Ministry Training Papers | 10th August 2010

The heroine is alone in a large house late at night: the background is dark and spooky.  Eerie discordant slowly builds in volume and intensity as our fears for her safety increase.  The chase begins as the heroine flees for her life to the exciting rhythms of the percussion.  Her rescue leads to the more gentle and relaxed romantic mood with the accompaniment of strings.

Consciously and unconsciously music is part of our environment; creating, evoking and reflecting our moods and emotions.  From bright jingles to selling Coca Cola to national anthems, we use music to express and stir emotions.

Within the Bible this use of music is well understood.  So Psalm 98:1, 4-9 speaks of the joy expressed in music, as we praise the Lord.  This is the most common musical emotion of the Scriptures.  Yet it is not the only one: mourning and lamentation is expressed musically (e.g., 2 Samuel 1:17ff, Matthew 9:23); David plays to relieve Saul’s troubled spirit (1 Samuel 6:14ff); and Solomon’s Song expresses love.  Furthermore joy and happiness are expressed musically about subjects other than God (Isaiah 5:12), even subjects opposed to God! The Scriptures do expect and command God’s people to sing the praises of God.  James 5:13 says: “Is anyone happy?  Let him sing songs of praise”.  Revelation 4:10; 5:9; 5:12, 13; 15:3; 19:1, 3, 6 perceive God’s people singing and shouting out God’s praises.

However, music as a language of moods and emotions needs careful understanding and interpretation.  A friend in the advertising business contacted me about a problem at work.  In a Board meeting it was suggested that the Hallelujah Chorus be used to back an advertisement for soap powder.  He felt it was inappropriate but could not really explain why.

Music gains its emotional meaning by a variety of associations.  It can be part of our cultural heritage; it can be the context in which it is played; it can be the words with which it is associated; it can be a community’s formal agreement over its meaning; it can be the tempo, volume, pitch, etc.  Thus for example, certain pieces of music, e.g., The Last Post and The National Anthem have a clear and precise meaning because of community agreements.

The words and context in which music is set are the most precise defining agents of the emotions aroused.  Sometimes the music fails because its form and fashion are inconsistent with the words and context (e.g. the mournful chanting of “Make Thy chosen people joyful”).  Yet the context of party going (Isaiah 5) or victory (Exodus 15) or idolatry (Exodus 32) can all be expressed musically.  Add to the context particular words which define, describe and explain the situation and the musical expressions become specifically meaningful.

So Paul knows that mindless, lifeless, wordless instruments have capacity for some meaning in the time they play and the call they can give (1 Corinthians  14:7,8).  However, it is essential for them to play their notes distinctly to communicate.  So he argues that mindless (i.e. glossolic) singing is like instruments playing indistinctly.  In contrast singing in your own language is singing with mind and spirit and is likened to instruments playing distinctly.

Thus to direct people to godliness the music we use must have (through associations, context, words etc) some meaningful expression of the Gospel.

In such a way music can be used for educational purposes.  So Moses in Deuteronomy  32 teaches a song to remind people of God’s salvation and their sinfulness.  So Paul speaks of people coming to church with a hymn in the same sentence as people coming with “a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue of interpretation, and under the same rule:  “all these must be done for the strengthening (edification) of the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:26).  And when Paul does give direction concerning singing (Ephesians 5:19-20; Colossians 3:16) he does so in terms of speaking to one another and teaching each other.  This is done as spirit filled Christians in whom the word of Christ dwells richly.  In both contexts it is done with thankfulness in our hearts to God.

So then music, singing in particular, is seen within the Bible as expressing emotions, through context and content.  As expression of emotions can be articulated meaningfully, music can be used to teach and edify people.

Sometimes music can be out of keeping with its context for both good and ill. Thus it was in prison for the sake of the Gospel that Paul and Silas sang hymns to God.  The very incongruity points to the power of the Gospel.  Sometimes people can use their gifts without love controlling such usage so that others are not served or edified.  Then their gifts are like the proverbial clanging cymbal.

Given this understanding of music what part should it play in our congregational life?

1. First and foremost the context of the music must be true to the word of God.  E.g., the words must be true and the emotions stirred must be appropriate.

2. The musical method must be honouring to God.  Thus those who play lead etc, must do so serving others, not just expressing themselves (unless that is for others’ service).

3. The reason for singing can be either/or educational and emotional.  It should never be emotional in a way that is untrue or unhelpful to the people, e.g., singing heresy or manipulating crowd excitement.  Yet it should never be thought that it can be unemotional as if singing dull, quiet, gentle music will not affect emotions.   To be of value it does not have to educate by teaching new things;  for remembrance of the old and reminders of old truths is of educational value.

4. However be it emotional or educational as its particular use, music must be edifying.  That is, there will be time to sing for emotional reasons, to declare God’s praise, to give vent to our thankfulness, to prepare ourselves for prayerfulness or to hear God’s word.  Again an item can be used to call upon people to hear and identify with the perspective of the singer.  It is like an emotional testimony. 

5.Therefore the music must set, reinforce, reflect or express the emotions consistent with the gathering or the part of the gathering at which it occurs.  For example the hymn with organ nearly always creates a mood of formality and importance as a chorus with guitar creates a mood of relaxed informality.  Thus without instruction people will usually stand for the organ and sit for the chorus.  It depends upon what kind of meeting we want to conduct as to what musical method we should follow.  Chanting creates a mood of old, other worldly mysticism as clapping can create a sense of exuberant joy (and also of crowd manipulating fanaticism).

6.The selection of music for a particular gathering must be both difficult and careful.  People’s reactions to music differ (Austria, House of Rising Sun, Dam Busters, Hernando’s Hidaway) and their perception of the meeting differ (e.g., desire for formality or informality).  However music is never emotionally neutral and therefore must be selected with care.

7.We generally need to work harder at using a congregation’s gifs for edification, both in the encouraging of people’s gifts and in channelling them into edifying patterns.  We also need to take more deliberate actions in the learning and selection of music that says what we want rather than what other more musically sensitive but theologically erroneous people are producing.

Ministry Training Papers | 31st July 2010

Directly there came into my hands a strange feeling, and it came on down to the middle of my arms and began to surge!  It was like a thousand – like ten thousand – then a million volts of electricity.  It began to shake my hands and to pull my hands.  I could hear, as it were, a zooming sound of the power.  It pulled my hands higher and held them there as though God took them in His.  There came a voice in my soul that said, “Lay these hands on the sick and I will heal them! … but I didn’t have the baptism… In an air-conditioned room with my hands lifted… and my heart reaching up for my God, there came the hot molten lava of His love.  It poured in like a stream from Heaven and I was lifted up out of myself.  I spoke in a language I could not understand for about two hours.  My body perspired as though I was in a steam bath.  The baptism of fire!”(1)

What do we do with experiences like this? 
What do we understand about them? 
What if they were our experiences? 
What do we say to those who testify that it is their experience?

Experiences are as complex as humans

To understand our experiences is a field of psychology and sociology and all the humanities.
But Christian experience has the added element of the supernatural, which is beyond the humanities understanding or their willingness to consider.
It is our Bible reading that enables Christians to understand something of our experiences including the supernatural ones for which the humanities have no explanation except scepticism.

There is a great interplay between our experiences and our understanding 

People confuse their experience with their understanding or misunderstanding of that experience.
It is hard to understand things we have never experienced.
It is hard not to use our experiences to gain understanding.
Usually we describe our experiences in the language of our understanding.
We should not read the Bible through our experiences, or our understanding of our experiences. Instead we should understand our experiences through reading the Bible.

The Bible is the lens, the glasses, through which we view the world of our experiences, rather than our experiences becoming the glasses though which we read the Bible. The Bible brings all things into focus and understanding.

I should not try to find my experiences in the Bible, for then I will tend to bend the Bible to fit my experiences, or worse, to fit my understanding of my experiences.
Instead, I should read the Bible first, as independently of my experiences as possible, and then seek to understand my experiences.

How do we understand the kind of experiences that we read about?

What is this Baptism of fire that is being spoken of in the initial quote?
Is it what the Bible means by Baptism of the Spirit?
Is it being born again or is it something different and subsequent to regeneration?
Is it a demonic counterfeit?  How would you know?
Is it purely psychological – some kind of mental phenomenon?
If it is not Baptism in the Spirit or a second blessing – what do we make of the thousands of people who profess having had similar experiences?

What do we make of such experiences?

a. The Bible is quite clear that Christianity is an experiential religion
Spirituality, or being Christian, in the Bible is never a matter of theory or speculation but a matter of living out the truth.
The one who hears the truth of God’s word but fails to practice it in his daily experience of life is like a foolish man who can’t remember what he looks like after a peek in the mirror (James 1:22-27).
The New Testament is shot through with the idea that the death of Jesus and all that God has done for us should be at the very heart of our existence, shaping all that we do and think, and by implication, feel. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:11-17 and Philippians 2:1-18 are two passages that speak of the death of Jesus and how it changes the way we experience life.

b. The Bible is very quiet on any details of subjective experiences
There are very few explanations of remarkable spiritual experiences and those that are included seem to miss out the kind of juicy particulars that people are often most interested in.
The experience of conversion, for instance, is most usually described not in terms of what it felt like but in terms of what happened to those involved (eg 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

c. There are, however, some points we can make about the kind of experience that is ecstatic, remarkable, visionary or other worldly

i) It is ok to have such experiences 
This type of experience is never condemned in the Bible.
Many of the great ones in the Bible had remarkable experiences
      (eg Moses and the burning bush,
      the apostles on the day of Pentecost,
      Saul on the road to Damascus, or
      Paul’s visionary experience in 2 Corinthians 12)

ii) These remarkable experiences are not normal
Otherwise they would not be remarkable!
They are never held out to us as normal for all Christians.
There are no commands that we must experience them.
We are not encouraged anywhere to look for these experiences or expect them.
There is great danger, especially to Christian fellowship, to ‘normalise’ our own personal experiences – implying or worse requiring others to experience what we have experienced.
The experiences of God’s people vary enormously in the same way that God’s people vary enormously. For some people introspective subjective experiences are a rich part of their life. For others they play almost no part. There are highly emotional people and others for whom emotions are a very small part of their consciousness. 
Our standing with God is neither improved by having them nor diminished by not having them.
 
iii) Our Identity (or worse our superiority) is not found in our experiences
Paul is very coy about the man caught up to the third heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:1f)
He talks about a man, not himself.
He mentions the experiences but goes into no detail about them.
He boasts in his experience of weakness not his visions or revelations.
He refrains from boasting about it “so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me and hears from me.” (2 Corinthians 12:6)
We are warned against spiritual superiority in visionary experiences. (Colossians 2:16-19)

iv) Spiritual gifts or subjective experiences are no guide to godliness
The Corinthian church were the Christian spiritual experience front-runners, but were immature Christians that could only be talked to as “people of the flesh” and “infants in Christ”. (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

So then how do we regard the experiences that we have?

a. There is no need to deny they occurred or that they are real.
b. We must be very careful to be Biblical when we seek to understand, identify and explain such experiences.
c. It is very dangerous to use Biblical language to describe experiences unless we are absolutely sure that we are experiencing exactly what the Bible is talking about. Being imprecise in our use of Biblical language may mislead us into imagining that our experiences are the same as those taught in the Bible.
d. It is important to know what experiences the Scriptures tell us to expect or promise to come to us. This requires a careful study of such terms as ‘baptism in the Spirit’, ‘born again by the Spirit’, ‘filled by the Spirit’, ‘fullness of the Spirit’, ‘led by the Spirit’ etc. 
e. But we must not limit our experiences of God to only those referring to the Spirit. We must also understand what to expect when we pray or read the Bible, or choose to live God’s way rather than our own, or have our mind renewed, or join in singing Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. 
f. One of the experiences of life that we are most clearly promised in the New Testament is persecution and suffering. We are to expect these experiences (2 Timothy 3:12).
g. Not all experiences will be necessarily felt. One experience that is promised in the Bible is that of forgiveness. The promise is to be forgiven not to feel forgiven (though that may accompany the reality). It is about standing before God forgiven by the blood of Jesus.
h. It is important to know what experiences mean for our life in Christ. The Spirit’s work will always lead us to

acknowledge Christ as Lord,
call upon God as our Father and
put to death the misdeeds of our body
as we put on the new life that is ours in Christ Jesus.

i. Some less spectacular experiences are much more important. So experiencing the fruit of the Spirit is considerably more important than experiencing the gifts of the Spirit. Indeed without the fruit (eg love) the gifts are less than useless (1 Corinthians 13).

What then do we make of the kind of second climactic “Baptism”

Errol Hulse, in his book Crisis Experiences, suggests several ways in which we can interpret the climactic ‘baptism’ experience. Some of them are paraphrased below:

a. In some instances, the crisis experience is conversion. It is possible for someone to be urged to make a commitment to Jesus, to sign on the dotted line, before he has really understood the Gospel. At some later point, when these great truths slot home a great awakening occurs.
b. In some instances the crisis experience is a leap forward in holy living. Especially for believers who are poorly taught, going to a conference or convention where they are greatly moved and discover great truths can be a dynamic, empowering experience. They discover new power to battle sin in their lives; their desire for holiness increases.
c. In some instances, the crisis experience is unhappily no more than feelings and emotions. There are some who go forward weeping at every altar call and yet whose lives never display the Lordship of Jesus.
d. Some crisis experiences represent recovery from backsliding. David’s great ‘return’ to God in Psalm 51 could be described as a great crisis or blessing in his life.
e. The crisis of discovery. Many Christians testify that their greatest post-conversion experience was the discovery of the doctrine of God’s sovereign free grace; that it led to great liberation and joy. A great discovery of some aspect of God’s character or plan can be a tremendous emotional experience.
f .The crisis of empowerment. A person may have a great experience of God as he is empowered to do a particular task.

This is a brief summary and Hulse lists others.

To conclude

It’s worth pointing out that uplifting, encouraging experiences have a potential to encourage and help others. As we share the joy and enthusiasm we are experiencing at a particular time it may enthuse others as well.

However, in sharing our experiences there is also a potential for division and trouble. As we go into great detail about our latest spiritual experience we consciously or unconsciously bring our brother into judgement. We make him feel guilty for being so spiritually second-rate and we feel superior for being so in touch with the spiritual reality.

Worse still, when we try to attach our Holy Spirit crisis experience to the Scriptures, giving it a Biblical name and prescribing it for all Christians we cause needless strife, jealousy, division and harm to the church, which is God’s temple.

