicted the cost of following him in the most realistic terms imaginable ("Take up your cross and follow me"). He never imposed himself on another person but always left room for choice and even rejection.

A relationship with an invisible God will always include uncertainty and variability.

Spiritual passion erupts like a geyser in the early days following conversion, then settles into a lukewarm pool, and finally may evaporate of neglect or disillusionment.

A new born baby has all the body parts it will ever need, yet it must grow up in order to use them as intended. The same principle applies spiritually in the life of faith. "I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly - mere infants in Christ," Paul scolded the Corinthians. "I give you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it."

We need look no further than the Bible for examples of God's absence. "You have hidden your face from us", said Isaiah. "Why are you like a stranger in the land, like a traveller who stays only a night?" demanded Jeremiah. Any relationship involves with God, no matter how intimate, the pendulum will swing from one side to the other.

In the bible I see that God's absence may represent a time of testing, from which Jesus himself was not exempt. ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It may, on the other hand, represent a phase of relationship with no great underlying significance. I am not the first to experience dark times and will not be the last. If I respond by shutting God out, by giving up, I may well forfeit a necessary stage in growth toward a mature relationship. If God grants us the freedom to draw close and pull away, should not God have the same freedom ?

The virginal conception and the Bethlehem birth of Jesus

2010-09-09T20:45:00.000-07:00

Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, by John Dominic Crossan, was a very difficult book to read. I do not believe that Crossan was targeting the average Christian reader, but was targeting other Christian scholars. Compare this to authors such as John Shelby Spong who targets persons of all education backgrounds to read and understand his books. There were a few sections of Crossan's book which I had no trouble understanding, and the highlights are presented below.

In the chaper "A Tale of Two Gods", Crossan discusses the "virginal conception and the Bethlehem birth of Jesus"..........

A virgin shall conceive.

Both Matthew and Luke agree on the virginal conception of Jesus.

In Matthew 1:20-23:

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and they shall call his name Immanuel”

That cited prophet is Isaiah 7:14.

The prophecy in Isaiah says nothing whatsoever about a virginal conception. It speaks in Hebrew of an almah, a virgin just married but not yet pregnant with her first child. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures the term almah was translated as parthenos, which in that context meant exactly the same thing - namely, a newly married virgin.

Matthew, in any case, read the prophecy of Isaiah as one of hope rather than despair and took its term virgin to apply not only to the prior state of the mother but to her continuing state even during and after conception.

Born in David's village.

Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a village south of Jerusalem in the Judean hills.

Among the prophecies gathered into the book of Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah in the late eight century B.C.E. but, unlike him, from the lower classes, there is this fervent hope in 5:2

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah,

who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me

one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose coming forth is from of old,

from ancient days.

That prophecy is explicitly cited by Matthew 2:6 in explaining why the Expected One, the Messiah or Christ or Anointed One, would be born at Bethlehem. He seems to take it for granted that Joseph and Mary had always been resident there and moved to Nazareth only after the birth of Jesus and flight into Egypt.

Unlike Matthew, Luke starts his story with Joseph and Mary resident at Nazareth. So he must have them at Nazareth before the birth. Here is why they go to Bethlehem, in Luke 2:1-7;

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

3 problems.

First, there was no such worldwide census under Octavius Augustus.

Second, there was indeed a census of Judea, Samaraia, and Idumea, the territories ruled by Herod the Great's son Archelaus until the Romans exiled him to Gaul and annexed his lands in 6 C.E. Publius Suplicius Quirinius, the imperial legate for Syria in 6-7 C.E., would have been in charge of that census. But that was ten years after the death of Herod the Great, although Luke 1:5 starts the story of John and Jesus "in the days of Herod, King of Judea".

Third, we know from census and taxation decrees in Roman Egypt that individuals were usually registered where they were living and working. The idea of everyone going back to their ancestral homes for registration and then returning to their present homes would have been then, as now, a bureaucratic nightmare. What was important then, as now, was to get you registered where you could be taxed.........

Christianity has a new paradigm

2010-08-31T20:59:00.000-07:00

I've just completed reading the book "The Heart of Christianity - rediscovering a life of faith" by Marcus J Borg. It was a great book. It spoke of the prior and the new paradigm of Christianity. I've included passages of Chapter 1 below. It is entitled "The Heart of Christianity in a time of change". I personally its time for the new paradigm, as the prior paradigm puts people off Christianity.............

The earlier paradigm's view of Christianity is very familiar. Most of us over the age of 40 ( and many younger ) grew up with it. It has been the most common form of Christianity for the past few hundred years. Today, it is affirmed by fundamentalist, most conservative-evangelical, and many pentecostal Christians. And because it dominates Christian television and radio, it is the most publicly visible vision of Christianity and the Christian life.

The emerging paradigm has been visible for well over a hundred years. In the last twenty or thirty years, it has become a major grassroots movement among both laity and clergy in "mainline" or "old mainline" protestant denominations.

The earlier paradigm : The earlier paradigm sees Christianity as grounded in divine authority. For most protestants, divine authority resides in the Bible. For Catholics, it resides not only in the bible but also in the teaching authority of the church, expressed especially clearly in the notion of papal infallibility.

The earlier paradigm sees the bible as a divine product. For this paradigm, the bible comes from God as no other book does. It is the unique revelation of God.

The bible tells us how God sees things. In effect, the hard form of infallibility understands the Christian claim "The Bible is the Word of God" to mean "The Bible is the words of God". In British scholar Karen Armstrong's memorable comment, it sees the Bible as a kind of holy encyclopedia in which one may look up information about God.

The earlier paradigm interprets the Bible literally. It emphasizes the literal-factual interpretation of the Bible.

Biblical literalism also typically affirms the absolute character of biblical teachings, both doctrinal and ethical. The Bible as the revealed word of God is the ultimate authority for both faith and morals. As such, it tells us what God wants us to believe and how God wants us to live. From this point of view, considering the teachings of the Bible as anything other than absolute leads to a "cafeteria" way of being Christian, in which we "pick and choose" the beliefs and ethical teachings we like.

The earlier paradigm Christians in denominations that give a central place to the creeds, this way of seeing the Bible typically applies to the creeds as well. The creeds are understood as summaries of essential Christian doctrine.

Faith as believing is central. The reason is obvious : the earlier paradigm's way of seeing the Bible and the traditions is harder to believe, and that's why it takes faith.

The afterlife is central. For the earlier paradigm, the afterlife is central as both a promise and motive. Ultimately, it is why one should be a Christian.

The Christian life is about requirements and rewards.

So one must be a "good" Christian. What that means is variously understood. Often within the earlier paradigm, it means believing central claims about Jesus: that he was the Son of God, born of a virgin; that he died for our sins and that God raised him physically and bodily from the dead; and that he will come again some day. And it means seeking forgiveness when we fail. It means repentance and being right with God.

Of course, the earlier paradigm uses the language of God's grace and compassion and love, but its own internal logic turns being Christian into a life of requirements and rewards, thereby compromising the notion of grace. Indeed, it nullifies grace, for grace that has conditions attached is no longer grace.

The emerging paradigm : has been visible for well over a century. The way of seeing Christianity is widely shared among theological and biblical scholars and increasingly among laity and clergy within mainline denominations.

For the emerging paradigm, the Bible is the historical product of two ancient communities, ancient Israel and the early Christian movement. The bible was not written to us or for us, but for the ancient communities that produced it. A historical approach emphasizes the illuminating power of interpreting these ancient scriptures in their ancient historical contexts.

The emerging paradigm sees the bible metaphorically, by which I mean its"more than literal", "more than factual" meaning. It is not concerned with the historical factuality of the Bible's stories, but much more with their meanings. It is not bothered by the possibility that the stories of Jesus' birth and resurrection are metaphorical rather than literally factual accounts. It asks, "Whether it happened this way or not, what is the story saying? What meanings does it have for us?"

The emerging paradigm sees the Bible sacramentally, by which I mean the Bible's ability to mediate the sacred. A sacrament is something visible and physical whereby the Spirit becomes present to us. A sacrament is a means of grace, a vehicle or vessel for the Spirit.

Like the earlier paradigm, the emerging paradigm sees the Bible as sacred scripture, but not because it is a divine product. It is sacred in its status and function.

The emerging paradigm sees the Christian life as a life of relationships and transformation. Being Christian is not about meeting requirements for a future reward in an afterlife, and not very much about believing. Rather, the Christian life is about a relationship with God that transforms life in the present.

The two ways of being Christian are often suspicious of, even hostile toward, each other.

From the emerging paradigm's point of view, the earlier paradigm seems anti-intellectual and rigidly (but selectively) moralistic. Its insistence on biblical literalism makes little sense, as does its rejection of science whenever it conflicts with literalism. Advocates of the emerging paradigm are particularly perplexed and often impatient with the earlier paradigm's subordination of women, its negative attitude towards gays and lesbians, and its preoccupation with conservative political issues rather than issues of justice.

The notion that there is one right way of being Christian is made impossible by thinking about the diverse configurations there have been in Christian history. There are diverse forms and styles of Christian worship. They vary from Pentecostal enthusiasm at one end of the spectrum to Quaker silence at the other. To state the obvious, it's not that one of these forms of worship is right and the others wrong. They are simply different.

What the paradigms share in common : Despite their differences, the two paradigms share central convictions in common. The emerging paradigm, as I describe it, strongly affirms the reality of God, the centrality of the Bible, the centrality of Jesus, the importance of a relationship with God as known in Jesus, and our need ( and the world's need ) for transformation. To state the obvious, all of these matter to the earlier paradigm as well.

So the issue isn't that one of these visions of Christianity is right and the other wrong. Rather, the issue is functionality, whether a paradigm "works" or "gets in the way". For millions, the earlier paradigm still works.

But for millions of others, the earlier paradigm no longer works. Unpersuasive to them, it has become a stumbling block.

So also being Christian involves us in an unending conversation - with the bible, the Christian tradition, and each other.

Much of the conversation in our time is between the earlier paradigm and the emerging paradigm. The task is the ongoing construction of what it means to be Christian.

Churches and how to survive them

2010-08-18T20:54:00.000-07:00

Just finished reading the book "Churches and how to survive them" by Richard Holloway and Brice Avery. Richard is the Bishop of Edinburgh, and Brice is a psychiatrist. I found a few chapters of interest. I present the interesting sections below.

