Short Term Missions

I want to write what I think about short term missions and then I want to know what others think.  Whatever it is you think. Please comment.

I think that presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world is the most important thing that Christians do.  Mission work is vitally important.  It is the most important thing that we can do.

How we do it, though, is also very important.  And I think that we can do better.  Especially in the area of short term missions.

One missionary organisation that I know of is called Mercy Ships.  Mercy Ships own a boat that is a floating hospital.  On board of that boat are trained medical staff who volunteer their time and services to do two things:
1. They provide medcal treatment to the poorest people in the world (currently West African nations) who couldn't otherwise afford or fnd people to do it.  They bring skills and opportnities to the countries that they otherwise wouldn't have had.
2. They tell the people that they treat about Jesus and his eternal healing.  They offer the gospel to everyone who becomes their patient and many more besides.
I think that Mercy Ships does great work and that, for the most part, short term missions with them are valuable and worthwhile.  This is because they fill a material/social/medicinal need in the world that otherwise wouldn't be filled and with that they also bring the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is, I think, how it should be.

There is a type of short term mission, though, that I do not approve of.  It usually involves a group of young people going together to a very poor part of the world and seeing what is going on there.  It might be called a mission awareness trip or somethig of the sort.  The group would visit a few different places, see some churches in action, perhaps visit a missionary or two.  They might give a few talks to a congregation that doesn't see many white people and perhaps work with some children.  This is the kind of mission trip that I have a problem with.

My problem is that there seems to be no value to the people that they see, or if there is, it is disproportionate to the costs and possible benefits if they did not go.  In fact, a mission trip that is seen as a 'go and see' experience, seems to me to be a little perverted.  It doesn't seem that much different to going to the zoo. 

I also have a problem with the way that these trips are marketed.  Such as:

• These trips are not mission trips.  A missionary brings the gospel to people who have not heard it before.  Going on one of these trips does not make you a missionary.
• People often marvel that they have seen the world's poverty in its starkness, but they haven't.  Very rarely do these mission trips encounter the world's 1 billion hugry people.  Instead they pass them by from a moving vehicle.  The people that they spend time with are usually people living in what we would call poverty, and are certainly living from day to day, but are not the world's desperate.
• Too often the result of such missions sounds like this: "I can't believe that the people were so happy even though they have nothing.  I am going to try to be more grateful for what I have and let stuff control my life less."  When it should be: "I have seen the world's poor and destitute and there is not enough help for them.  I will live a life that allows me to help these people as much as I can, rather than continuing to help myself to whatever I want at their expense.  I will do this because I love Jesus and I love my brothers and sisters."

Lastly, I propose that we should not need an experience that costs so much to see that we have responsibilities to the world's poor.  I think that we seriously need to reconsider our ideas of Christian faithfulness when it comes to overseas travel and short term missions, as it seems to me that for the most part we are only serving ourselves.

Neocolonialism

I recently learned a new term: Neocolonialism.

We're all sold that colonialism was bad. The only thing worse than the colonialism that most of the rest of the world did, was the non-colonialism that happened in Australia. I cannot believe that I learnt the words Terra Nullius at school but don't remember it being taught as a bad thing. It was a thoroughly evil thing.

Anyway, going into some chunk of land, 'settling' there, and then encouraging the indigenous population to assimilate into your culture (encourage being a euphemism in most cases of course), enforcing your economy on them but often with lesser rights offered, etc etc, is all really bad. And so we have this lovely term post-colonialism which encapsulates the way of thinking and the approach to life and whatever else that rejects colonialism and attempts to right wrongs.

Enter neo-colonialism. This is, as the name suggests, a new form of colonialism. Taking the sweat shops in China as an example, when I buy some cheap gadget that was made in China by someone who is being poorly paid, appallingly treated, and generally oppressed, I'm participating in one form of neo-colonialism. By partaking in that marketplace, I'm forcing my economy on that person, and essentially keeping them enslaved to a system designed to maintain my prosperity and their poverty.

All these concepts we're well aware of, if not from Graham's previous posts. But I just wanted to share that nice word with you!

Faith and Deeds 2

After my last post on faith and deeds I have been thinking about what I should think about the relationship between faith, works and salvation.

Here is where I think we get unstuck in the reformed tradition becase we are so afraid of saying that we are saved by works that we say nothing of works and never address teir importance (if indeed they are important).

Let me begin by saying that it is made excessively clear in scripture that we are saved by grace alone.  There is nothing that I can do to earn my salvation.  I am incapable of good works and as such I cannot earn a place in glory.  On the final day when I am declared to be one of God's covenant people and it is shown that my name is in the book of life and that there is a place reserved for me in heaven, it will be only because I am clothed in the righteousness of Christ and washed in his blood.  Works will play no part in my declaration of inclusion in God's Kingdom (thank goodness).