(1)  This quote comes from John Osteen “Pentecost is not a Denomination: It is an Experience” cited in F.D.Brunner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit p127.  John Osteen was the father of Joel Osteen. He was a Southern Baptist pastor who became a charismatic in the late 1950’s.

From the Dean | 26th May 2010

(From The Briefing, 1993)

Yoga is to Hinduism what Billy Graham is to Christianity. The way we practice our religion will depend very much upon our theology. If God is ‘the force’, then we will attune ourselves to that force; if God is personal, then we will enter into personal relationship with him; and if God speaks, we will live by listening to what he says.

And God said
At the very outset of the Bible, at creation, we begin to see the importance of the word of God. Throughout the Genesis account, we read the recurring phrase, “and God said”. Everything was made in accordance with the mind of God and at God’s expressed direction. The Psalmist tells us that the whole world was created by the Word of God (Ps 33:6). From the beginning of the Bible, we learn that God speaks and that his speech is creative and powerful and working in the universe.

There are more implications from this understanding of God’s nature than just his power and creativity. As God speaks to that part of his creation that is made in his image, it is clear that his words must be listened to, understood and obeyed. Thus humanity hears and responds to the Word of God and God speaks to his people. As the epistle of Hebrews puts it, in many and various ways, God spoke of old to our fathers through the prophets (Heb 1:1). One of the chief glories of the people of Israel is that they have the very oracles of God. And it is one of Israel’s greatest fears that there should be a famine of God’s words (Amos 8:11). In fact, God goes to great length to teach the people of Israel that they do not live except by his Word. We read in Deuteronomy 8:3:

He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

In this way, God’s word is active and powerful, achieving its goals and intentions (Is 55:11;Heb 4:12). When God reveals himself in the person of his Son, Jesus is described as the Word of God (Jn 1:1-18). Just as God has spoken in the past by the prophets, he now speaks by his Son (Heb 1:1-4). Jesus, therefore, comes to us as an evangelist, a prophet and a teacher (Mk1:14; Mt 21:11; Jn 3:2). His work is carried out through the preaching of the Gospel, the word of God that goes out into all the world. To this end, Christ gives to people gifts for the ministry of his Word and some people are appointed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers for the ongoing work of building the body of Christ. Because of these responsibilities, as Peter says, “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God” (1 Pet 4:11). Paul instructs Timothy to devote himself to “the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1Tim 4:11), for Scripture is “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus ”and is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” in order that “the man of God be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-17).

Our agenda
In the ministry of the gospel, it is important that our agenda is established by the gospel itself, rather than by the world. When we spend all our time alleviating human suffering, or caring for the sick and widows, or in maintaining historical buildings, then the world will be pleased with us. But the last thing the world wants us to talk about is Christ and the last thing it wants to hear is Christian preaching. The preaching and teaching of the Word of God is always unpopular with those who are rebelling against God. It should not, therefore, surprise us that people ridicule sermonizing, pulpiteering, preaching and Bible-bashing.

But we have an important example to follow as we see Christ and the apostles consistently preaching and teaching God’s Word and making hard decisions about their priorities in favour of that ministry. We should pay attention to Paul’s injunction to Timothy to devote ourselves to the public reading, teaching and preaching of the Scriptures. On another occasion, in another context, we might consider the subtle differences between reading, teaching and preaching. However, suffice it to say that the ministry of the gospel is about the prominence of the Word of God.

But what is the aim of teaching the Bible? Much of secular learning today aims at becoming qualified for acceptance in society or acquiring knowledge as an end in itself. However, neither of these is a sufficient aim for teaching and learning from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are given for practical purposes, not as an end in themselves. Knowledge puffs up (1 Cor 8:1). The foolish man hears the words of Christ but does not obey them, whereas the wise man does (Mt 7:24-27). For only the man who does the word of God really understands the Word of God (Jas 1:22-25). It is the Word of God, implanted in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which brings us new birth and works within us (Jas 1:18, 21; Heb 4:12).Therefore, we must not be using the Word of God in order to acquire academic credit, nor in order to gain knowledge alone. However, the aim of the Word of God is to make us wise unto salvation, to complete and equip us for every good work. As we understand God and his ways, purposes and plans, so we discover how to live in order to please him.

Teaching how to read
Just as it is inadequate to acquire information merely for titillation, so it is inadequate to turn to Scripture simply for rules and regulations about how to live. The Bible itself speaks against such legalism and yet Bible teaching can easily degenerate into a pursuit of moral guidance from the lives of the prophets, kings, apostles and early Christians. But the Bible gives us a library of books with different applications: history, prophecy, wisdom, poetry and law. The whole breadth of biblical understanding must be taught for somebody to be obedient to God.

In order to grasp the overall theme and thrust of the Bible, we need to be careful to read and understand it on its own terms, in its own context. Much has been written in recent years about understanding words in their sentences, sentences in paragraphs, paragraphs in chapters, chapters in books. The principles and procedures for understanding the written text are rightly being emphasized and taught today.

However, we must look not only at grammatical context, but also at historical and theological contexts. The historical context includes our background knowledge of the language, literature and events of the period in which the verse, chapter or book was written. Much of this historical knowledge comes from the Bible itself. It is important for Christians to understand something of the history of Israel and the early church as an aid to understanding the biblical message.

It is even more important to understand the theology of the Bible as a whole. Theology can be understood systematically under certain topics such as God, man, sin, the person of Jesus, the work of Jesus and so on. Or it can be understood within the unfolding pattern of the Bible itself (for example, the covenant of Abraham, Moses and David finding fulfillment in the new covenant brought in by Jesus).

At one level, this theological understanding of context makes Bible reading a very much longer and more difficult task to undertake. Each of the verses we read adds to a mosaic which helps us to comprehend the larger picture. However, at another level, our theological background simplifies Bible reading. When we understand that the central message of the Bible is the person and work of Jesus, which is expressed in the gospel of Jesus, our minds can comprehend the Scriptures both as a whole and in its component books, chapters and verses. In Luke 24:45-49, Jesus opens the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures. The key which did the opening was the knowledge that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead, and repentance and forgiveness would be proclaimed to the nations through him.

So how should the Bible be taught? In one sense, little has been said about the methods of Bible teaching since great flexibility in this area is to be encouraged. However, there are some important points to notice.

1. The Word of God is to be declared rather than debated. Certainly, we may use debate, discussion, dialogue and group dynamics in order to understand more clearly what the Bible is saying. But the Bible’s message is to be heard, received and obeyed rather than queried, questioned and altered.

2. The aim of Bible teaching will always be to preach Christ as Lord, with the preacher being the servant of the people for Christ’s sake (2 Cor 4:5). For Christ is the key element to understanding the whole Word of God and it is he, not the preacher, who must be promoted.

3. The preacher’s place must be one of thorough submission, not only to Christ but also to the congregation. The preacher’s authority is Christ himself. That is also the preacher’s message. Therefore, people are called to obey the Word of God, not the preacher. Even with prophetic preaching, such as is referred to in Deuteronomy 13:18 and 1 Corinthians 14, the hearers are to listen with discernment. The aim of hearing the Word of God will be to grow in our understanding so that we might be mature in our thinking, filled with spiritual wisdom and understanding and not easily swayed by the current winds of doctrine. The preacher’s role is one of submission and his authority over the people of God rests in his teaching, in order that they be ruled by the Word of God.

4. The preacher must exemplify the message that is being preached. Paul constantly points to himself as the model of the message that he speaks (e.g. 1 Thess 2). In the appointment of elders, he directs both Timothy (1Tim 3) and Titus (Tit 1) to look for people who exemplify the godliness that should come from hearing and obeying the Word of God.

5. Paul demonstrates for us the way we should relate to the people of God. He is not only their servant, but their loving servant. His concern for Christians is shown in his prayers, in his anxieties and in his letters. Jesus is also moved with compassion at the shepherdless sheep that he sees in front of him. We do not teach the Word of God in a vacuum, but to the people whom we are serving. The proper motivations of an elder are spelt out in 1 Peter 5:4. Church leaders will do well to test themselves against these verses.

6. The Bible must be taught with immense care, knowing that teachers are judged with great strictness (Jas 3:1ff).

7. We must continue, patiently enduring the consequences of teaching God’s Word. We mustn’t grow weary in well doing, for in due time we will reap as we have sown. However, ministry of the Word of God is fraught with difficulties and opposition. Frequently, the outcome of our scattering of seed is, in the short term, poor. But in the long term, to the glory of God, it is plentiful.

From the Dean | 25th May 2010

We must read the Bible in context.  But what is the context in which we are to read it?  And what is the relationship between context and content?

Last month as I preached through 1 Corinthians 12-14, I was reminded once again of the danger of ‘interpreting’ the Bible by context rather than understanding the content of the Bible.

There are two contexts that are often appealed to – one unconsciously, the other consciously.  The first is the experience of the reader.  The second is the assumed historical background of the original recipients.  Both can dominate the content of the text to enable the readers to find whatever they want.

It is impossible to read without being influenced by our own experiences.  Even the ability to read is an experience that we bring to the text.  The experience of listening to literature read aloud is different to reading silently by oneself.

But there is a common problem of assuming our experiences are the same as the author’s.  For example we experience ‘church’ long before we read about it in the Bible.  It is hard then to leave our experience of church behind and genuinely hear what the Bible writers refer to when they mention ‘church’.  Similarly translators are unhelpful when they retain words like ‘deacon’.  It is not actually a translation but transliteration - turning the Greek letters into an English word.  The Greek word means ‘servant’.  As our churches have office bearers called deacons it is normal for modern readers to wrongly assume that the Bible is talking of these people and their role.

That leads to the second context problem – the historical background.  The Bible was not written in a historical vacuum.  It was written with historical particularity.  God chose to write by human authors addressing particular historical situations that God had brought about to reveal himself.

This gives us the ability to read and understand what God said – for he spoke in human language.  Yet we do not know everything about the historical circumstances in which the Bible was written.  We know enough because there is a common human experience of life and because God created and revealed the context in which to speak.  But we do not know everything and must be wary of guessing what precise situation of life is being addressed, if it is not stated in the text.

It is the combination of unconsciously reading our own context into the Bible and of guessing a particular historical context of the Bible that opens up the real possibility of twisting the Bible to our own destruction.

So in studying 1 Corinthians 12-14 we come across terms like ‘speaking in tongues’ or ‘prophecy’ or commands about the participation of women.  Modern readers are fascinated by this passage precisely because of the practices and controversies of today.  We are tempted to read it in order to find ourselves in the Bible and justify what we are (or are not) doing.  We usually start by defining the terms and establishing the historical circumstance that Paul is addressing.  From these definitions and our best guess at the situation we then ‘interpret’ the text.  But this is ‘interpreting’ the Bible by context rather than understanding the content of the Bible.

The trouble is that Paul assumes that the readers know what these activities are and makes no attempt to define or even describe them.  He does not describe what the women were or were not doing, but simply states what they are and are not to do.  Our attempts to get behind the words of 1 Corinthians do not illuminate God’s meaning but reveal our modern confusion.

It is possible to see from the rest of scripture something of what ‘prophecy’ and ‘speaking in tongues’ may refer to.  The events of the day of Pentecost are described as “speaking in other tongues” (Acts 2:4).  There are a plethora of prophets in the Old Testament, which can give some basic idea of prophecy as ‘claiming to speak God’s word’.  But we do not know precisely what Paul was referring to, as he saw no reason to define the terms in order to make his point.  And we have to hold open the possibility that Paul was writing about something different than the other biblical references.

Guessing what may have been happening is not all bad – it is useful in opening our minds to possibilities.  The evidence in the text discounts some of these guesses.  But even if they cannot be discounted they are only guesses and cannot be used as the basis of knowing what was meant.

Furthermore we must not assume that the present day activities we call ‘speaking in tongues’ and ‘prophecy’ are the same as the New Testament activities.  This is to read our context into the Bible.  We must read from the Bible to our present context and not read our context into the Bible.

Understanding these limitations to our knowledge does not leave us completely in the dark.  The content of God’s message to us is very clear.  By contrasting the effects of two different activities, Paul teaches us about true spirituality in church.  Prophecy aims to edify others while speaking in tongues, unless interpreted, does not edify others.  Spirituality is neither prophecy nor tongue speaking but building the body of Christ.  The whole passage enlightens us as to what to do and not to do in church e.g. “strive to excel in building up the church”, “let all things be done for edification”, “Do not be children in your thinking.  Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature”, “All things should be done decently and in order”.

Our use of gifts must be governed by serving one another in love.  This is the spiritual work of the members of the body of Christ our Lord.  The Bible is the context in which we must read the Bible.  The content of God’s word is clear – the confusion lies in our minds.

From the Dean | 23rd April 2010

An article developed from an address given by Phillip in 2000 at a conference for university students.

Hear the words of God from James 2:18.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds”.
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

I am going to ask you now to show me your faith. Let’s not get cultic about this—I don’t need you to show me. But I want you to see it for yourself.

It’s very easy to claim to have faith. Anybody can do it. Anybody can say, “I believe this, I believe that”. But how can you ever tell when somebody actually has faith? How can you know if someone is a true believer or merely a charlatan? How can you recognize faith in yourself? Isn’t faith a mystery, an unknowable, numinous something-or-other that is intensely private and ought to be kept to yourself?

How would you know what faith looks like? We can do open heart surgery, but we can’t look into the truths of the human heart. You can’t see faith by looking in people’s eyes. But faith can be seen.

What is it, then, that will reveal what is hidden?

The Bible’s answer is—your deeds.

Your deeds will show you what kind of faith you have. ‘Joe Nasdaq’ spends his life trading shares, gambling at the track and filling his house with as many possessions as possible. Joe has faith in the almighty dollar. His god is materialism; his gospel is “he who dies with the most toys wins”; and he is showing his faith by what he does.

‘Jan Middlemanager’ stays back at the office each night, uses weekends to catch up on her professional journals and ‘makes the lifestyle sacrifice now’ because she knows that promotion is just around the corner. Jan has faith in whatever it is that is at the top of the career ladder. Her god is success (or perhaps respect); her gospel is “when you die, make sure you are falling from the top”; and she is showing her faith by what she does.

‘Jack Weekend’ works a regular 9-5 job, and spends the week looking forward to Saturday sport (on the TV, of course), the Saturday night BBQ, Sunday morning sleep-in and Sunday afternoon in the garden. He loves his family; enjoys his holidays; and waits for the relaxation of retirement. Good old Jack has faith in comfort. His god is hedonism (even if it is in a very sedate form); his gospel is “look after yourself and your family and die happy”; and he is showing his faith by what he does and (like Joe and Jan) what he doesn’t do.