What puts people off church ?

Churches take a wrong turn when they get all tied up with ways of behaving, with ways of being perfect and good; whereas the thing that really marks out Christianity is that it is about God's gift to us. It is about God giving us grace, forgiveness and acceptance, like totally accepting parents. Obviously totally accepting parents want their children to grow up and mature; but their moral evolution is not what earns their parent's affection. Their affection is a given thing. It is not conditional on anything. It is unconditional love. This usually gets turned around by Christians into 'how can we live that we can earn God's love?' This puts a premium on good behaviour, or, much worse, on appearing to behave well.

Is the church human or divine ?

What is fascinating is the way in which the Church, as a large group of people with some sort of common aim, has created institutions with rules and hierarchies many of which are themselves not part of the recorded teaching of Jesus.

There are thousands and thousands of churches all thinking to a greater or lesser degree that they are the only reliable vessel for the containment and promulgation of Jesus' memory and message.

Nothing creates a sense of self-importance and identity in one group quicker than attacking another group. It isn't very healthy, but it is quick. We tend to be in a hurry when we are scared. You're in or you're out. The problem is that this activity can become an end in itself; it undermines the role of the church.

The Power and the Glory

Mark's gospel in chapter ten describes a power struggle among the apostles and Jesus points out that this was the world's way, 'But it shall not be among you', he went on. It is always a bit of a shock when the Church so blatantly contradicts the standard of Jesus.

Individuals and the message of Jesus

Jesuit missionaries were sent to the Canadian Indians in the eighteenth century. The missionaries went out with a very specific message which a Protestant fundamentalist would understand today. At death we either went to Hell and everlasting torment or to Heaven and everlasting bliss. The only way of getting to Heaven was to give your life self-consciously to Jesus and be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. No one could be saved expect through that formula. They speeded things up by tricking whole villages into saying these words. It was salvation by formula.

It generated a colossal missionary passion and people felt, 'My God, there are millions of souls in this world and they are not baptized and unless they are baptized they are not going to get a chance to live with God eternally'. Anne Dillard provides us with an interesting angle on all of this. More sophisticated missionaries acknowledged that if people had never actually heard the message of Jesus they could hardly be damned for their ignorance. 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell?' a hunter asked a local missionary priest. 'No', said the priest, 'not if you did not know'. 'Then why', asked the Eskimo earnestly, 'did you tell me?'

Fundamentalism

The thing that bugs me most as a religious professional, albeit one whom many more convinced believers might doubt the authenticity of, the thing that really gets me about Christian fundamentalists is that they project into me a sense that I am somehow not believing enough. They make me feel that I am not holding on to enough, that my faith isn't of a high enough octane.

No Easy Answers

I saw something on a church notice board that intrigued me: 'Full Gospel Fellowship - A bible based congregation'. As with all things, it was a highly coded message. Decoded, it said 'Other churches have departed from it, but we stick to the Bible'. Tell me, why do churches disagree so much about the Bible.'

I think this is one of those areas Bertrand Russell had in mind when he said that zeal was a bad mark for a cause because it was usually the sign of insecurity.

Now if we could really arrive at a final and undisputed conclusion about the Bible the rows would cease. Since that is unlikely ever to happen. I can guarantee that people will go on disputing about the Bible. Some people will always claim that they and they alone know the truth and everyone else is an apostate.

If you assume or believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and that every word in it is sacred and inerrant, then you would say of Paul's statements on women that they come directly from God and are to be obeyed. The fact that they run contrary to the way people feel today is beside the point. God's word must be obeyed and that's that. I don't agree with that line but I have a sneaking admiration for its toughness and refusal to be moved by current opinions. The thing to notice is that it is based on an assumption about the status of the bible. And there is an inevitable circularity here. How do we know that the Bible is the infallible Word of God ? Because the Bible tells us so. But why should I believe what the Bible tells me ? Because the Bible tells me so, and so on. We can never get beyond this circle. People who claim to act on this assumption pick and choose like the rest of us. They may practise the subordination of women but they do not necessarily give all their goods away, or refuse to retaliate against an aggressor.

The best rule in the spiritual life is to make the most of your own attempts at devotion and commitment and not waste energy on wondering about equally good people who may take a different approach. If you want to take the story of Adam and Eve literally and thereby become holy and more loving, I shall bless you. I hope that you will bless me in turn, though I take it as a myth, a way of conveying spiritual truth by narrative. I hope and pray that my approach will also help me to be holy and more loving.

Creedal development in the Christian Church

2010-08-12T23:38:00.000-07:00

This is the title of the 26th chapter of John Shelby Spong's book "The Sins of Scripture", and the following are selected paragraphs from the chapter.....

Christianity has in fact contributed things to our world of tremendous value. It preserved civilization though the dark ages. It produced exquisite music, architecture and art. It began the system of higher education that we today take for granted. It built the first hospitals and sought to establish a person's right to health care. It gave birth to the idea that life is sacred, an idea that still underlies our culture. Those are enormous, not trivial, accomplishments and they are not to be discounted or treated lightly.

However, Christianity has also given us religious persecution, religious wars and the Inquisition. It has produced a biblical fundamentalism that has endorsed slavery, oppressed women, justified wars, opposed scientific knowledge and persecuted homosexual persons. It has developed a history in which religious imperialism has sapped the meaning out of the very God that Christians claim to worship. It has helped to create a world of adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. So the question arises to what there is inside religion in general and Christianity in particular that could compel us in these destructive directions.

Christianity was born in an experience. It moved, as all forming experiences do, into the apparently necessity to explain that experience. Next it codified its own explanations so that they became creeds. Then it claimed for those creeds the authority of absolute truth. In time, it began to persecute and even to kill those who would not acknowledge the authority that was attributed to those creeds. In the process, it revealed ever so clearly what believers are loath to admit - namely, that religion is not primarily a search for truth, it is overwhelmingly a search for security.

Religion cannot really become organised unless it can be defined, nor can it be a source of security until it is defined. So religion needs to answer specific questions: For what do you stand ? What do you believe ? What makes you distinctive? But once those things are defined, religion always manifests its darkest, most destructive side. That is when we begin to hear the incredible claims of the frightfully fearful who require the possession of unchallenged authority. We have the truth. Reject it at your own risk. We are God's messengers. To obey us is to obey God. There is no salvation outside the church. We control the doorway to God. All of these claims should sound familiar to the Christian world, for in varying levels of sophistication, those have been offered as the underlying messages of the Christian faith.

Most members of the church's hierarchy regard the creeds as the source of the church's unity. However, the fact is that the exact opposite is the case. The creeds actually guarantee the disunity of the church and were consciously intended and designed to do just that. That is a strong statement, resisted by many on the first hearing, but history reveals that the primary purpose of any creed is to determine who it is that does not qualify for membership. Creeds are designed to separate the true believers from the false believers. Because creeds set boundaries, they inevitably divide.

..... The book then goes on to discuss the Apostle's creed, and the council of Nicea...

The council of Nicea was called by Emperor Constantine in the year 325 CE for the purpose of clarifying, presumably for all time, what the exact faith of the church was. The intention of the men who gathered for that council was to be able to state exactly what one must believe to be a Christian.

Can you imagine the task of forging an external Christian creed being the goal of a political convention ? Conventions are where deals are made, compromises are offered and secret backroom negotiations occur. How was "the faith which was made once for all delivered to the saints" going to fare in this setting ?

.... and finally the chapter ends with a discussion on the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, which I won't share here. Go and buy the book, its a good read.

Paul and homosexuality

2010-07-12T23:52:00.001-07:00

Paul writes about homosexuality in Romans. Looking at one of his passages from Romans 1:21-27 ( NIV )

²¹For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Usually this passage is one of many that is used to justify the church's position on homosexuality. However the meaning of the passage is that Paul is saying that the people were not worshipping God correctly, and their punishment was homosexuality.

Its quite a claim from Paul !

The threat of being changed to a homosexual would have been quite daunting for believers of the day. Not that there is anything wrong with being homosexual, the majority of heterosexuals do not want to sleep with someone of their own sex.

I cannot believe that a loving God would punish heterosexuals by changing them into homosexuals because they are committing idolatry.

Further, if these verses applied to believers today, then we would see a higher percentage of homosexuals in society, as there is plenty of idol worship by believers in the world today.

Therefore I once again conclude that there are verses in the bible which are the Word Of Men, not the Word of God.

Child Discipline according to God

2010-07-07T23:27:00.000-07:00

Christian fundamentalists generally believe that the bible is the "word of God".

Today's topic is "Child Discipline according to God" and lets believe for a while that the bible is the "Word of God".

God tells us....

He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to disciple him. Proverbs 13:24
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him. Proverbs 22:15
Do not withhold discipline from a child ; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will save his life from Sheol. Proverbs 23:13-14

Praise be to God, for I have just beaten up my children and now I love them more dearly, and I have saved them from Sheol ( which is Hebrew for grave ). I can't wait to tell my church buddies on Sunday, for they will see that I am in tune with God and his word.

Here are the thoughts of the retired Bishop John Shelby Spong in his book "The Sins of Scripture"...

Although this book ( Deuteronomy ) has had influence in Christian history, its impact generally not been recognized by most people. Yet the words from this book suggesting that physical discipline of children is appropriate have played a major role in the history of childrearing and, I would argue, in the history of child abuse.

If our religion tradition suggests that a child is "born in sin", it is clearly the duty of that child's parents or their surrogates to curb that willfulness and to control with force that implantation of "the devil".

The nuns in yesterday's Catholic schools were in many instances quite clearly feared by the students. When that reality is augmented by the sexual abuse of children to Roman Catholic priests that now appears to have been present in shocking, almost epidemic proportions in recent decades, the sickness present in the attitude of the Catholic Church toward children becomes very clear.

More significantly, it caused me to wonder what there is about Christianity itself that has bought about its constant emphasis on God as a punishing deity, its concept of hell as a place of eternal punishment and its portrait of Jesus as the one who took our punishment for us.

A loving father would not undertake such acts as contained in Deuteronomy. The authors of Proverbs, thought to be Solomon, Agur and Lemuel, are likely to have been lousy parents.

Is the bible the "Word of God" or the "Word of Man" ?

Lot, was he a Man of God ?

2010-07-05T00:48:00.000-07:00

Lot is mentioned in the Old Testament in Genesis chapters 11-14 and 19, and in the New Testament very briefly in Luke and 2nd Peter.