So then the question is: Do works play a role in this area?  I think that the answer is yes.  Although works play no part in the inclusion in the covenant, they are an essential part of the life of the person who is included in the covenant.  Here I think that Matthew 25 is very helpful.

Jesus says:
 ³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
 ³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
 ³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
 ⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
 ⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
 ⁴⁴"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
 ⁴⁵"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
 ⁴⁶"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Here we are not seeing someone included in the covenant people because of their actions, but we are, I think, seeing someone judged as to whether or not they ever were one of the covenant people by their actions.  

Matthew 7 adds more to this idea for us:
¹⁵"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. ¹⁶By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? ¹⁷Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ¹⁹Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
 ²¹"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²²Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' ²³Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Here we see that the people who are included in the covenant have shown that they are included by the way that they behave.  I don't think that this is an earning salvation type of thing, but rather it is a case of those who are saved by Christ begin to be transformed by Christ in this life and they inevitably show that in the way that they behave toward others.

Too often we hear of the man on the cross beside Jesus who had faith but o works.  I think that this is rubbish.  Although his hands and feet were suspended on the cross so that he couldn't go anywhere, he demonstrated his regenerate heart by what he spoke.  Here was a criminal, a selfish man, condemned by society who demonstrated compassion and empathy to his Lord whom he saw suffering.  What is amazing about the thef on the cross is ot that he was saved without any deeds, but that the deeds that came about as a result of his salvation came so quickly.  It is amazing that his capacityto love and show compassion came about so quickly as the man beside him demonstrated his capacity only to hate and revile.

Works are important.  They are essential.  Not in order to to attain something, but for the Christian they are something that will become necessary just because of who they are becoming and what is happening as they become regenerate servants of Christ Jesus.

Faith without deeds is dead.

Too Harsh? Oh Dear...

I was reading another of my favourite blogs the other day. The title of the blog was "Poverty is an affront to God's glory".  There was this quote from someone's abstract in a paper they were giving at some conference:

In the realm of theology, I argue that justice is a necessary but insufficient foundation for concern about poverty, proposing that St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ contentions regarding the nature of ‘glory’ be further explored. I develop a theology of glory based on three scriptural understandings, namely grandeur, grace, and gratitude, and argue that we are most “fully alive” when we are in right relationship with ourselves, each other, and God. Poverty is an affront to God’s glory, then, because it is both a cause and consequence of broken relationships.

To which the blogger said they were really looking forward to the talk. Anyway, someone commented on the post with this

That seems a rather essentializing analysis. Once upon a time, the poor were noble and a spiritual witness to the self-satisfied rich. On the basis of this quotation, it seems that Woolcock would rather have us all be in the latter category. Couldn't one equally argue that monetary wealth is both a cause and consequence of broken relationships?

To which I commented:

Of course one could, that doesn't mean that wealth is bad. The Bible is emphatic over and over that wealth is good, but that sinful people can't handle it. Nevertheless the Bible never wishes poverty on people, never.

What sort of middle class nonsense is that? I'm sorry for the force, but it's comments like that that make Christians look like the worst people on earth, and is such dangerous theology to convince people to adopt. 

The poor in this world are not impoverished in comparison to the rich, they're impoverished in comparison to those who have food, or those who have clean water. People dying of malnutrition and diseases which were eradicated for us self-satisfied rich people 100 years ago, are not something we should aim to keep so that the self satisfied rich have a mirror to look in to see their own spiritual frailty.

Why not keep a homeless person in the courtyard of your house so that every time you walk by, you're reminded of your own spiritual poverty. Don't feed him too much or educate him too well, lest your mirror be shattered and your own short-comings be more difficult to discern.

This is disgraceful theology indeed.

When Jesus speaks of the poor he speaks of future relief. Sure they may act as a mirror in some circumstances, but that does not mean he intends to keep them that way. Never does the Bible condone the existence of the poor, but it repeatedly condemns those who do not give to them. God's plan for the fullness of time is immeasurable wealth.

But what's more, who is any self satisfied rich person to claim that the status quo (ie the existence of the poor) is a good thing? How dare anyone who has much claim that it's good that there are those who have little. Give everything you have away, impoverish yourself, and then make that claim. Sit on a pole for the next 20 years if you truly feel this way. Of course you don't. Armchair theologising about such weighty matters is a disgrace. 

Sorry [blogger] - feel free to remove this comment. As usual, thanks for the great blogs. 

I have been feeling a little anxious about it ever since. I got a little worked up, perhaps sinfully so, but boy did the comment annoy me... Was I too harsh?

 

Four-and-a-half point Calvinism

The five points of Calvinism, are

1. Total Depravity
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistable Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

Writing them down now I realise that my theology differs in some minor ways, and so maybe I'll blog about them all in time. One interesting thing to do is read the relevant bits of Calvin's Institutes and try to decide in what particular ways he agrees with each.