You might be Joe or Jan or Jack. Or you might have your own god and gospel. But your life will tell the story. Your faith is revealed by how you act. Faith, though hidden, is not so mysterious. Just look at a person’s life and you will see what they have faith in. Faith always acts.

So, my friends, while I listen to your professions of faith with joy, I want to see the reality of your faith in your actions. But before I can see it, I need to know what to look for, and so what it is exactly that you believe. Let me ask you five extended questions and then challenge you to act on your answers.

1. Do you believe the Holy Scriptures?
• Do you believe both the Old Testament and the New Testament?
• Do you believe they make you wise unto salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ?
• Do you believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God, breathed out by God himself, so that the words of the Bible are the very words of God?
• Do you believe that they are useful for training in righteousness, correcting, rebuking and teaching?
• Do you believe that the Scriptures thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work?
• Do you believe in the Holy Scriptures?

2. Do you believe in God?
• Do you believe he is the creator and sustainer of the whole world?
• Do you believe he is the ruler and the judge of all people?
• Do you believe he has been sovereign over the course of human history?
• Do you believe he is the one to whom one day you must give answer for every idle word and thought of your heart?
• Do you believe that God is here, now, looking over us at this moment, amongst us, present with us, knowing us even more intimately than we know ourselves?
• Do you believe in God?

3. Do you believe in Jesus Christ?
• Do you believe that by his death and resurrection he can save you?
• Do you believe that he who died has risen again to sit at the right hand of God in all glory, power and authority?
• Do you believe that he also is present here with us by his spirit?
• Do you believe that he who appeared the first time to die for us will appear again to judge the living and the dead?
• Do you believe in his kingdom, that he now rules the world, and that all the nations are his by right, his by creation and his by redemption?
• Do you believe that God is subduing all things under Jesus’ lordship so that he will be head of all things?
• Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

4. Do you believe in the times?
• Do you believe that we are in the last times?
• Do you believe that all that needs to happen before the end of the world has already happened?
• Do you believe that all that is left now is for Christ to return?
• Do you believe that these times we live in are the times the Scriptures speak of: when people will no longer put up with truth; when they prefer teachers who say what their itching ears want to hear; when the church itself is full of corruption?
• Do you believe in the times?

5. Do you believe in the preaching of the word of God?
• Do you believe that now is the day of salvation when the word must be preached urgently?
• Do you believe that the preaching of the gospel is the means by which the nations will come under Christ?
• Do you believe the times are short?
• Do you believe that we must put convenience aside, for now is the season for the message of Christ to be proclaimed?
• Do you believe that the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes?
• Do you believe in the preaching of the word of God?

These are not questions that have come out of my own head. I am not so bold and arrogant as to suggest I can demand such belief of you.

No. The questions above arise from the word of God itself. These are the truths he has revealed to us. They are the demands of faith that he places upon us and to which he calls us. We see a magnificent summary of these concerns in the words that the apostle Paul passed on to his great friend and preacher, Timothy, as Paul approached the end of his life:

You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. 2 Timothy 3:10-4:5

Do you believe in this message?

If so, don’t just say it. Do it. How can you believe these things and not show them in your lives? If you can assent to the creed without it being visible in your life, there must be some point at which your belief has lapsed. There must be something that you don’t truly believe, for otherwise you would act.

So how might a person reveal this faith? How would we see it expressed in a Christian’s life? There are some clear priorities that every Christian person needs to set. Sadly, very few seem to have worked this out, or else we would be seeing the gospel going forth at a much greater pace.

Your life and time should be ‘framed’ by one particular activity—the preaching of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Over this last week, we studied ‘the times’, and we have seen that the time we are now living in is the age of the gospel. It is the time when the risen Christ sits on the throne, and sends out his messengers to gather his people from the ends of the earth. This is what both Paul and Timothy believed. And what is the person who believes these things supposed to do? To “continue in what you have learned”, to “preach the word”, to “correct, rebuke and encourage”, to “keep your head in all situations”, to “endure hardship”, to “do the work of an evangelist”, to “discharge all the duties of your ministry”.

But we are not all Timothys—let us not misuse the Bible. Timothy had a particular gift and responsibility for preaching. You may or may not share his gifts and responsibilities, but you will show your faith in the word of Christ by the way you support the preaching of the word of God:

• as you teach children in Sunday School;
• as you invite someone to church;
• as you use your money to support missionaries;
• as you write a letter to a friend;
• as you pray for your fellow Christians;

you will be showing the priority of the Lord Jesus Christ in your life.

As you talk, let that priority show. Let’s make it clear to the community around us that we love the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he is king whether they will accept it or not. If we do so, we will be persecuted. If we keep our mouths shut, we won’t be persecuted. But the Bible reveals to us that everyone who wants to lead a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

That is the character of gospel living. It is too much to expect people who are receiving the gospel as the “odour of death” to love us (2 Cor2:16). But we can’t act on the basis of what people like; we must act on what we believe.

Friends, we are failing too often to set our gospel priorities. Christians think they do really well when they establish a respectable life for themselves, and then add something Christian to it. We get our job, the best house possible on our income; we start our family, and only then think about what we can do at church. We congratulate ourselves for not being like “the pagans”, but we are identical to them but for a few addenda—a bit of tacked-on church life. For people who are to live by the Spirit rather than our natural urges, this comes far too easily!

The gospel shouldn’t be at the end of your priority list. The gospel must be at the top of the list. Our beliefs—our faith—demand it. Our priorities ought to look upside down in the eyes of the world. What if we were to look first at where and how we will serve Christ, and only then fill in the other details of life? How would that affect our choice of:

• where we live?
• how we spend our money?
• what we do on the weekend?
• whether we take that job promotion?
• which field we work in?
• how much effort we spend reading God’s word?
• what importance we give to prayer?
• whom we marry?
• whether we marry?

From this list, I hope to convey just one idea: there is nothing in your life that is more important than the preaching of the gospel. You may not be the preacher–you may have any number of other roles to play. It doesn’t matter: your priorities will still be the same. Gospel preaching first, and daylight second.

If the gospel and its preaching is just an extra at the end of your list of life’s ambitions, something has gone wrong with your beliefs.

• Don’t you believe in the Holy Scriptures?
• Don’t you believe in God?
• Don’t you believe in Jesus Christ?
• Don’t you believe the times are evil?
• Don’t you believe in the preaching of the word of God?
• Don’t you believe God is delaying judgement in order to give people time to repent?

You say you believe, but show me your belief, says the God of the Scriptures.

Show me your faith.

The Briefing, issue 259/260, Aug 2000, pp. 16-18.

The Briefing | 16th August 2000

This article has been developed from an address given to around
1000 students from campuses in the wider Sydney area at this year’s
Mid Year Conference. The theme of the conference was ‘Time’, a
consideration of what the Bible teaches about the course of human
history and the centrality of Jesus Christ, and this was the final talk.

Hear the words of God from James 2:18.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds”.
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

I am going to ask you now to show me your faith. Let’s not get cultic about this—I don’t need you to show me. But I want you to see it for yourself.

It’s very easy to claim to have faith. Anybody can do it. Anybody can say, “I believe this, I believe that”. But how can you ever tell when somebody actually has faith? How can you know if someone is a true believer or merely a charlatan? How can you recognize faith in yourself? Isn’t faith a mystery, an unknowable, numinous something-or-other that is intensely private and ought to be kept to yourself?

How would you know what faith looks like? We can do open heart surgery, but we can’t look into the truths of the human heart. You can’t see faith by looking in people’s eyes. But faith can be seen.

What is it, then, that will reveal what is hidden?

The Bible’s answer is—your deeds.

Your deeds will show you what kind of faith you have. ‘Joe Nasdaq’ spends his life trading shares, gambling at the track and filling his house with as many possessions as possible. Joe has faith in the almighty dollar. His god is materialism; his gospel is “he who dies with the most toys wins”; and he is showing his faith by what he does.

‘Jan Middlemanager’ stays back at the office each night, uses weekends to catch up on her professional journals and ‘makes the lifestyle sacrifice now’ because she knows that promotion is just around the corner. Jan has faith in whatever it is that is at the top of the career ladder. Her god is success (or perhaps respect); her gospel is “when you die, make sure you are falling from the top”; and she is showing her faith by what she does.

‘Jack Weekend’ works a regular 9-5 job, and spends the week looking forward to Saturday sport (on the TV, of course), the Saturday night BBQ, Sunday morning sleep-in and Sunday afternoon in the garden. He loves his family; enjoys his holidays; and waits for the relaxation of retirement. Good old Jack has faith in comfort. His god is hedonism (even if it is in a very sedate form); his gospel is “look after yourself and your family and die happy”; and he is showing his faith by what he does and (like Joe and Jan) what he doesn’t do.

You might be Joe or Jan or Jack. Or you might have your own god and gospel. But your life will tell the story. Your faith is revealed by how you act. Faith, though hidden, is not so mysterious. Just look at a person’s life and you will see what they have faith in. Faith always acts.

So, my friends, while I listen to your professions of faith with joy, I want to see the reality of your faith in your actions. But before I can see it, I need to know what to look for, and so what it is exactly that you believe. Let me ask you five extended questions and then challenge you to act on your answers.

1. Do you believe the Holy Scriptures?
• Do you believe both the Old Testament and the New Testament?
• Do you believe they make you wise unto salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ?
• Do you believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God, breathed out by God himself, so that the words of the Bible are the very words of God?
• Do you believe that they are useful for training in righteousness, correcting, rebuking and teaching?
• Do you believe that the Scriptures thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work?
• Do you believe in the Holy Scriptures?

2. Do you believe in God?
• Do you believe he is the creator and sustainer of the whole world?
• Do you believe he is the ruler and the judge of all people?
• Do you believe he has been sovereign over the course of human history?
• Do you believe he is the one to whom one day you must give answer for every idle word and thought of your heart?
• Do you believe that God is here, now, looking over us at this moment, amongst us, present with us, knowing us even more intimately than we know ourselves?
• Do you believe in God?

3. Do you believe in Jesus Christ?
• Do you believe that by his death and resurrection he can save you?
• Do you believe that he who died has risen again to sit at the right hand of God in all glory, power and authority?
• Do you believe that he also is present here with us by his spirit?
• Do you believe that he who appeared the first time to die for us will appear again to judge the living and the dead?
• Do you believe in his kingdom, that he now rules the world, and that all the nations are his by right, his by creation and his by redemption?
• Do you believe that God is subduing all things under Jesus’ lordship so that he will be head of all things?
• Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

4. Do you believe in the times?
• Do you believe that we are in the last times?
• Do you believe that all that needs to happen before the end of the world has already happened?
• Do you believe that all that is left now is for Christ to return?
• Do you believe that these times we live in are the times the Scriptures speak of: when people will no longer put up with truth; when they prefer teachers who say what their itching ears want to hear; when the church itself is full of corruption?
• Do you believe in the times?

5. Do you believe in the preaching of the word of God?
• Do you believe that now is the day of salvation when the word must be preached urgently?
• Do you believe that the preaching of the gospel is the means by which the nations will come under Christ?
• Do you believe the times are short?
• Do you believe that we must put convenience aside, for now is the season for the message of Christ to be proclaimed?
• Do you believe that the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes?
• Do you believe in the preaching of the word of God?

These are not questions that have come out of my own head. I am not so bold and arrogant as to suggest I can demand such belief of you.

No. The questions above arise from the word of God itself. These are the truths he has revealed to us. They are the demands of faith that he places upon us and to which he calls us. We see a magnificent summary of these concerns in the words that the apostle Paul passed on to his great friend and preacher, Timothy, as Paul approached the end of his life:

You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry. 2 Timothy 3:10-4:5

Do you believe in this message?

If so, don’t just say it. Do it. How can you believe these things and not show them in your lives? If you can assent to the creed without it being visible in your life, there must be some point at which your belief has lapsed. There must be something that you don’t truly believe, for otherwise you would act.

So how might a person reveal this faith? How would we see it expressed in a Christian’s life? There are some clear priorities that every Christian person needs to set. Sadly, very few seem to have worked this out, or else we would be seeing the gospel going forth at a much greater pace.

Your life and time should be ‘framed’ by one particular activity—the preaching of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Over this last week, we studied ‘the times’, and we have seen that the time we are now living in is the age of the gospel. It is the time when the risen Christ sits on the throne, and sends out his messengers to gather his people from the ends of the earth. This is what both Paul and Timothy believed. And what is the person who believes these things supposed to do? To “continue in what you have learned”, to “preach the word”, to “correct, rebuke and encourage”, to “keep your head in all situations”, to “endure hardship”, to “do the work of an evangelist”, to “discharge all the duties of your ministry”.

But we are not all Timothys—let us not misuse the Bible. Timothy had a particular gift and responsibility for preaching. You may or may not share his gifts and responsibilities, but you will show your faith in the word of Christ by the way you support the preaching of the word of God:

• as you teach children in Sunday School;
• as you invite someone to church;
• as you use your money to support missionaries;
• as you write a letter to a friend;
• as you pray for your fellow Christians;

you will be showing the priority of the Lord Jesus Christ in your life.

As you talk, let that priority show. Let’s make it clear to the community around us that we love the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he is king whether they will accept it or not. If we do so, we will be persecuted. If we keep our mouths shut, we won’t be persecuted. But the Bible reveals to us that everyone who wants to lead a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

That is the character of gospel living. It is too much to expect people who are receiving the gospel as the “odour of death” to love us (2 Cor2:16). But we can’t act on the basis of what people like; we must act on what we believe.

Friends, we are failing too often to set our gospel priorities. Christians think they do really well when they establish a respectable life for themselves, and then add something Christian to it. We get our job, the best house possible on our income; we start our family, and only then think about what we can do at church. We congratulate ourselves for not being like “the pagans”, but we are identical to them but for a few addenda—a bit of tacked-on church life. For people who are to live by the Spirit rather than our natural urges, this comes far too easily!

The gospel shouldn’t be at the end of your priority list. The gospel must be at the top of the list. Our beliefs—our faith—demand it. Our priorities ought to look upside down in the eyes of the world. What if we were to look first at where and how we will serve Christ, and only then fill in the other details of life? How would that affect our choice of:

• where we live?
• how we spend our money?
• what we do on the weekend?
• whether we take that job promotion?
• which field we work in?
• how much effort we spend reading God’s word?
• what importance we give to prayer?
• whom we marry?
• whether we marry?

From this list, I hope to convey just one idea: there is nothing in your life that is more important than the preaching of the gospel. You may not be the preacher–you may have any number of other roles to play. It doesn’t matter: your priorities will still be the same. Gospel preaching first, and daylight second.