Paraphrasing the story of Lot

two angels visited Lot in the city of Sodom and were invited into his house as guests
people from the city saw the strangers and wanted to know them
Lot offered his daughters in place of the strangers, so that the people from the city could know the daughters instead
the men refused and the angels struck them blind
the angels informed Lot to take his family out of the city and not to look back
Lot's wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt
Once the rest of Lot's family is safe, God destroys the city of Sodom
Lot's family then has many children

The story is highlighting

there is much sin in the world ( the people of Sodom )
there are good people in the world ( Lot and his family)
the good people need to avoid being influenced by the badly behaved people, otherwise they may suffer some bad consequences ( Lot's wife )
there are consequences to bad behaviour ( Sodom destroyed )

The story sounds fair ?.... or does it ?

Lets delve a little more deeply into the story. I left a few details off the paraphrasing.

Lot was the only 'man of God' in the city of Sodom, and hence God saved his family, apart for this wife who could not do what she was told.

So what type of behaviour is consistent with being a Man of God according to the biblical story of Lot ?

The men of Lot wanted to "know" the strangers. This wasn't simply having a chat, it was to have sex with the strangers.

Lot made a counter offer. He offered his virgin daughters in place of the strangers, to do what they want with them.

It was better for his innocent young daughters to lose their virginity to the men of the town, rather than strangers he met for the first time.

And Lot is considered a "Man of God". Good enough for God to spare his life.

This is a very strange and evil way of showing your obedience and love for God, and a very bad example to other fathers.

Later once the family is safe ( apart from the good wife who couldn't obey all commands from his husband - and this is required by women of the bible ), the daughters get Lot drunk, and then Lot impregnates his daughters.

Therefore, Lot and his family, who were deemed to be good people, commit incest.

Lot, a "Man of God" initially offers his virgin daughters as play things to a group of men, and then later his daughters deliberately get him drunk in order to sleep with him.

Does this sound like the word of God ?

I would have to answer NO, it sounds like the word of man.

The word of man ( not woman ) from a time many thousands of years ago, that reflected the values of the culture of the time.

The story doesn't reflect the values of God.

I visited a web site at

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/was-lot-alcoholic.html

and their comment is below. Their conclusion is that its acceptable to perform incest when the circumstances permit it. I do not believe they have thought this through. Those that believe that the entire bible is the literal word of God continue to get themselves, and their God into trouble.

Consider the awesome and powerful events that Lot's family experienced in a relatively short time. They witnessed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah TOTALLY destroyed by fire and brimstone rained down from heaven by God. Then Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt because of her disobedience. The family is eventually forced, out of fear, to live in a cave. Given the situation wouldn't you be a bit distressed and afraid of what might happen next? Lot's daughters must have thought it was the end of civilization and that they were some of the only people then living. They were obviously greatly concerned about the future of their family (and possibly the human race). This concern led them to do what they did.

The 'Word of God'.. a claim that cannot endure

2010-06-29T20:38:00.000-07:00

I have been reading John Shelby Spong's book 'The Sins of Scripture'. Chapter 2 is titled 'A claim that cannot endure'. The chapter speaks of the claim that the bible is the word of God. The highlights of the chapter are below.

Perhaps the strangest claim ever made for any written document in history is that its words are or somehow contain the "word of God'.

"This is the Word of the Lord". That is the phrase that mainline Christian churches most frequently use following a reading from the bible in the Sunday liturgy. The congregation responds dutifully with words "Thanks be to God".

When some Christians say of the bible "This is the word of God", they mean quite literally that they believe this book was written or dictated by God and is therefore inerrant.

I do not understand how anyone can saddle God with the assumptions that are made by biblical authors, warped as they are both by their lack of knowledge and by the tribal and sexist prejudices of that ancient time.

Can we really worship the God found in the bible who sent the angel of death across the land of Egypt to murder the firstborn males in every Egyptian household in order to facilitate the release of the chosen people ?

Execution squads would have to work overtime to keep up with the number of texts from the bible that call for the death penalty.

The case for the bible possessing the authority of being the "word of God", or at the very least having been divinely inspired, gets even murkier when the biblical claim is made that epilepsy and mental illness are both caused by demon possession, or that profound deafness, what we once referred to pejoratively as being "deaf and dumb", is caused by the devil tying the tongue of the victim.

When Paul says in his letter to the Galations, "I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves" (5:12), is there something Godlike in his words that I am missing? How about the advice to women to keep their heads covered in worship or his assumption that the ancient Hebrew myth of Adam and Eve proved that women were inferior to men ( 1 Cor 11:2-16 ).

In contemporary studies of the way the gospels came into being, scholars are all but unanimous today in asserting that Mark was written first and that both Matthew and Luke incorporate Matthew into their narratives. The problem for the excessive claim of a divine origin for the scriptures, then comes when we discover that both Matthew and Luke changed Mark, expanded Mark and even omitted portions of Mark. This is not exactly the way one treats something identified as the "word of God", or even something thought to be inspired by God. The problems grow when these same studies reveal that Matthew and Luke periodically disagreed with Mark and thus contradicted him. Luke went so far as to edit Mark's poor grammar, treating Marcan source very much as an English professor might treat a freshman's term paper.

Not only was the Jesus story in the gospels written some forty to seventy years after the earthly life of Jesus had come to and end, but it was written quite deliberately with the Hebrew scriptures open so that the story of Jesus could be conformed to those expectations.

I am now convinced that institutional Christianity has become so consumed by its quest for power and authority, most of which is rooted in the excessive claims for the bible, that the authentic voice of God can no longer be heard within it.

My hope is that we can be ready to hear that still voice of calm that bids us to return to that vocation which is, I believe, the essence of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

We are to build a world in which every person can live more fully, love more wastefully and be all that God intends for each person to be. In that vocation we will oppose everything that diminishes the life of a single human being, whether it is race, ethnicity, tribe, gender, sexual orientation or religion itself

Discrimination of the disabled in Leviticus

2010-06-06T23:04:00.000-07:00

Futher to my posts about Levictus, I've found verses that discriminates against the disabled.

I reject the notation that God discriminates against people because of their disabilities. This is not the action of a loving God.

Leviticus 21:17-23

Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.’”

Therefore if you are a biblical literalist, then imperfect people will desecrate the santuary of God.

Even worse, if the imperfection was from birth, then surely the imperfection has been created by God.

How could prayer then help a disabled person if God feels so desecrated by the presence of the person ?

It shows that the bible is the word of man, not the word of God. The bible is an attempt to describe God, and an attempt to describe Jesus. It does much better in describing Jesus.

If we take the book of Leviticus in the correct context, then we see that the authors were men with much hate in their hearts for disabled people.

Its not God who discriminates against disabled people.

Homosexuality and Slavery in Leviticus

2010-06-02T03:02:00.000-07:00

Leviticus is primarily about laws for God's People.

Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Those who believe that the bible is the literal word of God quote this reference ( as well as others ) to show that God dislikes homosexuality, both at the time the book of leviticus was written, and today.

What are God's views on slavery ?

Its accepted by Christian churches today that slavery is wrong, surely this will be because God believes it is wrong, otherwise churches today are not sharing the same viewpoint as God.

Lets see what Leviticus says about slavery as of today ( using the same logic as a bible literalist uses for homosexuality )

Levicitus 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

There is a problem...

Leviticus ( the word of God to literalists ) mentions it is fine to have slaves, and churches do not support this view.

Churches and God have different opinions.

Possible solutions...

1) both rules in leviticus need to be adhered to today because the book is the literal word of God ( and we raid New Zealand for slaves and continue to consign homosexuals to Hell )

2) we realise that both rules do not apply to our culture today, as the book of leviticus was written by men, and our society's viewpoint on both homosexuals and slaves have changed over time.

What do you choose ?

( and if you choose 1 please leave a comment about where you are sourcing your slaves from... it would be interesting to hear )

Self-Consciousness and Theism : Siamese twins at birth

2010-05-24T23:30:00.001-07:00

Selected paragraphs taken from "A New Christianity for a New World" John Shelby Spong ( chapter 3 Self-Consciousness and Theism : Siamese twins at birth )

But regardless of how or when one dates the arrival of human beings on this planet, one is forced to recognise that for literally hundreds of millions of years, most of the living creatures who inhabited this planet were born, lived, and died with no conscious awareness of themselves.

They simply passed through billions of life cycles, guided by biological instinct and environmental necessity in an apparently endless wheel of fortune, without any need, desire, or ability to raise questions of either mortality or purpose.

Then it happened : somewhere in that almost infinite span of time, incipient self consciousness entered the life of this planet.

As the realization of mortality grew in humans, a dreadful sense of anxiety gripped them.

Had these creatures, our ancient human ancestors, not learned to cope with the angst accompanying self-consciousness, that consciousness would have proved to be an ineffective evolutionary step, for no creature can live with chronic, unrelieved angst and survive. Indeed, I suspect that in those early years of human history the issue of survival for those humans who had achieved this evolutionary breakthrough was very much in doubt.

But learn to cope they did.

But the most powerful coping device of all, and the one I suspect did more to secure this evolutionary breakthrough than any other at the dawn of self consciousness, was the birth of a theistic concept of God, and thus the beginning of what we now call religion.

That conclusion then led to another "Perhaps these powerful forces can be made to work for me or at least not against me". The ruminations continued within the breast of the first self-conscious creature "Perhaps these other vital powers are benevolent. Perhaps they desire to help, watch over, and protect me".

God understood theistically was thus a human definition, not a divine revelation. Theism was created by a frightened self aware humans to assist them in the task of banking the fires of hysteria brought on by the trauma of self-consciousness.

The theism definition of God is a human creation. Thus theism is not the same as God.

Since powerful human beings reveled in and relished the flattery of their dependent subjects, it came to be assumed that the supernatural deity or deities also delighted in the praised of those protected by theistic power. So acts of praise, hymns, and psalms were created to make the theistic deity aware of the fact that human beings recognized and stood in proper awe of the divine power.

Almost every religious system asserted that its particular deity was the only true and real divine being. To keep this claim from being eroded, even more powerful claims were made, suggesting that those religious leaders or designated holy people who had defined this one true deity also possessed an absolutely certain pipeline to ultimate truth.