If the gospel and its preaching is just an extra at the end of your list of life’s ambitions, something has gone wrong with your beliefs.

• Don’t you believe in the Holy Scriptures?
• Don’t you believe in God?
• Don’t you believe in Jesus Christ?
• Don’t you believe the times are evil?
• Don’t you believe in the preaching of the word of God?
• Don’t you believe God is delaying judgement in order to give people time to repent?

You say you believe, but show me your belief, says the God of the Scriptures.

Show me your faith.

From the Dean | 13th April 2010

From Phillip’s Foreword to the book ‘Forgiving Hitler: the Kathy Diosy story as told by Kel Richards’...

You have in your hands a most extraordinary book. The title itself warns you of its extraordinary character. Forgiving Hitler is about as obscene a title as one could imagine.

Then again, Kathy Diosy is a most extraordinary person—as you will come to discover. The story is not a complete biography. It does not tell you all the details of her life. It does not detail all the dreadful things that were done to her or that she has done. It doesn’t linger over the sordid details of an evil world for the entertainment of prurient or violent minds. While forgiveness is found in facing, not denying, reality—forgiveness is neither found nor expressed in the endless rehearsal of the details of offence. Forgiveness is the victim’s release from victimology.

Forgiveness is important in whatever the form it takes or level at which it operates. Forgiveness is about relationships, about improving relationships, about restoring relationships. This alone makes it important. In our litigious culture and in our age of war, hostility and divorce, learning how to mend and repair relationships must be important.

Forgiveness often helps the injured party as much if not more than the offender. It removes from the injured the sense of rage and bitterness, the sense of outraged injustice, the disappointment in life that colours everything else. It also removes from us that deception of divinity, as if the offender is the only person who has done something wrong in life and I, as the perfectly innocent sufferer, have the right to judge others.

Forgiveness is very difficult to achieve. Injustice is a reality not just a feeling—just as evil is a reality not just an opinion. It is a minor thing to forgive a minor inconvenience. But to forgive the betrayal of a hateful abuser of your trust—that is a pain almost unbearable to endure. It feels like being the victim twice over and then some.

Kathy’s journey in life was one that too many people shared in the horrors of Hitler’s rampage. She was one of that generation of survivors that we must listen to. We must hear the horror of the reality of evil and never be satisfied with the trite removal of ‘iniquity’ and ‘sin’ from our vocabulary by the spin doctors of ethical relativism. But we must also hear the story of how the survivors reconstructed their lives. We must hear the story of finding forgiveness.
I am also thankful to God, that he has dealt so kindly with my friend and sister, and given me the privilege of knowing such an extraordinary woman.

Jensen, P.D., ‘Forgiving Hitler?’. The Briefing, issue 291, December 2002, pp. 5-6.

The Briefing | 1st December 2002

You have in your hands a most extraordinary book. The title itself warns you of its extraordinary character. Forgiving Hitler is about as obscene a title as one could imagine.

Then again, Kathy Diosy is a most extraordinary person—as you will come to discover. The story is not a complete biography. It does not tell you all the details of her life. It does not detail all the dreadful things that were done to her or that she has done. It doesn’t linger over the sordid details of an evil world for the entertainment of prurient or violent minds. While forgiveness is found in facing, not denying, reality—forgiveness is neither found nor expressed in the endless rehearsal of the details of offence. Forgiveness is the victim’s release from victimology.

Forgiveness is important in whatever the form it takes or level at which it operates. Forgiveness is about relationships, about improving relationships, about restoring relationships. This alone makes it important. In our litigious culture and in our age of war, hostility and divorce, learning how to mend and repair relationships must be important.

Forgiveness often helps the injured party as much if not more than the offender. It removes from the injured the sense of rage and bitterness, the sense of outraged injustice, the disappointment in life that colours everything else. It also removes from us that deception of divinity, as if the offender is the only person who has done something wrong in life and I, as the perfectly innocent sufferer, have the right to judge others.

Forgiveness is very difficult to achieve. Injustice is a reality not just a feeling—just as evil is a reality not just an opinion. It is a minor thing to forgive a minor inconvenience. But to forgive the betrayal of a hateful abuser of your trust—that is a pain almost unbearable to endure. It feels like being the victim twice over and then some.

Kathy’s journey in life was one that too many people shared in the horrors of Hitler’s rampage. She was one of that generation of survivors that we must listen to. We must hear the horror of the reality of evil and never be satisfied with the trite removal of ‘iniquity’ and ‘sin’ from our vocabulary by the spin doctors of ethical relativism. But we must also hear the story of how the survivors reconstructed their lives. We must hear the story of finding forgiveness.
I am also thankful to God, that he has dealt so kindly with my friend and sister, and given me the privilege of knowing such an extraordinary woman.

From the Dean | 25th February 2010

Did Dr Spock change his mind?  This is not the fictional Spock of Star Trek but the most famous Paediatrician of the twentieth century: Dr Benjamin Spock of “Baby and Child Care” fame.

Dr Spock has been blamed for the 60’s sexual revolution.  These were the children brought up on the permissive child raising advice that he gave to the baby boomers’ parents.  But did he change his mind?

In one sense you would hope that he did.  He studied medicine in the 1920’s at Yale (when, incidentally, he won an Olympic Gold medal for rowing).  He was still giving advice in the 1990’s.  If he did not change his mind during that period of huge advances in medical knowledge, he would have displayed incompetence, verging on culpable negligence.  What we want from our medical practitioners is evidence-based decisions.  As new evidence arrives, changes of opinion, advice and decision are mandatory.

Yet not all evidence is conclusive or unambiguous, nor are all professions backed up by such scientific research as medicine.  Even the science of medicine, such as Dr Spock’s education in psychoanalysis, is not as objective and evidence-based as the community would commonly believe.  There is a great art in good medical practice.

So what is meant when social scientists, and especially politicians, speak of evidence-based decisions?  It sounds right and sensible, as indeed it is.  It is one of those phrases that seems impossible to object to.  What would it mean to make decisions contrary to evidence?  Who, other than one’s opponents, would ever want to do such a foolish thing?  But what does ‘evidence-based decisions’ mean?

The phrase has many uses.  One chief use is to procrastinate on difficult decisions, while sounding reasonable and decisive.  “We are still waiting for the evidence to come in.”  Or, more particularly, “We are waiting for the conclusive evidence to arrive”.  Or “We are commissioning another report or study” - and so avoid make a decision.

In many of life’s decisions the evidence is unavailable to us.  There are often too many variables and complexities for us to evaluate.  There is a certain hubris in imagining that we will be able to know, of a certainty, the best path forward.

Sometimes we cannot know the results of our decision till after the event, and even then, the evidence will be uncertain and inconclusive.  At what point in social experiments do we conclude that we have ‘the results’?  In the first flush of experimental enthusiasm many trials prove a success that is hard to sustain in the long run.  In some areas, like education, it can be the enthusiasm of the experiment that succeeds rather than the new approach that is being tested.  Sometimes the precise point of the experiment shows success but only later does the collateral damage demonstrate that the change was for the worse not the better.  The introduction of asbestos into our buildings was an evidence-based insulation decision that proved to have dreadful health consequences.  In cases like these, later evidence should change our previous decisions.  We should not be afraid of change or of evidence-based decision-making.  But we cannot be sure that our changes will necessarily be any more beneficial than our previous decisions, for we are not in control of the world or the future.

In fact some of our decisions so change the future that we are no longer able to reverse the damage and start again.  We cannot replant the ancient rainforests nor return to a society where pornography was censored.  It will be difficult for a generation of teachers, who were educated without grammar, to fulfil Ms Gillard’s new curriculum, which requires the explicit teaching of grammar in every year from K to 12.  How can we ever unravel the mess we have made of marriage and family life in the last fifty years?

Some issues are beyond measurement.  The Utilitarians’ desire to ‘maximise the happiness of society’ was always dogged by the impossibility of measuring the intangible quality called ‘happiness’.  So deeply committed are some people to the happiness of their personal freedom that no amount of evidence would ever persuade them to return to a happier social structure if it limited their own liberty in any way.  Their freedom to smoke pot, get drunk, gamble recklessly, eat gluttonously, acquire insatiably, watch porn, commit adultery, and generally sleaze around must not be questioned in the calculation of maximising human happiness.

Here is the problem when politicians and other social engineers talk of ‘evidence based decisions’.  It is critical that we understand the context, viewpoint and bias in which we gather and evaluate evidence.  ‘Utilitarianism’, ‘harm minimisation’ and ‘outcome’ philosophies are grander in rhetoric than in close analysis or the delivery of a better world.  They have the hubris of taking our God given human responsibility for the world, without remembering our dependence upon our Creator, the sinfulness of humanity, or God’s present judgement upon this world.  We do not make decisions rationally because we are sinfully disposed.  We are not able to rule the world for we live outside of the paradise of creation, in the hostility of a world under God’s judgement.

God’s word teaches us to use the minds He has given to us in creation to look for evidence upon which to base our decisions.  It teaches us to expect new evidence that will change our mind, repent of our actions, and seek better ways forward.  It also teaches us to respect the wisdom handed down to us by those who experienced life before us.  But we must do this with the fear of the Lord in our hearts, for only then will our decisions be based in the wisdom of humility.  We must trust in the Lord and not lean on our own understanding.  His ways of righteousness are to be our guide.  And we must look to Jesus, for only in him do we see the man to whom the creation is in submission.

From the Dean | 18th February 2010

Organising congregational life is one of the difficulties of modern churches.

The first problem is that congregations become wed to their existing pattern as ‘the right way’ for church to gather.  Thus we become committed to patterns inherited from previous generations.  Anglicans even appeal to the 17th century Book of Common Prayer as their blueprint for church.  However, the pattern envisaged in the 17th century has undergone considerable change since then.

In the first half of the 20th century a fairly common pattern developed across most of Sydney’s parishes.  Most Sundays would commence with an early morning Communion.  Then, as late as 11am, there would be the main church gathering.  This was usually Morning Prayer but would sometimes involve the Lord’s Supper either once a month or after Morning Prayer for those who wanted to stay.  In the evening there would be Evening Prayer, which again, in some parishes, would have Communion once a month.

Around these formal liturgies there were other ministries such as Sunday School, and from the middle of the century, youth fellowships.  Sunday School used to be in the mid-afternoon but as the century wore on it was almost universally conducted in the morning, while youth fellowships were in the late afternoon and became associated with the evening congregation.

Over the second half of the twentieth century large changes happened both in society and church.  The suburbs of Sydney expanded in post-war reconstruction leading to building programmes and parish re-organisation across the diocese.  The coming of television, the proliferation of the car and the introduction of organised and professional sport on Sunday meant the demise of the ‘twicers’ (those who came morning and evening) and the nominals (who attended occasionally and regularly sent their children to Sunday School).

So by the end of the century the pattern of an early morning communion remained – mainly attended by senior members who live locally.  The main morning meeting changed to a mid-morning family gathering, with concurrent children’s programme for the children of the congregation.  The evening congregation became a youth oriented gathering, which loosened the pattern of prayer book liturgy and 19th century hymnody.  So came the homogenous congregation, mainly developed along age and stage of life – elderly at communion, families mid-morning and youth at evening.

This acceptance of special focussed congregations opened up the possibility of other specialised churches.  So congregations for students or particular ethnic groups or particular interest groups came into existence.  The effectiveness of this strategy added fuel to the planting of new churches.  Some of these were split from already existing churches; some of them were mission churches starting with not much more than a couple of people with a vision.  Some were adding congregations to the parish organisation, utilising school or other community facilities, or the parish buildings on a different day or time slot to the existing congregations.  Instead of three congregations some parishes started to run five, ten or fifteen.  This enabled resources to be put into ministers and ministries rather than into increasing the size of church buildings.

However, some people have rightly seen the advantage of a single large congregation over a number of smaller congregations.  Larger churches can afford to provide more specialised quality ministries, especially larger and better-organised children and youth ministries.  The size of a congregation has a distinct and decided effect on how church is organised and conducted.  A simple illustration is the quality of acceptable music, reading or even preaching of a church of fifty people compared to a congregation of five hundred.  The little church rightly glories in the intimacy and personal care of all its members and rejoices in the stumbling attempts of any of its sons or daughters trying to use the gifts God has given them for the benefit of the whole.  Whereas a larger congregation needs to be run with a degree of efficiency in order to help the many and varied people who attend.  A little congregation can afford to wait for its members to turn up before starting whereas the bigger church has to start on time whether or not some of its members are running late.

So at least two models of church growth are at work in Sydney now: the large congregation model and the congregational planting model.  Both have advantages and disadvantages, though sometimes writers and consultants promote one in opposition to the other.

The large church model is good when there is a large central building and a staff of specialists (senior pastor, children’s or youth worker, families pastor, singles pastor, music director etc).  Its weaknesses are that it can be a ‘consumer’ and ‘professional’ church with staff instead of members ministering.  It can also fail to recruit and train others for ministry as it provides everything for people and does not even train its staff with a sufficiently broad experience of ministry.  These are not inevitable outcomes, they can be overcome by intentional planning.

The congregational planting model is good when it is impossible to build large facilities, or there is a great diversity of people groups to reach, and a staff of generalists who can each take responsibility for a congregation and its outreach.  But it has the disadvantages of small congregations, struggling to gain critical mass to survive and grow.  These are often congregations with tired members and seemingly unnecessary and inefficient duplications of activities.  It is inefficient to have five men preparing sermons for five small congregations, instead of four of them freeing up one man to preach a better sermon to a larger congregation.  But there’s the rub – how do we get better preachers for the future if we do not have young preachers being forced into the regular pattern of preparing and delivering sermons.

The Bible tells us very little about how to organize our church, for the heart of the gospel is not organizational but spiritual.  There is no right way – neither the traditional nor the contemporary; the single congregation or the multi congregation; the large church or the church-planting model.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages for the particular situation.  For the sake of Christ’s church and the benefit of his people, we must be prepared to make the changes necessary to minimise the disadvantages and maximise the advantages of our congregational organization.

From the Dean | 11th February 2010

Inside the Northern or Town Hall door of the Cathedral is a large monument recounting the many ways God used Samuel Marsden for the benefit of others.  It does not call him the “flogging parson” but the “Apostle to New Zealand”.  It is a tribute not an exhaustive history, but reading it is generally exhausting - for few men achieved so much in their lifetime.

As the second chaplain of the prison colony he not only consistently taught God’s word and led His people but also conducted marriages and burials for the whole community.  At the same time he was engaged in the civil matters of the colony, bringing him into the position of a magistrate with all the unfortunate consequences of his reputation.  He was also engaged in the economic construction of the community being a farmer and ship owner.  In many ways he was the father of the sheep industry of Australia and the grape industry of New Zealand.  Furthermore, he took a leading and active role in caring for the children of the colony, establishing and governing schools and orphanages, and with frustratingly little success, he tried to help the Aborigines.

Samuel Marsden was a convinced evangelical and so was committed to world evangelism and the missionary cause.  He was deeply involved with missionary activity in the Pacific islands, and personally took a leading part in reaching the Maoris.  While Marsden struggled to find a way forward with the indigenous peoples of Australia he found progress in New Zealand.  He was the first man to preach Christ there and set up a mission, which required him to cross the Tasman many times.

In his period of history this concern for the salvation of mankind was often confused with improving and civilising society and especially the ‘savages’ of the world.  The war on slavery was still in full swing and the horrors of human abuse touched the evangelical conscience.  Adding to the complexity of these issues, the missionary movement was also inextricably bound up with the development of the European empires and their financial interests.

All this has led to very confused verdicts of later generations.  Samuel Marsden’s motives and actions have often been questioned.  The good that he did has often been discounted by the associated evils that he was engaged with.  Late last century the Australian academic A. T. Yarwood published a full and interesting biography: “Samuel Marsden; The Great Survivor”.  But dispute and controversy continues to reign over the work and life of this colourful character of colonial times.

Though I knew all this, nothing quite prepared me for a recent reading of a New Zealand travel guide.  In it the author recounted the state of New Zealand in the time of Marsden.  There was a toxic combination of Maori culture - practising cannibalism, slavery and fierce inter-tribal warfare - with the off scouring of European adventurers, profiteers, escaped convicts and “all manner of miscreants”.  Alcohol and tobacco abuse, European diseases and gun-running led to the collapse of tribal structures.  “Maori women were prostituted to the Pakeha sailors”.  One settlement was described as “the Hellhole of the Pacific” and Darwin in 1835, found it as a lawless place, the home of “the very refuse of Society”.

And Marsden?  The travel guide had this to say of him: “Into this scene stepped the missionaries in 1814, the brutal New South Wales magistrate, Samuel Marsden, arriving in the Bay of Islands a transformed man with a mission to bring Christianity and ‘civilization’ to Maori, and to save the souls of the sealers and whalers.”  In our terms, Marsden may have been brutal, but in the day in which he lived and compared to the people he was seeking to serve, his brutality is hardly the most striking feature.  And yes, he served as a magistrate in Parramatta, but he was first and foremost a minister of the gospel and came as a missionary not a magistrate.  In the guide book he, and the other subsequent missionaries, are further attacked for ruining the Maori culture even for demanding that they “abandon cannibalism and slavery”!
What we have here is the later generations’ judgement on the sovereignty and sanctity of all cultures.  Today’s European (Western) culture claims there are no moral certainties or absolutes, and nobody should impose their ideas upon anybody else; even by persuasion and prayer.  We now are being taught that no culture is superior to another and the only immorality is to spread your culture to others.  People should have been left in their own culture, whatever it was, without the arrogant intervention of Europeans.

Indeed Christians can agree that the European cultures with their rapacious exploitative greed were far from righteous.  But travelling alongside those cultures, and deeply critical of them, was the Christian view of humanity, which sought to preserve the sanctity of human life, while bringing the enlightenment of God’s word on how to live it.  That meant opposing slavery and cannibalism and other appalling practices such as polygamy, prostitution and (in India) suttee.  Missionaries brought education and medicine, and intervened to stop the endless round of tribal warfare.  They frequently helped those invaded by the commercial interests of Europe to adapt to a new world order that could not be avoided.

Those who do not believe in spiritual realities have little sympathy for the work of liberating those who have lived all their life under the fear and terror of the occult forces administered by witchdoctors.  Those who were liberated rejoiced in receiving the great news of salvation.  For them the images and idols were not fascinating collectables of indigenous art but the instruments of the torturous darkness of evil spirits.

The imposition of Western culture is as great today as ever – both the commercial interests and the social cultural norms.  The critics of cultural imperialism often unwittingly impose the intellectual norms of Western ethical and religious relativism on others.  Christians must remain as committed to world mission as ever, for as Paul told the philosophers of his day: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”  (Acts 17:30-31).

From the Dean | 4th February 2010

It was nearly thirty years ago, so I cannot remember the details accurately but the local primary school P&C meeting ran something along the following lines.

“There is no agreement amongst the community as to which football code to follow.  Some want Soccer others League or Union and still others want Aussie Rules.  So we, the staff, have decided that the school will not play any football this winter.”

“But all the boys like League, surely we can have one team for them.”

“Some of the parents think it’s too rough and are worried about injuries.”

“What about we change to soccer?”

“There are injuries in soccer too.”

“But this school has always played League and nobody was injured last year.”

“Well, we have a couple of families who have moved from Victoria and they want to have Aussie Rules, and we can’t provide everything.”

“So why not provide for the majority and keep going like we always have?”

“That wouldn’t be fair to the ones who want Aussie Rules.  So it is better to have no football at all.  That is fair for everybody.”

“It’s not fair, it’s stupid!”

“That’s the only way we can treat everybody the same.  We don’t have any football - so nobody misses out.”

“You mean everybody misses out!  My boys and their mates will miss having football for sport.  They’re all mad keen on footie.”

“Studies have shown that in sporting development the girls are the same as boys in primary school and so we have to offer sports that both boys and girls can participate in together.”

“I don’t want my girl playing football.”

“No, we won’t be offering it, so your girl won’t have to.”

“But my boys want to play footie.  They’ll be so disappointed.  They enjoyed it last year.  Do we have to integrate the sports?  Can’t the boys have football and the girls play something else, they like?”

“Girls can play football just as well as boys.”

“I don’t believe that, but if it is true then why not have football for all who want to play?”

“Football is not really suitable for children.  It is too violent and it encourages violence in the playground.  The staff think there are more suitable games for boys and girls to play together.”

“You mean the staff do not like football.  How many of them have ever played it?”

“That’s an irrelevance.  The staff are all professional teachers and will coach whatever sport is considered appropriate for the age and development of the children.”

“Has this decision got anything to do with the last male staff member leaving?  Now that Mr X has left the school, does that mean there are no men left to coach the boys in footie?”

“No, it has nothing to do with that at all!  Our staff are all professional educationalists and could coach football if needed, but they feel that we have to reduce the level of violence in the playground and teach the children how to play quieter, less anti-social games together.”

“You mean games for girls.”

“Not just for the girls, the boys can be taught to enjoy them, also.” 

“So there is no place for what boys like in school?”

“No, that’s not true.  Studies have shown that boys and girls can have the same interests, if the environment in which they are raised encourages cooperation and removes anti-social behaviour fed by competitiveness and physical violence.  Furthermore, there are some boys who are very good students but do not like football.  They feel alienated and left out by the social status of football in the playground.  School is an educational institution and it is a shame when some of the best scholars feel they have no place in the school.”

“You just don’t like football!”

“No, it’s just that there is no agreement on which football the community wants, and we cannot offer them all, so it is better to have none.”

“When did you last go to a footie game?”

“My personal preference has nothing to do with it.  It is purely a professional educational issue.  Football has no real place in an educational institution.”

Strangely, it was almost the same argument that I was experiencing about the place of religion in the university, where as a chaplain I saw Christians and Christianity being continually marginalised.  “There are too many religions, and so nobody can be catered for lest others are disadvantaged.”  For many, religion was deemed to be anti-social and anti-feminist, the staff had no competence in it, people in powerful positions did not like it, and felt that it was not what a university is about - so “better to have none than any”.  Of course this had nothing to do with personal opinions or private prejudices!  It also flew in the face of students’ widespread interest in religion and the place of religion in history, literature, music, culture and society.

It is much the same today in the media, politics and public debate and wherever secularists are given sufficient power to censor others’ opinions in a “free and open society”.

From the Dean | 28th January 2010

What are we to make of Mary MacKillop’s miracle cure?

En route to declaring Mary MacKillop as Australia’s first Saint, the Pope’s advisors have thoroughly tested the medical evidence of the cure of a cancer patient.  It has been investigated very carefully to make sure that the doctors saw no hope of cure and that the cure has been complete.  No doubt, the people involved are sincere and are not making financial gain from their testimony.

Recently, on the Sydney Anglican website, Mark Gilbert wrote a helpful article on how to talk to our Roman Catholic friends about this miracle.  But what are we to make of it ourselves?

Should we rejoice in answered prayer?  Should we doubt the evidence before us?  Should we learn from this to pray to the Saints for their assistance in prayer to God?  Should we see this as evidence that Mary MacKillop is a ‘Saint’, who has already been accepted by God into his presence?  Should we pray to, or even for, the dead?
Secularist commentators have been deeply offended by the suggestion that prayer changes anything or that God ever cures people.  Their view of the world does not allow the possibility of God’s intervention into the physical reality of disease.  So in order to attack the supernatural, they ask: “Why should God cure one person when thousands are dying of hunger or disaster, like in Haiti?”  Or they point to the number of people who have automatic remission of their cancer without prayer, or the number of people who pray and are not cured.

But Christians believe that God answers our prayers as he determines is best for us.  That as the sovereign ruler of the universe there is nothing impossible for him (Luke 1.37, 18.27).  So God curing somebody of an apparently incurable cancer, while extraordinary, is not unbelievable for us.  We may not know why God answers the prayer of one person and not another, but we always pray for everything and rejoice with thanksgiving whenever we see God giving us the things we have prayed for.

But what about asking Mary MacKillop to pray to God for us - will God hear the prayers offered in her name, or offered by her on behalf of other people?  Was the woman healed because God listened to Mary MacKillop?  And what is the wisdom of praying to somebody who has not yet been declared a Saint? Can a non-Saint, or someone who has been declared a Saint for that matter, hear and assist in our prayers?

At this point there is a conflict between experience and the Bible – a conflict that is increased by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  It poses for us the choice of whether our belief, about prayer and life after death will be determined by the Bible or by our experience.  In this case the experience is being interpreted by Roman Catholic teaching.

The controversy between Bible believers and Rome over prayers for the dead, or prayers to the saints is a well worn track that I do not wish to follow in this article.  Anglicanism is Protestant in its doctrines.  Therefore on this matter, the Book of Common Prayer does not pray to, or for, the dead but studiously avoids such practice.  You may remember in the Lord’s Supper that we pray for the whole state of Christ’s church “militant here in earth”.  And Article 22, of the 39 Articles describes praying to the Saints as “a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

However, the argument from experience is very common amongst Christians today and needs to be seriously questioned.  For miracles are not self-explanatory.  Neither do they authenticate the godliness of their workers.  The Old Testament talks of false prophets doing miracles (Deuteronomy 13:1-3).  Jesus warned of false Christs and false prophets who would “perform signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, the elect.” (Mark 13:22).  We are also warned of the coming of the lawless one “by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-11).

The question of the miracle then is not whether it happened (though of course it is important to avoid rogues and charlatans by checking the facts carefully) but what is its significance or meaning.  This question is not answered by the miracle itself but the belief system in which it occurs and the purpose to which it is put.

A miracle that is made in response to prayers to a dead person is contrary to the Bible’s view of the centrality, uniqueness and resurrection of Christ as well as the nature of death and the significance of ‘Saints’.  Consequently, Bible believers may well believe the testimony that the miracle happened, but will quite significantly disagree with the Roman Catholic interpretation of its meaning or significance.

That a woman, who prayed to Mary MacKillop, was cured of her cancer is quite possible and believable.  That Mary MacKillop heard her prayer and prayed to God on her behalf or that God answered the prayer of Mary MacKillop is an entirely different matter.  Biblical understanding would firmly deny that such things happened.  The Bible warns us not to draw such conclusions from such an experience. 

However, drawing false conclusions from experience is not limited to Roman Catholicism.  Many Protestants today also draw false conclusions from their experiences.  Strange and ‘miraculous’ experiences like ‘slaying in the Spirit’ or the ‘Toronto blessing’ or ‘words of prophecy’ or ‘power encounters’ – are not self-interpreting and do not authenticate ministries as being from God.

While truth needs to be weighed and evaluated in the light of experience, experience itself is a very poor guide to truth.  Experience needs to be understood and interpreted in the light of the truth, taught to us in God’s word.

From the Dean | 21st January 2010

This year is the bicentenary of the birth of the first Australian-born clergyman, and the first Dean of our Cathedral: William Macquarie Cowper.  His father, for many years the rector of St Philip’s York Street, arrived in 1809 as the third chaplain to the penal colony.  William was born the next year, and as his middle name indicates, had the newly arrived governor as his godfather.

I hated Australian history at school.  We seemed to be taught it every year and it never interested me.  Mind you, not much did interest me at school.  If it weren’t for the extra-curricular activities I would have died of boredom.  It wasn’t till my third year at university when I took a course in historical geography that I discovered any interest in our own history.

As an adult I am very appreciative of those wonderful schoolteachers who so nobly fought the indolence of my youth and drummed some information into me.  It was most likely, as unpleasant an experience for them, as it was for me.  But they gave me some rudimentary idea of who we are, why we are here, how my family’s migration fits into a bigger picture and why our nation operates as it does. 

The history of Australia explains why we speak in English, have a constitutional monarchy, a democratic government, a British system of justice, where our wealth came from, and why we play cricket.  It also explains our modern multicultural society and our guilt over our treatment of the indigenous peoples of Australia.  History is one of the keys that each generation is given to find its bearings in life. 

It is shared public information that all children are taught.  There may be disagreements about the interpretation of our history.  Some see the story line from a right wing perspective others from the left. Some are concerned about the issues of the Irish or the Aborigines or the convicts while others are more interested in the advance of society leaders, government officials or the squattocracy.  But there is a canon of historical events that happened and can be taught as explanatory of our nation’s formation.

This enables our community to discuss together the way forward from here.  History does not bind us to remain in the past but it does bind us together.  And it explains why things are the way they are and what we are losing and gaining by making changes.  Generally people do something for a reason – sometimes the reasons are good and sometimes bad.  Before making changes it is always wise to discover the reasons why people acted as they did previously.  It is unlikely that our own generation is the repository of all good ideas.

However, recent conversations have made me wonder whether we still share knowledge of historical events.  I am not talking of shared interpretation of the events but any knowledge that the events happened at all.  I have experienced an apparent disappearance of the basic canon of Australia’s historical events.