It was a circular argument, as all irrational arguments are : our given deity is the only true deity; the truth of this deity has been given only to us, and it was given by direct revelation, so its truth cannot be questioned.

God first became the gap filler, explaining those things that human knowledge could not. The gaps, however, grew faster with each century, and more are being closed each day by the advances of knowledge.

If theism does, does God die ? That is the question postmodern men and women are struggling to answer.

Hysterical fundamentalism is not the way into the future, it is the last gasp of the past. It will not work.

The time has surely come when human beings must begin a new exploration into the divine, must sketch out a vision of the holy that is beyond theism but not beyond the reality for which the word God was created to point.

Do churches still burn heretics ?

2010-05-20T20:32:00.000-07:00

Was reading Bishop John Shelby Spong's book "A new Christianity for a New World"

It is one thing to assert that what one believes about God matters and should shape the public's perception of reality. It is quite another to suggest that a particular view of God must be imposed upon the entire secular order. History reveals that such attempts at imposition have been carried out by the church repeatedly, and not infrequently in cruel and inhumane ways.

I thought, for example, of that period of medieval history when the church believed that the articulation of its doctrinal faith required universal allegiance. Disagreement was simply not allowed. That was the mentality which produced the crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of heretics at the stake.

( why does it matter pages 220/221 )

Spong then goes onto to talk about Giordano Bruno, who was put to death via fire on orders from the church in february 17, 1600.

Read more about him on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno ).

The wiki mentions

Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, who is best known as a proponent of the infinity of the universe. His cosmological theories went beyond the Copernican model in identifying the sun as just one of an infinite number of independently moving heavenly bodies: he is the first man to have conceptualized the universe as a continuum where the stars we see at night are identical in nature to the Sun. He was burned at the stake by authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy. After his death he gained considerable fame; in the 19th and early 20th centuries, commentators focusing on his astronomical beliefs regarded him as a martyr for free thought and modern scientific ideas.

On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode". Despite his regret, he defended Bruno's persecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to preserve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life" by trying to make him recant and subsequently by appealing the capital punishment with the secular authorities of Rome

Back to my question "Do churches still burn heretics ?".... the answer is NO ( I hope ! ), but there is still little respect for scientists in conservative churches. These churches continue to reject the scientific knowledge from scientists today, holding onto a view that the bible is to be taken literally ( e.g. the creation story in Genesis ).

If Charles Darwin was born 250 years earlier, he would also have been burnt at the stake, for his theories contained in the book "On the origin of the species".

I'm sure there are prayer groups that pray that scientists will stop contradicting information contained in the bible, and probably even a group that prays that the large hadron collider will fail in the attempt to discover more about the universe.

I'd like to see churches encourage scientists to discover more about the universe that God created... lets pray for the scientists rather than branding them as heretics and burning them at the stake !

Are babies really born as helpless, depraved, sinful, and in need of divine rescue ?

2010-05-16T21:29:00.000-07:00

It is time, I am convinced, to move Christianity beyond that historically inaccurate and psychologically damaging definition of humanity that has resulted in a constant denigration of human life as helpless, depraved, sinful, and in need of divine rescue.

The suggestion made by so much of the Christian theology of the past that every baby born with the stain of original sin distorting his or her goodness is abhorrent to me.

I now regard the traditional Christian interpretation of the account of the fall of humanity, told in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, as the ultimate example of distorted negative thinking.

When I look at what human beings have achieved, form great works of art to magnificent symphonies, from architectural wonders to surgical and medical skills that are breathtaking, I stand in awe of human life.

A religion that is based on denigrating humanity cannot make sense out of life to me.

John Shelby Spong "A New Christianity for a New World" page 149/150

John Shelby Spong quotes

2010-05-05T23:50:00.000-07:00

“Conservative Roman Catholicism and evangelical fundamentalists are growing, ... Hysterical people are seeking security.”

"A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and fearful people. This is done by justifying a way of life with all of its defining prejudices. It thereby provides an appropriate and legitimate outlet for one's anger. The authority of an inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted to buttress this point of view becomes an essential ingredient to such a life. When that Bible is challenged, or relativized, the resulting anger proves the point categorically. "

"Papal infallibility and biblical inerrancy are the two ecclesiastical versions of this human idolatry. Both papal infallibility and biblical inerrancy require widespread and unchallenged ignorance to sustain their claims to power. Both are doomed as viable alternatives for the long- range future of anyone. "

"So who is God? No one can finally say. That is not within human competence. All we can ever say is how we believe we have experienced God, doing our best to dispel our human delusions. Let me try to do just that. I experience God as the source of life calling me to live fully and thus to respect life in every form as embodying the holy."

John Shelby Spong and Prayer

2010-04-27T20:52:00.000-07:00

On September 11 2009 I had a nasty accident and as a result became a paraplegic.

I recently read the book "A New Christianity for a New World" by the retired Bishop John Shelby Spong.

The chapter that caught my attention is entitled "But what about prayer", as since that accident I've wondered about God and prayer, and in particular, why my accident occurred, and whether prayer is actually doing any good.

If God is everywhere and all powerful and loving, then why couldn't he stop the tree from falling on myself, or at least repair the damage ?

And why allow a tidal wave to kill 240,000 people ?

I thought I would share some of the first part of the chapter..........

A national news story circulated by the Associated press recently told of a student athlete at a college - defined in that story as a "Christian Bible school" in Tenessee - who had both of her legs amputated below the knees as a result of a disease known as meningococcal meningitis.

It seems that these students expected the promises of God that they read in scripture to be taken literally not just by them, but, more important, also by God.

The apostle Paul had directed his readers to "pray without ceasing" 1 Thess 5:17, and so these young adults did exactly that. Upon hearing of their fellow student's rare diagnosis, they organised around the clock prayer vigils so that no moment of any day or night were the gates of heaven not stormed by a member of that student on behalf of the endangered classmate.

These believing young people also reminded one another that Jesus had said "Ask and it will be given to you" Matt 7:7, and so these students asked, making their requests known to God relentlessly, constantly.

They told one another, futhermore, that their Christ had assured them in the gospels that "all things are possible" Mark 9:23, and that prayer can produced miracles, moving mountains if need be, Mark 11:23 and Matt 17:20. They saw this apparent tragedy in their life of their classmates as a test designed to verify the truth of that assurance.

They were, they said, simply taking God at God's word, and they expected God to do God's part, which was nothing more or less than to fulfill the divine promised of scripture. "God doesn't lie" they assured each other.

But despite all that they had believed and all that they did, this disease relentlessly progressed, taking its dramatic toll: this fellow student was forced to endure a double amputation.

The non believer's cliche, so filled with hostile satire, which suggests that "Nothing fails to work better than prayer" was the experience that this community endured.

Some students, according to this story, defensively saved the basic assumption of their faith by moving from the task of praying for specific things to the far more passive and dependent stance of praying only "thy will be done"

These students did not seem to embrace the fact that this shift rendered the promised they quoted from scripture to be null and void. In this retreat, whatever happens, no matter how tragic or evil, must be accepted as God's will.

This stance presents us with a deity who wills such things as the amputation of a young person's legs. This pious, but woefully inadequate, fallback position also means we must conclude that those who are killed in war and those who manage to survive are according to the will of a deity who controls the world. The theistic God pointed pointed to in this mindset appears to be manipulative, vindictive and even cruel.

Other students at this same school had as their primary concern the fact that their victimised fellow student might turn her wrath on God and blame the deity for her fate. If God had the power to save her legs and did not do so, then God was surely guilty of blameworthy malevolence. That conclusion was fraught with peril for her soul. If she, as the victim, adopted such a stance, it would, in the minds of her fellow students, constitute blasphemy. The great danger of blasphemy is that the blasphemer runs the risk of incurring, once again, the divine wrath.

If God had on the first occasion struck her in anger, what might God do if she were to return the divine anger with her own ? God might strike again, and even more terribly !

This scenario, contemplated with fear by these young believers, presents us with a picture of theism at its immoral worst. God is now portrayed as a vindictive demon.

Another student offered yet another theory that further reveals the inadequacies of all theistic thinking. This tragedy in his classmate's life was, he asserted, simply part of another more complex divine plan that God had in mind for her. Neither the student offering the explanation nor the victim herself could see that plan from their place in time, but someday, if they trusted God deeply enough, it would be revealed.

The beauty of this rationalization was that God would be vindicated eventually. Then, as this student suggested, the victim would give thanks that this experience, so apparently purposely initially, had been part of God's grand plan. The loss of her legs, he suggested, was actually just a necessary stepping stone into a greater opportunity that God would reveal to her.

God apparently had some need for a legless young adult.

The theistic God must be protected from the irrationality that seems to surround the deity. This God must be shown to be in control, no matter what the evidence suggests to the contrary.

Thats all I am going to share from the book, its an interesting read. I feel that I've had a similar experience to the young student, and I know that hundreds of people are praying for myself, I'm just waiting for that day the bible verses mentioned above are acted upon and I walk again.

Why don't all church ministers agree with each other ?

2010-04-13T02:12:00.000-07:00

Christian fundamentalists believe that the creation story found in the book of Genesis is the literal truth.

And the creation occurred between 4,000 and 10,000 years ago.

My post will attempt to show that the ministers of today have shown by their own behaviour that the story of Creation as portrayed in Genesis is very unlikely to be true.

The author of Genesis is thought to be Moses, and Moses has something in common with every church minister today.

They were all inspired by God to write.

Christian fundamentalists believe that the inspiration for Genesis was virtually a form of dictation from God to Moses, and therefore the words are 100% accurate and the literal truth.

I had a chat to a fundamentalist just last week who shared this information ( they are sending their church minister to attempt to change my mind and I am sure they are praying for me right now :-) )

Today we have ministers deliver their sermons, also being inspired by God. Its fairly evident that church ministers do not totally agree with each others sermons. Especially across denominations.

If God is the same today as yesterday ( For I am the Lord, I do not change." Malachi 3:6 ), the inspiration provided today to church ministers is the same as that given to Moses, therefore each minister is accurately giving a message from God.

Then why do some ministers disagree ?

Everyone who is inspired to write, does not get the words dictated from God, and the author is writing from their own knowledge of the topic., therefore they don't get the message correct each time.

This includes all church ministers, and all biblical writers, including Moses.

Moses used the scientific knowledge of the day to put together a wonderful story, and if taken in the proper context, then the bible and science are a little closer to peacefully co-existing.