In teaching about William Cowper to groups of people under the age of 30, I have tried to place him in his historical context.  To my amazement, I have discovered an almost complete lack of knowledge of colonial history.  The names and events of governors Arthur, Bligh or Macquarie, or issues like emancipation, or the exploration of the continent - the crossing of the Blue Mountains, the inland explorers or the journeys of Matthew Flinders - or even the gold rushes, were basically unknown.

I am not for a moment suggesting that today’s education is not as good as ‘the old days’, or that the next generation of adults are anything but great.  It is not that they are poorly educated so much as differently educated.  My sample of about fifty people is small and not scientifically based.  Yet they are highly educated and intelligent - nearly all have at least one university degree.

I hope that I am completely wrong in all this – that I have met only the strangest sample of Australians – completely uncharacteristic of their generation.  But if my experience of difficulty in talking of William Cowper is indicative of the historical education of our community, there are some real concerns for Australia and especially Christian Australia.

Common understanding of our origins is a basic peaceful mode of uniting a community.  Losing your past, or censoring it, is one of the ways to destabilise a society.  It makes us the victims of the present fads and fashions and worse still – victims of today’s power brokers.  The past may not be our vision for the future but it is powerfully explanatory of who we are, where we have come so far and what we need to do to implement our vision for the future.  To have no common canon of historical events is to have no common understanding of ourselves.

A nation is much more than its government, and its government’s legitimacy rests on much more than its election.  A nation, even one with a democratically elected government, is much more than the current opinion of the majority of its citizens.  Otherwise, we are dominated by the transitory, live under the tyranny of the majority and risk the terror of popularism.  The protection of minorities in a democracy resides in systems of justice and government that go beyond parliament and its present office bearers.  The acceptance of Government power resides in the culture of the community.  That culture comes from the community’s history.

What makes Australia’s culture is the history of white settlement.  Modern Australia was founded by Christians from a Christian nation, along basic Christian principles and culture.  Some of their actions, like some of ours, are a terrible blot on the name of Christ e.g. indigenous exploitation.  Others have had the great benefit of His gracious wisdom – e.g. no slavery or polygamy.  However, we were not founded as a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Atheist nation.  If we had been, our culture, society and form of government would be very different today.  Ignorance of white settlement, censors Christianity out of our culture.  Australia Day is a good time to recapture who we are by remembering how we were founded.

From the Dean | 15th January 2010

Like everybody I have a problem with temptation.  But the problem is not just the difficulty of facing temptation: the problem is of understanding what is meant by the word ‘temptation’.

Dictionaries describe for us how the word is being used today.  Some words have entered or been popularised in English by their Biblical usage.  But over time words change their meaning.  This is especially worrying when the word is a key Biblical term such as ‘temptation’.  So it becomes important for the Bible to be retranslated into modern English if we are to understand what the original author meant.  Modern translations have frequently, though not completely or consistently, replaced the word to ‘tempt’ by the word to ‘test’. 

It is interesting to compare the Oxford and Macquarie dictionaries in their entries on ‘tempt’.

Oxford:
1 (archaic) Make trial of, try the resolution of, (God did tempt Abraham). 
2. Provoke, defy, (shalt not tempt the Lord; would be tempting Providence or fate to try it). 
3. Entice, incite esp. to sin (to do, to action esp. evil one) I am tempted (strongly disposed) to question this
4. Allure, attract

Macquarie
1. to induce or persuade by enticement or allurement
2. to allure, appeal strongly to, or invite: the offer tempts me
3. to render strongly disposed (to do something)
4. to do or try to incite; assail with enticements, esp to evil
5. to put to the test in a venturesome way; to risk provoking; provoke: to tempt one’s fate
6 (Obsolete) to try or test

Both dictionaries go on to explain that the word is derived from the Latin ‘temprare’ meaning ‘handle, touch, try or test’.  And both mention that this meaning is now obsolete or archaic in modern English. 

In general, the common usage of the word today is ‘to entice or persuade to do something, especially something sinful’ (Oxford meanings 3,4 and Macquarie 1,2,3,4).  However in the Bible, the word means either ‘to test or to try’ or ‘to provoke and defy’ (Oxford 1,2 and Macquarie 5,6). 

The modern English word ‘temptation’ has two emphases that significantly narrow and shift the meaning of the Biblical word.  Firstly, temptation is now about testing in the negative sense of testing with evil intent. And so it is difficult to understand God testing Abraham or Jesus being sent by the Holy Spirit to be tempted, or why we need to pray that God would “lead us not into temptation”.  Secondly, it is now about the internal seduction by our own sinful desires (Mark 7:15-23, James 1:12-15), rather than the external pressures of the devil, circumstances or suffering.  So ‘temptation’ today means ‘seduction, enticement and allurement’.  In this sense the Bible is clear that God cannot be tempted, nor does he tempt anybody (James 1:13), for God is without sinful desires and does not wish the death of a sinner but that all may repent and live (Ezekiel 18:32).  Furthermore, when the word is narrowed like this, it is difficult to see how the sinless Jesus could be tempted at all, let alone “in every respect” as we are (Hebrews 4:15, Titus 1:15).

Here then is a problem for the modern Bible reader.  The Bible’s meaning is now the archaic/obsolete meaning and the modern meaning is very rare, if present at all, in the Bible.  So a word that has come into the language from the Bible is now used primarily to mean something akin to but significantly different from the Bible.

Once this shift in meaning is understood, the Bible’s old (archaic/obsolete) way of speaking makes sense of verses about God testing Abraham (Genesis 22:1, Hebrews 11:17) and Israel (Deuteronomy 8:3) and our need to “examine” and “test” ourselves (2 Corinthians 13:5).  He tests us (i.e. tries, proves, even refines) not with evil intent but for our good.  Similarly we can understand more clearly what is meant by not putting God to the “test” (Psalm 95, Deuteronomy 6:16, Luke 4:12).  That is, we are not to provoke him or to insist that he prove himself. We are to trust him rather than test him. 

Often in life, tests and examinations are conducted for the good purposes of discovery, teaching, strengthening and proving the character, quality and resolve of people (Deuteronomy 8:1-3).  A good teacher will use tests to assist students’ education, in hope that through the testing all will grow in their knowledge and show their increased understanding by passing their exams.   

But sometimes tests are conducted with evil intent to catch out, trick or find fault (Mark 8:11, 12:15).  Here is the Tempter’s work – the liar and deceiver, Satan our adversary and accuser.  He is not interested in the welfare of the people he is testing but rather in defeating them and bringing them under his power and control.  A bad examination is one that has no educational value but is set to catch people out and make them fail especially by trick questions.

God undoubtedly does test us for our good.  And within God’s tests, Satan attempts, by lies, to seduce us to do evil and to test God’s patience and faithfulness to his word.  This seduction works upon the sinful soul, for it invites us to enter into our own desires (Ephesians 2:1-3). 

It is not surprising that sinful people are more aware of the enticing allure of Satan to do evil than of the blessing of God’s testing.  Over several centuries even our language of temptation has been restricted to this internal desire to do evil.  It is now astonishing to read the King James Version of the Bible “count it all joy when ye fall into diverse temptations” (James 1:2-4).  It sounds more like Mae West or Jerry Seinfeld than the Bible.

From the Dean | 7th January 2010

“A Calvinist on your knees and an Arminian in the pulpit” has been the counsel to young ministers for many years.  It is the thoughtless advice of pragmatism, declaring theology to be irrelevant to the work of ministry.

The short hand terms ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Arminian’ refer to the interplay of God’s will and the human will.  To grossly oversimplify for the sake of this article - in the matter of our salvation and in preaching, the Calvinist emphasises the sovereignty of God whilst the Arminian emphasises the ultimate responsibility of the human.

I am not talking here of one sermon but generalising (with all the strengths and weaknesses of arguing this way) about the preaching agenda and pattern of two theological systems.  In any one sermon it may be impossible to determine if the preacher is Arminian or Calvinist, though the theologically discerning can usually pick it.  But over time the real theology of the regular preacher is demonstrated – even sometimes against his own profession.  For many a preacher has not worked out how to practice his own theology – but rather follows the pattern of the day.

The “Calvinist on knees and Arminian in pulpit” saying appears to take the best from both theological systems.  Unfortunately, instead of complimenting the two systems on their strengths, the saying insults both.  It is an insult to say that Arminians do not depend upon God in prayer or that Calvinists do not preach challenging sermons.

The saying also tries to combine two incompatible theological systems.  Both systems hold to certain truths of the Bible but you cannot cherry-pick the bits of a theological system you like without creating a new – and in this case, illogical and unbiblical alternative.

It is never the aim of a preacher to bore the congregation.  How appalling to make the person of Jesus and the word of God boring.  There are bigger insults e.g. ‘your sermon is false or unbiblical’, but to be called boring is one of the biggest insults that can be delivered.  If the accusation is true, the boring preacher needs a serious spiritual reconsideration of his ministry.  Sometimes, however, the ‘boring’ verdict tells more about the hearer’s willingness to listen to God’s word than the preacher’s ability to teach it.  It is important not only for ministers but also for congregation members to understand the aims and goals of preaching and preachers.

Calvinists must never be seduced into Arminian style preaching in response to the ‘boring’ criticism.  For the style of preaching expresses the theology that lies behind it and Arminian theology is significantly different to Calvinist theology.  The Arminian concentration on human responsibility has an immediacy and relevance to the hearer.  It is always interesting to hear a sermon about yourself.  There is no topic more interesting to the human heart than ‘me’.

However, in an attempt to be relevant, lively, challenging, interesting and exciting, Calvinists must not ignore the profound weaknesses in Arminian preaching.  For the difference has deep pastoral consequences – even deeper and more important than boredom.

The subject of the Calvinist preacher is not the hearer but God in his glorious majesty.  His sermons are less about what we have to do and more about the wonder of what God has already done for us.  To make the mighty work of God boring is a great tragedy.  To overcome our incompetence as preachers by turning our attention to the audience and their felt needs is to change theology.

This difference in subject matter has enormous pastoral implications.  For Arminianism always underestimates how sinful we are as well as overestimating the significance of our actions in reconciling us to God and God to us.  Such sermons paradoxically lighten our sinfulness while adding to our guilt.  They tickle the ear in saying how good, wonderful, moral and spiritual we are while burdening us with legalistic rules and regulations or spiritual exercises to perform and experiences to have.  Sermons on “Ten steps to improve your prayer life” or “Six ways to a perfect marriage” or “to raise your children to be Christian” or “Steps to inner peace” etc. create in us an unrealistic evaluation of our successes and ourselves while increasing our guilt in our failures and burdening us with more rules, regulations and techniques for spiritual growth.

People do not need the lie that they are fundamentally good (with a little sin problem).  Nor do we need more teaching that puts us, instead of Jesus, at the centre of God’s world and plans.  “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” maybe true but places us at the centre of God’s existence instead of God at the centre of ours.  Christian preaching must be more than spiritualised self-help.  Such sermons promise help but effectively lock us into our failures and increase our guilt without relief.

What we must proclaim and hear is of our Creator and his wonderful grace and love shown in his Son Jesus.  What the church and world must hear is of the victory of Christ in his death, resurrection, ascension and heavenly rule.  What we need to know is the love of God in the forgiveness of sins and the transforming power of His Spirit bringing new birth.  We need to know the grace of God that takes our sin seriously by paying for it while extending the acceptance of forgiveness.  The Gospel truths relieve and revive but more morality and legalism are but the burden of death to us.

And this is the end point of Arminian preaching.  It appears more interesting for it addresses our perceived problems with concrete action steps to follow.  Yet at best it addresses the felt symptoms of our dissatisfactions.  In reality it fails to listen to God’s diagnosis of our problems and the remedy of His glorious plan of salvation.  It turns the centre of our attention onto us instead of onto God and Christ Jesus – and that is more a symbol of sinful natural religion than of the Gospel’s spiritually revealed salvation.

The Briefing | 22nd July 1998

Fred was an old man when he told me the story of his miracle. He had not told many people over the years, because of his fear of appearing stupid and facing disbelief and ridicule. But it was as real to him in old age as it was on the day it happened many years before as a young apprentice mechanic.

Young was the right word. His mother had lied about his age to get him the job, but his mother was widowed with several younger children and somebody had to bring some money into the house.

Fred was intelligent, responsible and diligent, and his boss was sufficiently impressed with him to leave him alone in the garage occasionally to do extra work. Fred used to enjoy these times alone. He got to use all the tools and fiddle with machines, his inquiring mind leading him into all kinds of discoveries that can only come from getting ‘hands on’.

On the day of his miracle, Fred had been tinkering with an expensive car. The boss would probably not have let him touch it, but Fred’s theory was that if you don’t ask permission you can’t be forbidden. Late in the afternoon, alone in the workshop, he started to take the expensive car apart. He knew he had an hour or so to play with it.

As he came to put back together what he had dismantled, he did not line up one of the nuts correctly, and it became very difficult to screw in. As with many a young boy, his impetuosity led him to solve the problem by simply applying more force, and he kept screwing harder and harder, until it completely jammed. It wouldn’t budge; nor would it unscrew, for the thread was by now badly burred.

He was stuck. The nut would neither tighten nor loosen. The minutes ticked away. The panic increased. He tried first one way then the other in a kind of wild frenzy. Any movement seemed only to make it worse. He was sweating and terrified. Not just fearful of having wrecked the engine but of losing his job. The apprenticeship was his big chance in life. His mother relied upon his income.

As the minutes passed before the boss would return to close up for the day, Fred turned to prayer. He was a Sunday School pupil. He had never doubted God, but then again he had not thought much about him either. But now he felt he needed divine help like never before. He was in danger beyond his ability to cope. So he prayed, right out loud, asking God to help him.

The prayer of the youthful Fred raises many of the concerns that all of us have who believe in and pray to God. What can we pray for? What could we expect God to do, and what should we expect him to do? Does prayer only change the person who prays, or does it also change the circumstance of life? Does belief in miracles commit us to claim health, wealth and justice now? Is the age of miracles over? Are miracles limited to the works of apostles? In brief, is God willing to help and is God able to help?

In this particular case, will God be interested in such a minor matter as Fred and his nut, when the world is torn by suffering and torment? Does God hear and respond to the prayers of naughty apprentices? Is God able to reverse the damage of a cross-threaded nut? Can God intervene in the laws of nature so as to change what happens? Can he do it without creating chaos in the whole universe?

The world seems to lurch between the materialistic skeptics who would not believe even if they were bowled over by a miracle, and new age gullibles who would believe anything provided it was unbelievable. Does prayer make any difference to life?