Its also possible that I was inspired by God and didn't get it correct either :-)

No More Christian Nice Guy ( Chapter 12 )

2010-04-03T21:53:00.001-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 12 – no more mr nice guy : practical help for your new life ahead

It is not sinful to have normal God given needs and wants. They don’t make you worldly either – they make you human.

Contrary to what you’ve been told by some scripture twisters, you are not a slave to other people. Rather you are an agent of God’s redemptive power that serves other people as you choose. Sometimes this means telling people no without giving them a long explanation or having a concrete reason that they need to hear.

Use “I want/need” statements combined with what you want or need, and don’t apologise for asking ; Jesus tells us to be honest about what we believe and desire. “Simply let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything beyond this comes from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37)

Its similarly important that you don’t approach your needs and wants from a position of anger.

Your thoughts and feelings should be valued ; don’t justify them to people who think you shouldn’t have thoughts and feelings.

Jesus didn’t allow just anyone into his interior world – keeping a part of yourself separate is not a sin.

Though we’ve examined how assertiveness is normally our goal, there are times when choosing to be passive or aggressive is right. Again, Jesus exemplified both. Acting out a form of passivity can be proactive when it’s a conscious choice in a given situation.

When Lazarus was sick, Jesus delayed until Lazarus died. Jesus assertively chose not to resist when he was betrayed, arrested in the garden, put on trial, and mocked by his captors. And, in an intriguing story in Matthew 17:24-27, Jesus assertively chose not to give offense and instead to pay the unfair and arbitrary temple tax.

Consider passivity

1.when someone is already apologizing

2.when being assertive could seriously hurt another

3.when assertiveness could put your life or the lives of others in danger

4.when assertiveness is likely to cause imminent personal loss

When you make an error, apologise when sincerity. You are not responsible for whether the someone accepts your apology. You are only responsible for your own actions.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 11 )

2010-04-03T21:49:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 11 – searching one’s soul and facing one’s fears

Christian men in general fear that they won’t behave like “Christians should” if they free themselves from expectations I’ve tried to show are unbiblically unfounded.

They fear what their religious leaders will say, what the crowd might think, what their family and friends may do.

These are the same exact groups that surrounded Jesus in the Gospels ; none always understood or accepted him either, yet he let none stop him.

“I alone know my purpose for you, says the Lord ; prosperity and not misfortune, and a long line of children after you. If you invoke me and pray to me, I will listen to you ( Jerimiah 29:11-12). Its vital to realize that many people believe that God and life in general is out to get them.

“In this world you will have troubles. But take heart ! I have overcome the world” ( John 16:33 )

If earthly trouble is inevitable, living small is not the answer; that just means the Nice Guy pointlessly lives small and has troubles all the same.

“God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love, and of self discipline ( 2 Timothy 1:7 )

Our parents were the only ones required to take care of us. Some did, some didn’t. If they failed, its up to you – not your wife, girlfriend, boss, minister, children – whoever to do something about it.

No one on this earth is accountable to bring you what you need or want. Its not up to your wife or girlfriend to fill your emotional holes. That’s your job. It’s not your minister’s role to maintain your relationship with God. That’s up to you.

You won’t eliminate fear during your lifetime, but instead of being captive to fear you can move through it.

You will learn how to use fear as a motivator ; you won’t be fearless, but you will fear less. Fear will become a cue to proactivity just as hunger is a cue to eat.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 10 )

2010-04-03T21:40:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 10 – masculinity : the journey from nice guy to good guy part 2

Masculinity compels a man into areas of risk that be otherwise might not enter.

Men, if they’re wise, want some degree of domestic life because it is designed to improve them ; domestic life gives us a venue for spiritual growth that’s unlike many other settings.

I endured discomfort for my family’s betterment. It was my way of saying “I love you guys”. However, this isn’t a commonly accepted definition. When a guy gets up on the roof and fixes a leak or goes out in a rainstorm and unclogs a downspout, we don’t call it love. Such sacrifice is not granted the nobility it deserves. Many of us guys consider such labors far superior to sentimental expression like flowers or chocolates, we’d sometimes rather do something for you than give you perishable gifts.

Good guys allow others to suffer when it’s necessary, with the desire and prayer that they’ll face their difficulties in life and through them will grow and mature. Nice people try to fix others; good people tell others that it’s up to them to make their lives better and that surrendering to God is the best choice they can make.

Good people do not feel compelled to constantly project “nice”. The bible is full of examples.

In today’s evangelical subculture, Christians, especially Christian men, are not supposed to get angry about anything.

Anger itself is neither good nor bad. Paul wrote “Be angry and do no sin” (Ephesians 4:26). Anger’s rightness depends on the direction we move with its power and energy. Anger can be a stimulant, a motivator to propel our indifferent hearts into redemptive action.

The late youth minister Mike Yaconelli once told about meeting Mother Teresa. “She’s tough as nails. She’s uncompromising and she irritates people. She’s willfull and domineering. She gets angry. She’s not nice, but no one would say she isn’t good.”

As for being shrewd, I can hear the chorus of howls : Were not supposed to know more about the world. We aren’t supposed to be worldly ! But who’s talking about being worldly ?

I’m talking about a Christian masculinity that understands how the world functions without buying into the world’s destructive values. Jesus knowing how the world works, knew he would be betrayed, because people often love money and power more than God and his truth. This savvy knowledge and insight helped the man Jesus stay true to his life mission.

Religion and Reason, Faith and Truth, Fundamentalism and Violence.....An in-depth analysis by Jason Davies-Kildea

2009-08-27T17:18:00.000-07:00

Religion and Reason, Faith and Truth, Fundamentalism and Violence.....An in-depth analysis by Jason Davies-Kildea

Go check it out... its a great read ....... now my comments .....

According to Cameron (1995, pp. 7,9), fundamentalism’s defining characteristics include ‘hostility to freedom, truth, and dissent; and an insistence on authority, obedience, conformity, andindoctrination.’

Can you think of any Christian denomination that has much emphasis on authority, obedience,conformity and indoctrination ?

Hints

authority - a quasi-military structure
obedience - the founder required complete obedience to authority
conformity - positional statements that everyone in the organisation must agree with
indoctrination - senior soldiership

Jason, I enjoyed your article, and your thoughts are refreshing, however I believe the army needs to make changes in the areas mentioned above, otherwise it will struggle to exist in the future as a church.

I am certainly not interested in conforming to positional statements that are discrimination against people created by God ( e.g. SA position on homosexuality ).

I like to think for myself without having to be obedient to everything a salvation army officer says.

The chain of command quasi military structure is a 'do as I say' management structure. It appears the higher you go the closer to God you are, therefore those below should not question any thing..

Thanks for the great article

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 9 )

2009-08-21T17:14:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 9 – masculinity : the journey from nice guy to good guy part 1

We’ve turned Jesus into a wimp who performed magic tricks.

There are 3 type of men

Passive – these men extend something that looks like grace – a disposition to be generous, helpful, and merciful. However, the reason passive men accept insults and other forms of humiliation is that they fear what might happed with an eruption of conflict – the sound of life happening

Aggressive – these men are more honest – they’re glad to tell you what they’re thinking. However they lack soul warming grace

Assertive – It’s this type we must seek to be. Our goal is to be like Christ, the assertive one, who extended grace and mercy when it was warranted and spoke the stinging truth when it was called for

I saw quickly that you couldn’t last long in ministry if you thought you had to be nice all the time ; tough decisions must be made.

Someone has to make a final call, or else a church will flounder.

We cannot fulfill Christ’s requirement for wisdom, shrewdness, or cunning unless we are proactive, these are active, forward-moving behaviours. The road to holiness is paved by what we do as well as what we don’t do. Proactivity is doing what we should be doing.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 8 )

2009-08-12T18:11:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 8 – nice guy, naïve guy : how being nice hurts men at work

Christian Nice Guys believe that they must do everything perfectly, which they think is insurance against criticism.

These men have a hard time asking for help, because they think it shows weakness.

You have a right to be wrong, and nothing teaches and matures you like mistakes.

No one is responsible for the paycheck other than you and the aid you allow God to give you.

Church culture tells men to give an earnest answer to every question posed – regardless of its intent and regardless of how Jesus handled trickery. When Jesus was confronted with entrapping questions – he either didn’t answer them or he threw out penetrating inquiries of his own.

After drawing unwanted attention to Judas, the primary conspirator, with sustenance at the Last Supper, Jesus told him “What you are about to do, do quickly” – even telling his betrayer what to do ! The irony of his kiss was not lost on Jesus – he bamboozled the bamboozlers and even then got the last laugh. Why hasn’t this been the subject of a sermon. Because even although it’s how Jesus behaved, we say it’s not Christian. How can something not be Christian and yet Christ would say or do ?

Here is what every CNG needs to memorise “I’ll get back to you on that”. If pushed for a specific time, don’t be too specific, do say that you’ll check your schedule, and don’t talk on and on.

Shoot back a few questions of your own, like “How long have you know about this”. Often he who owns the questions owns the conversation.

As Jesus exemplifies, there is no sin whatsoever in protecting yourself from the hidden agendas and entrapping inquiries of others.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 7 )

2009-08-11T04:42:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 7 – confused to vilified : our culture’s view of masculinity

The largest, most critical factor predicting whether a child will graduate from high school, attend university, avoid crime, reject drugs, or not become pregnant before 18 is a father’s presence in his or her life.

According to a recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services, “Fathers play a unique role in fostering the well being of their children, not only through providership, protection and guidance, but also through the way they nuture the next generation.”

One study of 7th graders found that boys who had close relationships with their fathers were more likely to control their feelings and impulses, to obey rules at school and home, and to make good moral judgements… This same study found that boys with involved fathers had fewer school behaviour problems and that girls had more self esteem.

Jesus was illegally slapped by an official at his so-called trial, and instead of literally turning his other cheek to be slapped again, he stood up for himself and insisted this this abuse, this bully, follow legal protocol.

He didn’t follow protocol with the high priest; as recorded in John 18, when questioned about his teaching, Jesus said everything he taught was delivered publicly, that nothing was said in secret. “Why, then do you question me” he asked. To his attacker, Jesus responded, “If I have said anything wrong, tell everyone here what it was. But if I am right in what I have said, why do you hit me?”