William Barclay’s argument in the introduction of his book The Plain Man’s Book of Prayers is an example of those who teach God’s inability to help. Professor Barclay writes:

Prayer moves within the natural laws which govern life. When we think of it, this is a necessity. The characteristic of this world is that it is a dependable world; if the laws which govern it were erratically suspended, it would cease to be an order and become a chaos. Suppose a man was accidentally to fall from the fortieth floor of a New York skyscraper; suppose him to be a good and devout man and a firm believer in prayer; suppose him, as he passes the twentieth floor in his downward descent, to pray, “O God, stop me falling”. That is a prayer which cannot be answered, because in that moment that man is in the grip of the law of gravity, and to suspend the law of gravity would be to put an end, not to his fall, but to the world in general.

A very important conclusion follows from this. Prayer does not normally promise or achieve release from some situation; it brings power and endurance to meet and to overcome that situation.

Everybody has their off day, and I presume that this was Professor Barclay’s. The illustration fails dismally. It is hard to understand how praying while passing the twentieth floor could possibly give the unfortunate man “power and endurance to meet and to overcome” his situation.

Furthermore, even if it were true that God cannot “suspend the law of gravity”, that would not limit his ability to use other parts of the so called “laws which govern” the world to answer the man’s prayer. He could send a great wind to save him, or direct a passing albatross to bump him in a window on the nineteenth floor! Bizarre situations may require unusual methods, but they do not require suspending the “laws which govern” the world.

Yet it is not true that laws do “govern” the world. It is God who governs the world, not laws. The Bible is theistic not deistic. The world is not a machine that God cannot interfere with but the creation of the God who upholds it and governs it in every detail. No blade of grass grows, no hair of the head falls out, nor any sparrow dies without God. His Son upholds the universe by his word of power; all things are held together by him (see Matthew 10:29-30; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17).

The fact that God, by his word and wisdom, created the world as an orderly and habitable place may mean that the world displays a uniform and regular pattern of operation. The fact that he created humans in his image to govern this world under him, may mean that we are able to discern many of the methods by which he ultimately governs his world. But we must not mistake our knowledge of these regularities for his sovereignty in ruling the world. We must not replace the Creator with Nature, or God with Mother Nature.

It is more than the person praying that is affected by God hearing our prayers. In the letter of James we read:

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. (James 4:1-3)

The reason they do not have is their failure to pray. This passage does not make sense if prayer makes no difference, if it only changes the person who prays.

It is true, of course, that prayer changes and strengthens the person who prays. It also brings glory to God. But these truths do not in any way conflict with the other truth—that God is listening to our prayers and may respond in ways that change our circumstances and our world in accordance with our requests.

So would God listen to someone like Fred? Is God willing to help people in such seemingly trivial difficulties?

We must never presume upon God’s willingness to grant our requests. Our Lord Jesus himself had to submit his own will to that of his Father.

We only know of God’s will in advance when God has revealed it to us. We know of his will to forgive all who ask in the name of his Son (1 John 1:8-2:2). We know his willingness to grant wisdom to those of his children who ask in faith (James 1:5). We know these things because he has revealed them to us in his Scriptures. But what is his will concerning cross-threaded nuts and bolts?

We know of God’s general goodwill to the fatherless. He is called the helper and father of the fatherless (Psalm 10:14; 68:5). Fred was caring for his widowed mother, and for his fatherless siblings. Surely he was one to whom God would listen. Yet this does not prove that God would do everything for which Fred ever asked. God is not committed to obey the voice of every orphan. God does not obey humans. He sovereignly responds to our requests, as he chooses.

Fred had made a dreadful mistake. God could choose to teach him an important lesson by allowing his error to be found out by the boss. Or God could rescue Fred by providing the help he so desperately sought. But of this one thing we can be sure: whatever God chose would be in Fred’s best interests. Which it would be on this occasion we cannot determine in advance because we are not God. We do not see all the factors involved. We cannot determine all or even any of the outcomes. We cannot see if he would lose his job or learn lessons either by receiving his request or by having his request denied. We are not God, and without a clear word from God we cannot anticipate the outcomes.

When Fred told me the story many many years after the event, he still did not know what it meant, anymore than I did. He was still embarrassed and reticent to tell it. The only other time he had ever told somebody, they had laughed at him. For some time he had continued to struggle with the nut. He had used all the strength he could muster and all the techniques he had learnt in his short career. But nothing moved. And the boss was soon to return.

When Fred prayed to God, he did not know what would happen. All the same, he did not ask to be given “the power and endurance to meet and to overcome that situation”. He wanted the nut fixed.

Having finished praying, he tried once more with the spanner. The nut glided into place just as it should have all along. It was effortless, smooth, easy. Everything was perfect. His prayer had been answered.

Those who do not believe in God immediately cast around for a naturalistic explanation for what happened. We recall the times when we couldn’t loosen a lid and asked someone to help who then found it very easy because we had already loosened it and with weakened fingers could not finish the job.

A naturalistic explanation removes any need for belief in God to those who do not want to believe anyway. For them, God is the filler of gaps in our knowledge. Fill the gap with knowledge and God disappears. But belief in “the God of the Gaps” is not Christian belief. God is not an hypothesis to cover our ignorance.

Miracles are not “phenomena whose mechanisms we cannot explain”. We know that God divided the Red Sea by using a great wind (Exodus 14:21). Knowing how God did it does not remove it from the category of miracle. Nor does it mean that we can dispense with God from any discussion of the crossing of the Red Sea.

All who pray believe in miracles. We believe that God can materially change the world and consequently the situation we are now in. That is why we ask him for help. Without his help things will not change, and without our asking he may not change them.

Whether we know how he changes things is not relevant to those who ask. Whether he uses the normal processes by which he rules the world or brings into play other processes unique to the situation, is not relevant to those who pray. We do not pray in order to see, understand or analyse miracles, but in order to find help in our hour of need.

Fred could not fix the car. He thought it could not be fixed without major work being done to it. But when the nut slipped smoothly into place, he was overwhelmingly convinced that it was God answering his prayer for help. He did not understand how it could happen. Even years later, having been a mechanic all his adult life, he still could not understand how God fixed it.

Nor did Fred know why God had fixed it. He just knew that it was God acting on his behalf—not because he deserved it, but because God was being kind to him and saving him. From that time, Fred knew that God was a mighty Saviour and could be trusted for all things in life.

And yet Fred still did not know what Jesus had done for him on the cross, or how Christ’s resurrection could bring him new life. The difference between faith in the God of miracles and crass superstition is not very great. It was many years later that Fred came to understand and accept the gospel which saves. He knew that he was not saved by the miracle, but by the death of his Lord. And then he knew that it was the God and Father of his Lord Jesus Christ who had rescued him that day.

From the Dean | 17th December 2009

Most Christians find a degree of contradiction in the celebration of Christmas.  It can be seen in our attempts to ‘put Christ back into Christmas’ or in our critique of turning the generosity of gift giving into the materialistic cash cow of the retail industry.  But lying behind these issues is a far more profound contradiction between natural and revealed religion.

Humans are almost universally religious, although it is notoriously difficult to define religion.  The range of activities and ideas that come under the word ‘religion’ seem almost infinite.  Humans want to be connected to something larger or ‘other’ than themselves which leads to all manner of religious expressions.

While the variety of these religious expressions is great, their similarity is also noticeable.  There is the creation of mood by music or dance, by candles or lighting, by incense or joss sticks, and by artwork and architecture.  There is the sense of authority in the ancient and traditional, in processions and in unusual clothing and costumes.  There is the sense of otherness in the elevation of the mystical, magical or miraculous and in the downplaying of the rational, sensible or normal.  There is the diminution of the human in obeisance, homage, physical discomfort or even self inflicted pain and suffering.  There are usually dietary rules about what can and cannot be eaten and about fasting and feasting.  There is the effect of being in isolation, quietness and silence or the opposite method of losing one’s own identity in a large crowd of worshippers all concentrating on a single concern.

These are all external expressions of what can be called ‘natural religion’.  They are the expression of the religious instinct that requires humans to act in ways that align them with or please the supernatural being(s) or force(s) that impact lives.  It is ‘natural religion’ because it is what humans naturally can understand and participate in.  It is what is done when people think of ‘religion’.  It is what is expected at a religious observance.  The individual custom may vary – from drums to organs, from incense to candles or to joss sticks – but the basic idea that these are ‘religious’ is the same.  It may be the otherness of a medieval chant or the overwhelming power of modern electronic percussion or just the rhythmic drumming of tribal dance but it moves the participants beyond the normality of life into a religious experience.

These religious expressions have an ethereal impact on aesthetic sensibilities giving some sense of ‘otherness’.  They are all attempts and activities of humans to get in touch with the spiritual side of reality.  And as such are quite different to revealed religion.

For what may be known about God, He has made plain to us in his creation (Romans 1:19f). 

And in many and various ways He spoke by His prophets to His people of old.  And in the last days He has spoken to us by His Son – the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4). 

He is the perfect expression of all that is God, for in Him the whole fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Colossians 1:19). 

He was the Word of God become flesh.  And when we beheld His glory we beheld the glory of God (John 1:1,14)

.
Revealed religion is not about how humans please God but how God saved humans.  It is not about how we come to know God but about how God has made Himself known to us.  It is not about how we perform the rituals that will bring us into the spiritual realm but how God entered into our realm to bring us to Himself.  And behind revealed religion is the personal God as opposed to the spiritual force or reality or even the many gods interacting with each other.  For revealed religion is about relationship with the personal God issuing in changed behaviour rather than the experience of supernatural otherness (James 1:27).

This very thing is what makes Christmas celebrations so contradictory for Christians.  For if ever there was a time to celebrate the revelation of God to humanity it is at Christmas when we remember the moment in history when God became man.  Yet each year the Christmas celebrations appear to be increasingly conformed to the practice of natural religion.  There are the funny costumes, the large crowds, singing (often meaningless) traditional songs about mythical characters in a far away land and time.  It is about food and gifts and community celebration.  It is ‘seasons greetings’, ‘merry xmas’ and ‘happy holidays’.

And into this heady and enjoyable mix of natural religion, Christians try to inject revealed religion.  We wish to proclaim God become man, the baby who comes to be crucified and sinful humanity’s need for a saviour.  Our message is about relationship with God not ceremonies to get in touch with Him – but we declare this message in the midst of ceremonies where people are once more feeling touched by the supernatural or the nostalgia of their natural religion.

Richard Dawkins is the leader of today’s active atheists.  He makes no bones about seeking to undermine Christianity.  But in 2007, calling himself a cultural Christian, he confessed that he had no intention of undermining Christian tradition - “I like singing carols along with everybody else.”  Natural religion is of no threat to atheism and can be joined in with enthusiasm by all and sundry even the most extreme anti-Christian atheist.

Many years ago I recall rejoicing to hear my child sing ‘Jesus loves me this I know’ and then recoiling in horror as she segued into ‘I feel like a Tooheys’.  It is the undiscriminating jump from ‘I saw mummy kissing Santa Claus’ and ‘Rudolph the red nosed reindeer’ to ‘God of God, Light of Light, Lo he abhors not the virgin’s womb’ or ‘veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail the incarnate deity’ that makes Christians cringe over the contradiction in Christmas celebrations.

The Briefing | 24th September 1997

One could almost feel sorry for the commentators as they struggled to fill in the minutes and hours of the late Princess of Wales’s horse-drawn funeral procession through the streets of London. What more was there to be said that hadn’t been said a hundred times over? What further platitudes could be uttered about the tragedy of Diana’s death, the sympathy we all felt for her sons, the rift with the Royal family, the role of the paparazzi (great word that), and the massive show of public affection and grief.

It was a tough day for commentators. And it still is, at least for the Christian commentator. As the weeks pass, and the wave of public emotion subsides, what perspective can we bring to it all that reflects God’s wisdom?

Superficial observations spring quickly to mind—the tragedy of a life cut short, and two young boys left motherless; the hypocrisy of the media in funding and supporting the paparazzi who had some role in her death, and then indulging in a frenzy of tasteless adulation and wall-to wall emotion in its aftermath; the extraordinary canonization of Diana that has already occurred, in which her positive attributes and good works have been magnified (along with her sufferings), so as to place her above criticism.

In one sense, there is little to be gained by analysing the Princess herself. It matters not what you or I or any human court decides. Her appointed time has come to stand before the Judge of all, who gives to each person according to what he or she has done. In that court, only one opinion matters, and it is not Elton John’s. We can mourn Diana’s passing—and who cannot feel sorrow at her ugly death, and compassion for her sons—but we cannot pass judgement on her life, not least because we actually know very little about her.

We would do well to remember that the ‘Diana’ we all feel we know, and who formed such a part of so many people’s lives, was largely a fiction. Her life was a fairytale in more ways than one—a shimmering image of style, beauty, gossip and myth, constructed for us by the tabloid media for its own commercial purposes, and in which the Princess herself was sometimes an accomplice and sometimes a victim. Who knows what she was really like? Who knows whether she really was passionately interested in the land-mines issue, or whether it was simply the perfect public relations exercise to revive her flagging public profile? Or was it both?

It’s a reminder of what a strange world we occupy. Through our continuous consumption of the popular media, we live in an unreal virtual world, created by the image-makers and spin-doctors. We are heartbroken at the death of a woman on the other side of the world, whom we do not know, have never met, and who has nothing to do with our lives. Yet we do not know the name of our next door neighbour, awkwardly nod to him as we park our car, and would neither know nor care if he died tomorrow. In the modern world, it is possible to live an almost disembodied existence, and feel more affinity with the semi-fictional personalities of media-land than with the real people who live all around us, and who are as lonely as we are.

This cannot but strike us as another example of how out of touch our world is with reality. Having abandoned God, the source of all reality, we really haven’t much clue any more about what matters and what doesn’t, who is virtuous and who isn’t, and what is tragic and what isn’t.

As we bring the wisdom of God to bear on the whole messy tale of Diana’s brief life, the tragedy is in fact even more stark. Beyond the tragedy of the early death of a young mother lies the tragedy of human sinfulness and its consequences—and I am speaking not so much of Diana’s sinfulness as the world in which her life was formed: the world of the British aristocracy and the jetset. The Book of Proverbs warns repeatedly of the disaster which follows when God’s ways are abandoned in favour of adultery, drunkenness and selfish indulgence. Diana’s short life was a case in point. Her own family was divided and ruined by unfaithfulness and divorce. Her marriage into the house of Windsor brought little improvement. Her husband failed miserably to keep his marriage vows—to love, honour and cherish. Her own broken marriage followed the sad pattern of all the other broken marriages in the current generation of royals.

This is not to say that Diana was an innocent victim. By her own confession, she behaved foolishly and immorally. And we will never know to what extent she charted her own course through the life that led inexorably to the Ritz Hotel on that fateful night.