Jesus did not follow our Church’s current teaching about being a doormat and laying down personal rights, he assertively retained them and laid them down when he chose, not when anyone else required it. Jesus admonishment to ‘Turn the other check” does not mean to accept abuse; its means to not return evil for evil. Protecting yourself verbally or physically is simply that, self-protection.

Jesus called Herod Antipas, a mighty authority figure, “that fox”, which in todays language means scumbag, someone sly and underhanded.

Men and Women are different physically, emotionally, and psychologically. Mothers possess a greater ability to understand infants and children. Fathers excel when it comes to discipline, play, and exhorting their children to embrace life’s challenges.

Children who roughhouse with fathers usually learn quickly that biting, kicking, and other such actions are not acceptable.

Fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage their children to take up difficult tasks, to seek out fresh experiences, and to endure pain and hardship without yielding.

US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan says “A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship with male authority… that community asks for, and gets, chaos”.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 6 )

2009-08-07T02:01:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 6 – we’re men, not eunuchs

His head resting between my breasts – the head of my lover. (song of songs 1:13 )

You are tall and supple, like the palm tree, and your full breasts are like sweet clusters of dates. I say “I’m going to climb that palm tree. I’m going to caresss its fruit. Oh Yes. Your Breasts … “ (song of songs 7:8-9 )

If you were to withhold the name of the book, and show the steamier passages of Song of Songs to the good church folk this week, some would likely throw it on the ground and call it the writing of a pervert.

The bible celebrates sex within the contest of wedded bliss, but you wouldn’t know it from a typical church service or an hour or Christian radio. The bible devotes an entire book, Song of Songs, to the goodness of sexual union and intimacy.

We repeat marriage vows that include proclamations of fidelity with words like honour, protect and care for; we rightly condemn behaviour that breaks these vows, but we fail to condemn behaviour that neglects them. Unfaithfulness and neglect are not separate categories – both are examples of disloyalty that simply differs by degree.

Think about the redemptive good we would do if we told of how married people actually have more sex, and more fulfilling sex, than singles do.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 5 )

2009-08-06T02:19:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 5 – how being nice ruins love and marriage

Acting nice all the time leads to problems across the board, none more painful for Christian Nice Guys than in love and marriage. Statistically, many of them are headed for divorce.

The church encourages Christian men to be passive , and this leads to broken relationships and opportunities.

Christians are taught that it’s sinful to tell others what one really thinks and feels. This is damaging because people are naturally expressive.

No man in his right mind gets married to solely to serve. He has wishes, needs, and desires as well. The church has told him this is selfish and sinful. The God given part of the true man has dignity, including inherent needs and desires.

Unconditional love is beautiful and imperative when dealing with small children. The same type of unconditional love toward an adult – without requiring respect – is foolish and damaging.

One wife writes “My husband has no backbone, and its hard to respect him. If I’m honest, I don’t respect him. He’s so non-functional, and it has gotten me and my family into more problems.”

Why does contemporary Christianity encourage mild living when Jesus showed more passion than anyone else around him ?

The Christian church tells men to lead, but then strips them of the emotional power to so by warning them to be “moderate in all things” and keeping them fearful about upsetting their wives.

Passion, emotional energy, bravery, guided by the Holy Spirit, leads to redeemed and enhanced marriages.

Why do we think that the absence of conflict is the greatest measure of marital harmony.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 4 )

2009-08-05T04:28:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 4 "Childhood : where we learnt to live small"

Abuse tends to run in families, holding generations in bondage.

Family histories aren’t much different than national ones : when you are ignorant of them, you’re bound to repeat the same mistakes.

Fear causes people to draw back from situations; it brings on mediocrity ; it dulls creativity ; it sets up one to be a loser in life.

Anxiety weighs our hearts down (proverbs 12:25) and chokes God’s healing word (Mark 4:19).

Fear is a snare (Proverbs 29:25). God takes no pleasure in men who shrink back (Hebrews 10:38)

Odd how we guys will tolerate an out of tune life while spending an entire weekend and large sums of money on an out of tune car.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 3 )

2009-08-04T03:44:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 3 "Other earnest by damaging messages to men"

We need a mess infusion of common sense if men who have departed from the local church are to return. This will also help men who have not left, but who have learned to disguise their yawns and who check their watches during sermons that cater almost entirely to feminine sensibilities and concerns.

The 1960s help create one of the greatest periods of gender confusion in history. Men widely misspent their masculinity, spilling semen with little concern for repercussion, a destructive shift that created an epidemic on out-of-wedlock births, which statistically leads to increased poverty, gang activity, drug abuse, family fragmentation, and an array of serious crime.

The sexual revolution’s destruction of the nuclear family is now a historical reality. Equally established is how the church fought back – one of only a handful of cultural institutions with enough guts to do so – by telling entire generations of men to take their responsibilities and duty more seriously.

The bible constantly addresses spirituality and morality, nowhere does it state or imply that either woman or man are more spiritual or moral than the other. I’m with the apostle Paul on this one “All are equal in Christ Jesus ( Galations 3:28 )

Christian men tell me they are glad to sacrifice for their families, but they don’t think such sacrifice should include killing themselves at jobs they can’t stand so their wives can feel happy in a new car every 3 years and a larger home every 5.

Christians have been held hostage by the misappropriation of certain directives in Paul’s letters to the troubled Ephesians. Ephesus was know for believers with sound doctrine but cold hearts, and Paul admonished them to be more humble, gentle, patient, loving – to live in “all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love” 4:2 This often quoted text has been used to hammer CNGs “into shape” but not the right shape.

The Ephesians were thelogically discerning and passionate in their fight against the perversion of truth, but the frequently violated the spirit of grace and selfless love they were also called to express. By doing this, they were giving a distorted witness to Christ’s character and nature, what John’s gospel (1:14) called the perfect expression of grace and truth. This lack of love was not representative of everyone in the congregation, but it did reflect the general attitude of the church’s leadership.

Taking Paul’s admonition to be gentle and applying it to the entire life of a passive person or congregation, spells disaster. If Paul meant for all people to behave gently at all times, why did he encourage Timothy to be bolder – because, wise man that he was, he encouraged diverse behaviour based upon different situations and temperaments.

Taking Paul’s admonishment to its illogical conclusion would mean that Christians guys could not be policemen, attorneys, apologists, judges or any profession or calling that demands conflict on behalf of justice. Imagine no Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr, Pope John Paul II, Fyoder Dostoyevsky, Mother Teresa, or Deitrich Bonhoeffer.

Good people crave the entire healthy behavioural spectrum, just as Christ did.

When we’re free from the myths that Jesus is the supreme nice guy, that the Father is a cosmic teddy bear, and that the Holy Spirit is a docile, breezy presence, men will find the church more compelling and relevant.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 2 )

2009-08-03T02:47:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the highlights of the book 'No More Christian Nice Guy' by Paul Coughlin.

Chapter 2 "Jesus the Bearded woman"

We need to see and emulate all of Jesus, gentle and rugged and all points in between.

Phillip Yancy wrote “In my prior image, Jesus’ personality matched that of a Star Trek Vulcan : he remained calm, cool, and collected as he strode like a robot among excitable human beings on spaceship earth. That is not what I later found portrayed in the Gospels … Indeed, he seemed more emotional and spontaneous than the average person, not less. More passionate, not less

If we compare these actions of Jesus to the behaviour of the average guy in most churches today, and if we were honest – we’d say that Christ is not a Christian. We wouldn’t pray to him, we’d issue prayer requests for him.

Here’s our popular nice guy misconception : Jesus didn’t drink, swear, get angry, use sarcasm, confront, avoid questions, grow impatient, or complain. Conversely, the record shows that he did all of the above, and the gospel includes no apology, confession, or repentance for any of them.

We retain the caricature of Jesus being endlessly patient, yet he turned to his disciples, seemingly exasperated, and said “How long must I be with you until you believe? How long must I put up with you?” The clear teaching is that its proper to wait for an unfruitful person or organization to produce, but that there’s a limit to wise patience.

Solomon in provebs, states “true loves cares enough to confront” and that “better is open rebuke than hidden love”.

When Paul confronted and correct Peter for his inconsistent and cowardly behaviour towards the Gentile Christians in Antioch, Paul was engaging in this kind of edification.

CNGs don’t impose, event when it’s for someone else’s good and when justice is on the line. The god and idol of a CNG is safety.

The early proclaimers and defenders of the faith were not Nice Guys. God’s redemptive work doesn’t grow in the land of Nice. The soil can’t support it.

God himself unleashed a torrent of rhetorical and sometimes sarcastic questions upon Job. “Why do you talk without knowing what you’re talking about?”

Jesus warned that the Pharisees enjoyed putting heavy burdens upon others that they themselves refused to carry, and he combined this spiritual abuse with dripping sarcasm “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” Luke 16:17. The upholders of the law were more concerned with the law than with the lives of people and a true relationship with God. His words only make sense when we realize that he was being sarcastic. Jesus is also sarcastic in Mark 7:9 where he describes the Pharisees “You have such a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God”

Christ threw exaggerated humour at his own followers when they were immaturely impressed with the crowds they’d created. Jesus corrected them with “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather” Matthew 24:28. He was reminding them that people gather for myriad reasons, not all of which are good or fruitful.

Whenever we are tempted to think of Jesus as a swell guy who obeyed all the rules, we should remember that the Resurrection. Did you know he broke the law when he walked out of the tomb ? His resurrection broke Pilate’s seal over the tomb (illegal), and angels struck down government guards (very illegal), both federally punishable by death. Jesus, by legal definition, was a criminal, a fugitive, and outlaw, a rebel with the highest cause.

No More Christian Nice Guy ( chapter 1 )

2009-08-02T03:56:00.000-07:00

Paul Coughlin is the author of "No More Christian Nice Guy". His web site is located at http://www.paulcoughlin.net/

His book is an interesting read, and below I share the main points I recieved from Chapter 1 "Christian Guys aren't so nice"............

Shame is big in the church. Helps keep guys in line. Keeps heads down. Keeps them humble. Supposedly.

Jesus, the dissident, brought the world both – the kind of conflict and division needed to shake things up for our own good.

How come when we ask, WWJD ? we almost always some form of quiet response, when he often spoke and behaved in undeniably rugged ways ?

Christian Nice Guys ( CNG ) pretty much believe they should just let life happen to them.

Theologian R C Spraud ways “When I became a Christian, I understood that Jesus took my sin away. What I never heard from Him was that He intended to take my backbone away”.

Wouldn’t it be great to view conflict as an event you could enter with moderation, tact, and wisdom, the way you’ve seen other men embrace it ?

Niceness makes people agreeable, not good.

No wonder women outnumber men in every form of Christianity ( with the possible exception of Eastern Orthodox ).

Chapter 2 highlights for another day .....

John Shelby Spong

2009-07-28T19:14:00.000-07:00

John Shelby Spong is either liked or disliked by Christians, depending mainly on whether you are liberal or conservative in your views.

I tend to find Spong refreshing, however he does like to talk about himself quite often. I do not agree with everything he says.

Spong is a threat to the established conservative church, as he attempts to reach out to people who the church have traditionally consigned to Hell... as an example... homosexual people. He charges the church as being homophobic.

As time passes, fundamentalistic teachings will become more and more irrelevant to people in todays society, and these churches will simply die out or will be a small group of people stuck in the past.

These churches will be a place where thinking for yourself will not be welcomed, and society will simply dismiss these churches as a place for hateful discriminating non-intellectuals, who are to be avoided at all costs.

We can see this already in churches such as the WestBoro Baptists.

Please take a moment to consider the future of the church and the part you play.

Is God guilty of deception ?

2009-03-23T03:12:00.000-07:00

Most of the info is from the Wikipedia.

Firstly, Deception is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths. Deception involves concepts like propaganda, distraction and/or concealment.

Secondly, Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.

Thirdly, Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period, sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

Is God therefore guilty of deceiving the geologists and geophysicists ?

There are only 2 outcomes.

1) God is guilty as charged, as he has provided a situation whereby the scientists have been deceived and the earth is actually very young

2) God is not guilty, the world is billions of years old, and not all passages in the bible should be taken literally

What is your choice ?

Millionaires on aged pension, charity calls for asset changes

2009-02-26T00:35:00.000-08:00

Recently in the news ....

One of Australia's leading welfare groups says at least 400,000 millionaires are receiving the aged pension.

The Brotherhood of St Laurence is using economic research it commissioned to push for changes to the pension's eligibility criteria.

Spokeswoman Nicola Ballenden says the single biggest asset, the family home, should no longer be exempt from asset tests.

"Fourteen per cent of people who are receiving the aged pension are living in the wealthiest 25 per cent of households, where their net worth is around $1.6 million," she said.

"We think it is time to start discussing including the family home as an assessable asset for the pension."

Thank God for welfare groups like the Brotherhood of St Laurence, they assist people in need. If it wasn't for them the government would have to do a little more work.

However I totally disagree with including the family home as an assessable asset. Median house prices in Adelaide ( Australia ) are approaching $400,000, therefore someone with assets of $1,000,000 are not rich.

Those who have paid off home loans to get into a situation of being debt free on their home, have done it with money that has been taxed already. Why should they be penalised for doing the right thing and investing in their future, as compared to people who simply spend everything they earn ?

Its time to reward those who contribute to society, rather than penalising them.

Instead of taking away from them, learn from what they have achieved, and do the same.

In Australia in most cases, the poor are poor, because they are not doing the same as those who are not poor. There are some exceptions ( i.e. the handicapped ). Australians have more opportunity to do well financially than most other countries in the world.

For most its a choice, and takes some hard work and discipline, and its much easier to complain about those who are doing better, rather than taking action that will ensure you will get out of your survival mode of living.

More about Father Peter Kennedy of St Mary's

2009-02-18T02:30:00.000-08:00

Please see http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2009/02/08/2485584.htm for the letter sent by Archbishop John Bathersby to Father Peter Kennedy of St Mary's church.

Please have a search of the internet to gain an insight into this situation.

And now some questions for John

Q. How many times have you visited St Mary's ?

Q. What are the thoughts of the congregation in this matter ?

Q. How are non church people viewing the situation ?

Q. How much of the reaction of the church is simply based on jealousy that St Mary is connecting with the community ?

I can see that you are in a difficult position, you are like a middle manager that has been instructed to deal with the workers, and you have to toe the official company line, but haven't actually come into contact with the customers in a very long time. Maybe its time to take time to visit and talk to the most important members of the church - the people who form a local congregation.

Should Father Peter Kennedy be sacked ?

2009-02-09T00:22:00.000-08:00

Father Peter Kennedy from St Mary's Catholic Church at South Brisbane has been given until February 21 to resign, retire or be terminated because of practices used at the South Brisbane church.

Tithing Part 3

2009-02-03T02:06:00.001-08:00

Please also see part 1 and 2.

If we are going to take the tithe from being what it was, and applying it to todays culture, we also need to take into account the changes in the way be are rewarded for our work in todays society.

Very few of us will raise herds and grow crops on our farm, but all of us receive either compensation for our work, or welfare from the government. The compensation we receive may include non cash benefits, which should be included in the tithe calculation, to allow an even playing field.

An example... If you are paying $300 per week rent, then the tithe component on the money you have earnt to pay the rent is $30. If you get the rent provided free of charge in your compensation package, then your income is reduced to take that into account, and the value of the rent is $300, therefore your tithe for what you are receiving is also $30. It would be inequitable for 2 people to recieve a similar benefit, but only 1 person is paying the tithe on the benefit.

Here are the possible sources of income / benefit to calculate the tithe.

The gross salary or total wage
Compensation Packages - e.g. Paid expenses ( rent, car, electricity, gas, council rates, medical insurance, etc )
Welfare payments
Executive Benefits - Bonuses, Stock Options, Association Memberships, Meals
Income from investments
Interest on passbook savings & credit union accounts
Dividends from stocks
Capital Gains on all investments
Income from investments in Real & Personal Property
Winnings, Gifts, Inheritances

What are your thoughts about tithing today, and how should the tithe can be calculated in todays socieity ?

Tithing Part 2

2009-02-02T00:03:00.001-08:00

Please refer to Tithing part 1 for all of the Old Testament bilble verses relating to tithing.

Paraphrasing all of God's Commandments about tithing as told to the Israelites

One tenth of all your income and anything else that comes your way as a result of your work belongs to God. (Leviticus 27:30) I tell you to do the following

Take 10% of your pay cheque, which belongs to God, spend it on yourself and your family. ( Deuteronomy.12:5-7; Deuteronomy 12:10-12; Deuteronomy 12:17-19; Deuteronomy14:22-26 )
You must support those whom have been called into ministry and those that are poor, with 10% of every 3^rd pay check. Do not spend this on yourself and your family, but give it to the called and the poor. ( Deuteronomy 12:19; Deuteronomy 14:27-29; Deuteronomy 26:12-13)
10% of your income is God’s holy tithe, and you must not use it for any unclean thing, that is, for anything, but for what I have commanded you. ( Deuteronomy 26: 14 )
Observe the commandments about tithing and God will bless you and you will prosper you in everything that you do. ( Deuteronomy 14:23; Deuteronomy 14:29)
Summing Up: "Have a great time with your family and friends, but do not spend the tithes on anything unclean, and do not forget those whom I have called into my ministry, and those who are less fortunate than you - and I will bless you."

Tithing literally !

If someone truly wants to tithe according to Scripture, he/she would have to do the following:

Quit their job and buy a farm so that they can raise herds and grow crops;
Find some Levitical priests to support;
Use their crops to observe the Old Testament religious festivals like Passover, Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles;
Expect God to curse them with material deprivation if they were unfaithful or bless them with material abundance if they were obedient.

I think all of us would conclude that this is utterly absurd! We all recognize that Christ has done away with the Levitical priesthood, animal sacrifices, and religious festivals in Christ. I don’t suggest that tithing has been done away with, but needs to be adjusted according to our culture today.

Summing up

If we take into account the cultural differences, and the changes in our society in regards to how we make a living via paid work, it is acceptable that a tithe is still required of us by God, according to the rules God has given us.

But God never issued a commandment that directed the Israelites to give 10% of their income every week of every year to the Levites, therefore there is no equivalent in todays culture for believers to give 10% of their income to the church each week.

There are also many instances of New Testament scripture making a point of being generous in giving to the poor, but this study is concerned with tithing.

In tithing part 3, I will include information from a book entitled “Special Considerations For Determining Your Tithe”, which gives a run down of what would be considered eligible for determining your tithe in today’s society ( as the majority of Christians today are not primary producers as was the case 2000 years ago ).

The authors consider that compensation packages need to be taken into account in calculating the tithe ( such as those provided to church ministers ), and these packages are becoming more commonplace these days.

This allows a level playing field and takes into account the various ways in which our worldly expenses are paid for.

Tithing part 1

2009-01-31T20:17:00.000-08:00

Introduction

With every church I have been involved with there has been teachings through sermons and planned giving programs that God expects 10% of each pay to be given to the church. The purpose of this short study is to look at God’s Word and to determine the exact requirements of a tithe.

What I have found may not be what is normally taught by many churches, and there is no problem with this. All believers should study the bible for themselves, ask God for the wisdom to interpret the scriptures, allow guidance from fellow believers and the church leaders and the Holy Spirit, and then have respect for each other if their interpretations are different.

I would hope that all churches and their leaders would encourage all church members to follow this path. If not, then I suggest there is a fundamental problem with these churches.

If you disagree with how I have interpreted scripture, I am very open to your opinion. Just let me know where you disagree with my interpretations, and justify this by your interpretation of the scripture ( Not just “your views do not correspond with the official view of the church” therefore you are wrong. Martin Luther probably got a lot of this ).

Bible verses relating to tithing and the Israelites

Leviticus 27:30-33 (NIV)

A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD. If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd’s rod—will be holy to the LORD. He must not pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.

Deuteronomy 12:5-7 (NIV)

But you are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go; there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the LORD your God has blessed you.

Deuteronomy 12:10-12 (NIV)

But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you rest from all your enemies around you so that you will live in safety. Then to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name—there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the LORD. And there rejoice before the LORD your God, you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns, who have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

Deuteronomy 12:17-18 (NIV)

You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the LORD your God at the place the LORD your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the LORD your God in everything you put your hand to.

Deuteronomy 14:22-26 (NIV)

Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.

Deuteronomy 12:19 (NIV)

Be careful not to neglect the Levites as long as you live in your land.