Nor is it to say that the decadence we see in high society is anything more than our own sinfulness writ large. Theirs is the glamorous lifestyle to which most of the world aspires—which is why we buy so many magazines with Diana on the cover. It is not that their hearts are any more sinful. Perhaps it is simply that in their wealth and social mobility their sin has more opportunity for blatant public expression.

All the same, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the decadent world of high society is not a healthy place to be. Faithlessness, adultery, opulence and privilege make a dangerous cocktail. It is a tragic world, where ruin, despair and death follow inevitably from the sinfulness of human folly. Never was any part of our world more in need of the repentance and forgiveness of sins that comes through Jesus Christ.

This whole perspective was of course entirely missing from the blanket media coverage, and this hardly surprises us. However, what should surprise and appal us—although it may not—is that this perspective was also sadly missing from the sermon-less, gospel-less, content-less funeral at Westminster Abbey.

The Briefing | 9th July 1997

Some time ago, I went to a conference with forty medical students. I commenced proceedings by asking this question: “What are the important decisions that you will face in the next couple of years?” The answers were relatively predictable: marriage, which hospital to work in, what specialisation to follow, what to do with all the money they would earn, how to cope with moral dilemmas such as abortion and euthanasia, if and when to go to the mission field, and so on.

These sorts of decisions seem to preoccupy young Christians (and not-so-young Christians as well!). We want to find God’s plan for us in these important decisions, so we look to the Scriptures for guidance. However, the Bible doesn’t seem to be of much help. It only seems to speak in a general sense. It doesn’t help me to decide whether to be a mechanic or a brain surgeon, or whether to marry Druscilla or Mary-Lou.

The traditional approach to this problem has been to distinguish between God’s general and special wills. God is said to have a general will, applicable to all mankind and revealed in the Bible, and also a special will for each one of us, that is not found in the Bible. God’s general will tells us, for instance, not to commit adultery and not to be ‘unequally yoked’, but in order to choose between Druscilla and Mary-Lou we have to discern his special will for us.

How do we discover God’s special will? The proponents of this approach usually recommend a combination of various methods: consulting older Christians, praying, seeking God’s peace, putting out a fleece, waiting on God, looking for signs, hoping for open doors, and soon. More recently, there has been an upsurge of interest in ‘hearing God’s voice’ speak to us directly through impressions, voices in our heads, dreams, visions and such like.

This approach is wide of the mark for a number of reasons, and to explain why let us return to my encounter with the medical students.

I asked them another question: “What colour is the equator?”. They refused to answer. I asked them again. They still wouldn’t answer. In fact, they told me that they couldn’t answer and that the question was stupid.

This would have been very frustrating for me had I been an honest seeker wanting to know the colour of the equator. What if I really thought that the equator was coloured? If my friends continued to stonewall, I would have to turn to other sources of information to find an answer.

The point is this: if we ask the wrong question, we either get the wrong answer or no answer at all. And if we get no answer, we are tempted to turn elsewhere to find an answer. Many of our problems with guidance stem from precisely this: we ask the wrong questions, and then wonder why we cannot find answers. We flounder around in great anxiety trying to discover the colour of the equator.

How do we know if we are asking wrong or irrelevant questions? From what we know about the sufficiency of God’s revealed word, it would seem simple. We should ask the questions that God thinks are important, and these are the questions he has answered in the Bible.

God does not have two plans, one general and one special. He has only one plan, and it is both general and special. He wants all people, and each of us individually, to be under Christ (Eph 1:3-10). He has a plan for each Christian to make us like Jesus by guiding us along a path of good works until we reach perfection on that Last Day (Rom 8:28-30; Eph 2:8-10).

This is God’s priority for us all. This is at the top of his agenda. Unfortunately, it is not always at the top of our agenda. We are terribly concerned about choosing between Druscilla and Mary-Lou. We think the success of our whole married life will depend on the right choice, and we agonize over it. However, God’s priority is for us to be godly, whether we are single or married, and whether we marry Druscilla or Mary-Lou. After all, that is the journey we are on—to become like Christ.

What is more, God has given us all we need to know to complete this journey. If something is important and we need to know it in order to fulfil God’s plan, then it is there for us in the Bible:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.1 Peter 1:3

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

God has not left us in the dark, or in the twilight. He has not left out anything that is important for us to know on our journey with him.

Decision making
When we come to apply this to the nitty-gritty of daily life, God has also provided something to help us: the biblical idea of wisdom.

Wisdom is a broad and rich concept in the Bible and we haven’t room here to do it justice. Put simply, wisdom is the art of living successfully in God’s world.(1)  The wise person understands that the world works in a certain way, because God has created it to. God’s world is an orderly and rational place. It is marred by the Fall, to be sure, but it is still God’s good, habitable, predictable Creation. What is more, he has created humanity in his image to be the rulers of this creation, to name it and work it and subdue it, and to multiply ourselves within it. The wise person understands this, and makes his or her way through the world skilfully and successfully on this basis.

Wisdom is firstly and essentially known through the revelation of God’s mind. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Prov 9:10). Because this world is God’s creation, we can only really understand how it fits together, and where it is heading, by knowing God and his plans. Only by having a right relationship with the Creator and Ruler of the world can we begin to understand the world, and be free to live rightly in it. God’s way of living will always be best, because he made the world and knows the best way to live in it.

The ultimate expression of God’s wisdom is Christ “in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden” (Col 2:3). In knowing Christ, we come to know the mind of God. We not only see what God is like, we relate to him personally. We are shown and taught the way of life that pleases God, and his ultimate purposes for all creation.

However, although wisdom can only ultimately be known by knowing God, something of wisdom is available to the human mind because we are made in God’s image. The world has been made according to God’s wisdom, and functions properly when wise principles are applied. Even the non-Christian, therefore, can perceive something of wisdom by observing what works (or doesn’t work) in the world. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see, for example, that laziness leads to poverty, or that talking too much gets you into trouble, or that hard work and good management lead to prosperity. This is simply the way the world works, because God has made it to work this way. By observation and experience, and by applying the mind God has given us, we can work something of this out. We start to see patterns, and causes and effects. We begin to accumulate ‘wisdom’.

However, even though some of this sort of ‘wisdom’ is available to everyone, the Bible also teaches that if we do not fear the Lord, our ‘wisdom’ will be misshapen and faulty. The world in its wisdom did not recognize God’s Messiah—if they had, they would not have crucified him. Worldly wisdom, because it has a different starting point and different aims, opposes God’s wisdom in Christ at many points. Although there is some overlap—at the level of agreeing that certain things achieve good results in our world—there are also major and numerous differences. Worldly wisdom ultimately fails to be wisdom, because in not acknowledging God as the Creator and source of all true wisdom, it keeps making faulty judgements. At many points, worldly wisdom simply won’t work.

With this brief sketch of what ‘wisdom’ means, we can very helpfully divide the decisions that we face day by day into three categories. These categories aren’t absolutely watertight, and some decisions will contain elements of each (more on this below). The categories are:

1. Matters of righteousness
2. Matters of good judgement
3. Matters of trivia

1. Matters of righteousness
Whenever God’s word tells us explicitly and precisely what to do and what not to do, the decision is simple: we should joyfully and gladly obey.

The Bible sees certain things as always right and others as always wrong. God’s guidance, for example, is for us not to steal or commit adultery or deny Jesus. He wants us to love our neighbour as ourselves, to rejoice in the hope of salvation, to clothe ourselves with humility, and so on.

We often have to make decisions at this straightforward level of obedience to God. We are faced with the choice of acting righteously or unrighteously, and as those who fear the Lord, Christians should choose to do what is righteous and holy and pleasing in his sight. And this obedience is not a burden. Our response to God’s word should be a firm trust and a willing repentance. We are God’s adopted sons in Christ, and we have his Spirit dwelling within us, leading us to obey the law and put to death the misdeeds of the body. Obeying God (or choosing to act righteously) is a joyous privilege, and as the wise person rightly perceives, it is also the best way to live.

An important clarification is needed at this point. Sometimes, it is not just the act itself which is right or wrong. Sometimes, the context or situation will determine whether it is right or wrong. Killing, for example, may sometimes be right (Ex 21:14-17) and sometimes be wrong (Ex 20:13), and God tells us how to distinguish between the two. Similarly, although all foods are clean, Paul warns the Romans that it is not always right to exercise our freedom to eat them:

Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble .It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.  Romans 14:20-21

.

In much the same way, our motivation for doing something can be righteous or unrighteous, even though the action itself is neither here nor there. Decisions about where to live, for example, are not in themselves questions of obedience. However, our motivations for moving to one place rather than another might be quite wrong (e.g. status, pride, greed), and we would need to repent of this. Having done so, the suburb or town itself is a matter of relative indifference, and we would use other means to make the decision (more on this below).

Sometimes, then, there will be some aspects of our decisions that are matters of righteousness, and some others that are not. We need to give first priority to the matters of righteousness, for they are the things that matter most to God.

2. Matters of good judgement
Even though there are many decisions in life which are straightforward matters of righteousness, there are many others which are not. Sometimes we are faced with two options that both seem ‘right’, and we still have to choose.

Marriage is an example of this is, in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul is careful not to impose celibacy on people as a matter of righteousness or obedience. It is right to marry, and it is right to remain single and celibate. It is a choice between two ‘rights’. So how do I choose? Paul gives some practical advice on the benefits of marriage and singleness. If your sexual appetites are strong and lead you to burn with passion, then you’re much better off married. That is the best course for you. If you do have the gift of remaining single and staying sane, then that would be a better thing for you, because in a fallen world so much can be achieved for the Lord by a single person.

In other words, making wise decisions is not only about acting righteously. Having listened to God in the Scriptures, and viewing the world from his perspective, good decision-making also involves using observation, experience and good judgement to work out what is the best course of action in a particular case. This is part of wisdom, as we saw above. Some situations or courses of action just work out better in this world, because of the way God has created it. Proverbs is full of these sorts of observations about life:

Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred. (Proverbs 15:17)

He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm. (Proverbs 13:20)

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)

Finish your outdoor work and get your fields ready; after that, build your house. (Proverbs 24:27)

.

These are astute assessments of what life is like in God’s world. But in one sense, they do not stem from a special divine revelation. Anyone can see that if you spend time building your house before you have first provided a source of income or food, you will starve—and then your beautiful house will not be much use. Anyone who observed life, and thought about it, could come to this conclusion.

In other words, even where God doesn’t give us direct guidance, he still graciously provides for us. He puts us in a good and habitable world which is not chaotic or unpredictable. He gives us the ability (and the mandate) to make enough sense of the world to live in it, and to rule it, however imperfectly. He doesn’t leave us totally lost and incompetent in an utterly hostile environment. Despite the disorder and suffering that we encounter (as a result of sin and the Fall), we are capable of thinking about life and making decisions. Despite the frustration and absurdity that is part of our fallen world, we are capable of some wisdom.

Christians often get confused about ‘righteousness’ decisions and ‘good judgement’ decisions. If something is a matter of righteousness, then there is no need to search for further guidance or discussion—we should do what the Bible says is right and flee from what is wrong. However, if a decision is not a matter of righteousness, but simply of good judgement, then we should seek the counsel of the Scriptures (to see what principles or perspectives they might give), weigh up the factors involved, and then make our choice—without feeling guilty that we might be making the ‘wrong’ choice. If it’s not in the right/wrong category, then we can’t make the ‘wrong’ choice. Choosing either course is perfectly right and pleasing to God.

To return to our example of choosing a place to live, we do not need to worry that God has a particular suburb picked out for us and that we will be acting disobediently in choosing the ‘wrong’ one. There is no word from God in the Bible indicating that one area is more righteous to live in than another. Provided we have dealt with our motivations, and repented of greed, ambition and pride, then the choice of suburb is simply a matter of good judgement. All sorts of factors might influence our decision. For example, we may move to a particular location in order to avoid being in debt, or to move our family closer to a biblical church, or to reach a particular community with the gospel, or to reduce traveling time to and from work and thus have more time with the family, or for a host of other reasons which reflect a wise, God-centred way of thinking—and which would therefore be a better, rather than a worse, decision to make.

Any of our decisions in life, from the things we buy, to the politicians we vote for, to the way we spend our leisure time, can be influenced by this sort of wisdom.

This means that different Christians will make different decisions according to their differing circumstances and perspectives. For godly motives, one family might decide to live in the country, and another in the city. In one situation, we will answer a fool according to his folly; in another circumstance we will choose not to (see Prov 26:4-5). This is quite possible with matters of judgement. One man, in the wisdom of God, will choose to marry Druscilla; and another, also in the wisdom of God, will opt for Mary-Lou.

At this point, some Christians baulk. It sounds as if too much responsibility is being landed back in our court. What if we make the ‘wrong’ choice and step outside God’s will for our lives? This is a knee-jerk reaction from our old, habitual thinking. If both courses of action are ‘right’, then either course represents God’s will for us. And we can’t step ‘outside God’s will’—his plans can never be thwarted (Job 42:2).

What if something is a ‘matter of judgement’ and we make a poor judgement (that is, a choice that has nothing unrighteous about it but is just not terribly clever)? Will I have to suffer the consequences? Most likely, yes. God wants us to learn wisdom, and very few people learn wisdom if their folly is continually rewarded.

However, God does protect his people—we do not need to be anxious about it. He won’t allow us to be lost because of our own folly or to be tempted beyond our strength (1 Cor10:13). He will pick up the pieces and make sure that we survive and grow through the experience. If it is in our best interests to suffer the consequences of our folly, then God will bring them to us, but if it isn’t, then God will spare us. We can trust his generosity and power to do so.

3. Matters of trivia
Wisdom will also tell us that some decisions are of such little consequence, that they are not worth wasting time and energy on. They are not matters of righteousness; nor would one course or other be particularly better or worse. An example might be choosing between two similarly priced, similar quality items that we were about to purchase. In these instances, we should just make a decision and do it, without much thought.

In fact, the wise person will see that it can be a mistake to invest too much importance in decisions that really are trivial. By giving more energy and time to a decision than is warranted, we can end up overlooking things that are important, either as matters of righteousness or of good judgement. We can find ourselves straining out a gnat, but swallowing a camel.

Having outlined these three categories of decisions, we can begin to see that quite a few of the decisions we face are multi-faceted—that is, they contain elements of righteousness, elements of good judgement, and elements of trivial unimportance. Of course, part of wisdom is being able to tell the difference.

(1). For more on this, see Graeme
Goldsworthy’s excellent book, Gospel and
Wisdom, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995).