Deuteronomy 14:27-29 (NIV)

And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own. At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

Deuteronomy 26:12-13 (NIV)

When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. Then say to the LORD your God: “I have removed from my house the sacred portion and have given it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, according to all you commanded. I have not turned aside from your commands nor have I forgotten any of them.

Deuteronomy 26:14 (NIV)

I have not eaten any of the sacred portion while I was in mourning, nor have I removed any of it while I was unclean, nor have I offered any of it to the dead. I have obeyed the LORD my God; I have done everything you commanded me.

Deuteronomy 14:23 (NIV)

Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always.

Deuteronomy 14:29 (NIV)

so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

Continued in part 2

Jesus - liberal thinker, intelligent, full of common sense, and non fundamentalist

2009-01-29T23:04:00.000-08:00

Have been reading a great book by Gordon Thomas entitled “The Jesus Conspiracy”. The title sounds like an anti-church book, but its just the opposite.

The author simply takes the gospels, and combines with secular books written at a similar time, and throws in a few books that didn't make it into the bible ( non-canonical books ), and the result is Jesus is presented in an easy reading manner.

See http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Conspiracy-Investigative-Reporters-Extraordinary/dp/0801011949

One review mentions “This book is an excellent resource for skeptics doubting the historical validity of Christ's ministry and for anyone wishing to gain a deeper understanding of the first century A.D. -- CBA Marketplace, January 2000 “

Gordon writes

“He had first challenged them over the sabbath. Jesus made it clear he did not oppose the concept that it was a day of rest, not only for those in authority but for those whom they exploited; that it was a pause for everone to pray and remember that God was creator of all things. What he objected to was that the sabbath had been demeanded by being surrounded by rabbinical restrictions. He steadfastly attached these as pointless dogma. Where was the sense, he asked , in a law that said it was permissible for a person to travel twelve miles but not a yard further on the sabbath ? Where was the logic that allowed someone to write one but not two letters on that day ? What religious basis could there be in a regulation that allowed a housewife to fasten a rope to a bucket but not draw water from a well during the hours of the sabbath? How was it justifiable for a musician to tie the ends of a broken lute string but not replace it; For food to be eaten but not repaired”

Jesus is

a liberal thinker
full of common sense
not a fundamentalist

Are we commanded to be like Jesus ?

How do you compare to Jesus ?

God is pleased with my occupation and my bill paying

2009-01-10T17:04:00.000-08:00

Came across this article while looking for blogs of Salvation Army officers.

Its by Captain Stephen Court of the Training College and it was included in the onfire magazine for March 2008.

The perception I have of the article is that the opinion of the writer is that only those people called to either 1) officership or 2) a particular specific 'worthy' vocation, are going to be satisfied with their life.

In particular the article mentions 'When you look back at your 80 or 90 years on earth, are you going to be satisfied and able to praise God for how you lived your lives, just paying bills and doing a temporal job? Again, I’m excluding those people who are specifically called by God to their particular jobs.'

The full article is included below.

Interesting words. I understand that not all Salvation Army officers think the same, so my comments below are directed at all Salvation Army officers.

1)There are not many occupations, such as Salvation Army officership, whereby the majority of living expenses are paid on your behalf, so I believe its unfair to put people down who 'pay their bills'. Instead those who pay the bills should be praised for supporting their families, as I believe all Christians have an obligation to pay what is owed to others.

2)Who really knows if they are called by God to a particular occupation, and what right has anyone to decide this ? Someone serving in the checkout at Woolworths might be called to that position, as they talk about Jesus to the staff and customers. Someone who believes they are called to officership may not have been called at all. Who really knows, not me, not anyone, so lets not put people down because there are empty rooms in the training college.

3)Job satisfaction – that would be up to the individual to make a decision as to whether they are satisfied, not someone else.

On a brighter note, I've also read Stephen's book 'Be a Hero' and it was a great book, and it influenced myself to become a child sponsor through the Salvation Army. So I thank him for the book and the influence the book provided for myself. I'd like to quadruple the current number of children sponsored within 5 years, so please pray that this may happen. Please see the facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20664225638&ref=ts

here is the article .....

Stephen Court takes a long-term view on officership.

On Fire:When you communicate your passion forofficership, and your calling, people sense your energy and sincerity. What’s in your heart regarding God’s calling to Salvos?

CaptainStephenCourt:We need to raise up tonnes of officers, and not just to replace the 28 or 29 who retire every year—not just a maintenance, status quo mode. We need a revolution and [a session of] 28 is just a drop in the bucket…how many people read your magazine?

We believe we have about 10,000 readers. So there’s 10,000 readers, which reflects the numerical soldier strength in Australia. I have said before that if you are not called specifically to be an electrician or plumber or magazine editor, something specific, then you should prepare and offer
yourself for officership.

‘Prepare’ means get discipled, get trained up, be spiritually ‘together’. Then offer: sign up. Talk to your officer, the corps council, divisional and territorial candidates boards—figure out if you are what we are looking for as an officer. If you are, then let’s get you through and trained up to a leadership capacity.

We need leaders who can be sent on a moment’s notice anywhere, wherever. Consider that figure of 10,000 readers, we could use a tenth of your readership, so 1,000—that would be an interesting problem for a training principal, how would we train 1,000 candidates/cadets? We’ll figure
it out.

A big question for the property board too. True. We can sort out the practicalities; that’s just a process problem. The challenge is to get the response. The Founder said ‘if you are called to be an officer then an officer you must be, an officer you will be, or it will be so much the worse for you both here and hereafter’.

When Booth said those words the Army was in a time of huge expansion, with both massive acceptance and controversy. As soon as people put their hands up they were in training; how many people would you want to see in training say, for example, in 2009? One thousand.

Is today’s officer shortage a question of people wrestling for control of their destiny; are people reluctant to put their hands up because they are hesitant to surrender control to God or the Army?

Yes, and there is going to be hesitancy. The world can be very loud, family can be loud… the notion of comfort is strong and the devil is always trying to deter us from the war. I’m not saying all 10,000 readers are supposed to be officers, but I’m sure a solid proportion should prepare and offer forofficership.

We should take a long-term perspective. Superannuation, planning and pensions, retirement and stewardship for retirement —that’s all short-term planning. You need a long-term perspective, say 7,000 years from now.

When you look back at your 80 or 90 years on earth, are you going to be satisfied and able to praise God for how you lived your lives, just paying bills and doing a temporal job?

Again, I’m excluding those people who are specifically called by God to their particular jobs.

So your long-term perspective is the eternal perspective?

Yes; if you are looking back and you have fulfilled your specific calling then praise God. But if you are not specifically called to something else and you can look back and say ‘Wow, I spent my 70-hour weeks just pouring myself into people’s lives, counselling, praying, discipling, preaching the gospel’... Wow. In fact, there are going to be people who are there in heaven with you because you did that. Forget about money and comfort.

I N T E RV I E W B Y B A R RY GI T T I NS
Captain Stephen Court is the territory’s training principal

Pope should stop judging people

2009-01-10T16:52:00.000-08:00

I read in the news "Pope wants humanity 'saved' from homosexuality"

I'd like to suggest that Christianity needs to be saved from the Pope.

What exactly is the pope trying to achieve ?

Whatever his purpose was, its irrelevant, as what has been achieved by the Pope is that non Christian people are further convinced that the church is out of touch, judgemental, irrelevant and to be avoided at all costs.

Vatican moves for more legal independence

2009-01-10T16:48:00.000-08:00

News story this week reads ....

The Vatican says it will no longer automatically adopt Italian law as its own.

The Pope has decided that from New Year's Day, the Vatican authorities will first examine Italian laws before deciding whether to adopt them.

Vatican legal experts say there are too many laws in Italian civil and criminal codes, and that they frequently conflict with Church principles.

The Vatican has also decided to scrutinise international treaties before deciding whether or not to adhere to them.

Lets have a look at the bible and see whether the latest news from the vatican agrees with the bible.

Romans 13:1-7 Submission to the Authorities

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

What do you think ? Why would the Vatican have exemption from this submission to the governing authorities ? Why gives them the right to choose whether they abide by the laws of the land they are living in ?

This appears to be another good reason for people to reject the church, it follows on from the condemnation of homosexuals by the pope a few weeks ago.

Heretic to hero: Pope pays tribute to Galileo

2009-01-10T16:39:00.001-08:00

Some good news from the Vatican ( at last ! )... the news story reads ....

"Pope Benedict has paid tribute to the work of the 17th century astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church in 1633.

In an address marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest observations using a telescope, the Pope said an understanding of the laws of nature could stimulate appreciation of God's work.

Galileo was able to demonstrate that the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, which directly challenged the church-held view at the time."

I believe this is great news, the pope is attempting to bridge the gap between scientists and Christians, by paying tribute to a great scientist from 400 years ago. Galileo was an incredible thinker, who made great discoveries about the universe. I believe these discoveries actually show how great God is. So finally I can give be encouraged by the actions of the Vatican.

This all poses a question.

Why is there a split between the church and the scientific community in the first place ?

This split prevents millions of people from taking Christianity seriously, and if Christians are to spread the gospel message to the world, then who is responsible for making that harder than it should be ?

It can't be the fault of the scientists, as they are simply using the incredible gifts of intelligence given to them by God, to discover exciting new facts about the universe.

The fault lies with some Christians insisting that the creation story in Genesis was real, and therefore is to be taken literally ( as it is written )

Christian fundamentalists say that the world was created in 6 days, adam and eve were the first humans, and the world is about 6000 years old. Which is in a direct contradiction to the evidence we see around us, and the thoughts of 99% of scientists.

Moses wrote Genesis about 3000 years ago, and although God inspired Moses to write, Moses used his scientific knowledge of the day in order to explain how the universe was created. Fundamentalists are therefore putting their faith in a man who knew little about science, while simultaneously telling the scientists of today they are wrong.

400 years ago Galileo was put under house arrest by the church, as his discoveries were deemed to be in contradiction to the bible. Over time the church realised that Galileo was correct, and that not all of the bible is to be taken literally.

Its time for fundamentalist churches to do the same. Please consider what parts of the bible should not be taken literally, and then apologise to the scientists who you currently brand as 'misguided' or 'incompetant' or 'anti-God'.

This will go a long way to encourage people to consider Christianity as a viable religion, rather than branding it a backwards primitive religion practiced by people who don't want to think too much about the universe that surrounds us.