Anyway, as the title demands, I want to say something very brief on four and a half point Calvinism. I know Mark Driscoll considers himself one. The point he and other four and a half point Calvinists take issue with is the third point, Limited Atonement.

Limited Atonement goes something like Jesus only died for the sins of those who he would save. The argument for this, I believe, has to do with unnecessary punishment. Did Jesus suffer for a non-Christian's sin? If he did, then those sins will be punished twice.

So, Unlimited Limited Atonement, or whatever you want to call it, according to Driscoll is (from Wiki)

[Jesus], by dying for everyone, purchased everyone as His possession and He then applies His forgiveness to the elect by grace and applies His wrath to the non-elect. Objectively, Jesus' death was sufficient to save anyone, and, subjectively, only efficient to save those who repent of their sin and trust in Him

 I think we get hung up on the wrong language with this one. I think that four and a half point and five point and even four point versions of Calvinism can potentially be the same if we think in different terms.

I don't think Jesus suffered for the sin of three billion people, I think he suffered for sin. And I think the terms should be relational not quantitative. How many friends can I have? There is no limit (time and space limitations ignores). I think this is the right language. The advantage of having a positive relationship with Jesus is his advocacy, which is available to everyone.

In this language though, I'm not comfortable using words like "sufficient for all, effective for some", because sufficient doesn't make sense. Jesus is able, but there's no quantity that justifies the use of the word sufficient.

Anyone who knows more than me here feel free to come back at me.

Generosity and Thoughtfulness

(No, this isn't Graham's second post on works, this is Tony writing one in the middle)

I'm in France right now, in the area of Burgundy. We're staying in a little stone cottage in the town of Champagny Sous Uxelles which has a population of 60. This is the most beautiful countryside I've ever seen and I've been trying to figure out a way to move here. Since I cannot and will not be a farmer, I've decided I could be an editor for a physics journal - with some journals they're allowed to work remotely - or a novelist - not too likely I'm afraid.

Anyway, we are living in the cottage 50m from 'the big house' - think, To the Manor Born, but not nearly so big - where the couple who own this place reside on weekends and for longer periods in summer. They are delightful people who have taken us wine tasting, given us two cooking lessons, and right now have taken the others to the markets.

On Wednesday we went to Paris. We took the fast train at 8am and returned home at 10pm. It was a horrifically long day, especially since we'd pushed Rose so far. Good, but horrific.

When we returned, Christine (one of the couple) had left dinner on our outside table. There was a beautiful red wine, some Camembert (which in France is overflowing with flavour), some delicious vegies, and crepes with three small jars of (homemade?) jams. All this together with a note saying words to the effect of "you must be hungry".

It was a truly wonderful act of Generosity and Thoughtfulness.

My in-laws were gob-smacked. They couldn't believe it. It was the nicest thing anyone has ever done for them, they said.

I was not particularly blown away though. It was a really nice thing to do, sure. But it wasn't ground-breaking. I don't want to take away from her generosity by any means, it's just that, people have done things like this for us before. Many times. There was an apparent need (we'd been on a long trip), and so someone who we have very little connection to, did something generous and thoughtful for us.

This made me realise some of the ways that God's people really are transformed by the spirit through community. In Wollongong there were, as I said, many occasions when someone would leave a meal, or a meal voucher, or a travel voucher, or something else thoughtful and out of the blue on our doorstep and we'd come home to find it there.

And it turns out that in the real world of nice, but un-transformed people, this is a pretty rare thing.

The first thing I thought when I saw it there was "I wonder if these guys are Christians?" I don't think they are - and in France it's very unlikely that they are - but it's such a tidy explanation. This little thought process made me realise how little I expect from the rest of the world. Isn't that sad too?

Anyway, just saying.

Faith and Deeds

In my Christian heritage and circles there is a great emphasis placed on grace.  This is ot a bad thing.  It is just that from the reformed tradition we still see that the greatest threat to Biblical Christianity is the preaching of salvation by works. 

I think that the problem now, though, is that reformed evangelical Cristianity (as I know and define it) is so focused on grace that they exclude the necessity of works in the Christian life.  I think that this has so pervaded our thinking that we misread and misinterpret important biblical passages.

Take for example the passage in Matthew 7 of the wise and foolish builder.  Often the interpretation of this is that building your life on the rock (Jesus) is good and building your life on the sand (anything other than Jesus) is bad.  So trust Jesus for your salvation and you have built your life on the rock.  We make this passage a passage about grace and faith, but it is not about that.

The passage actually says:
24    "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25    And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
26    And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
27    And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."

Jesus has just given the sermon on the mount.  This sermon is not passive.  It is not about the grace of God and our faith in his salvific work as are passages in Romans and Galatians.  It is all about doing things.  Love your enemies.  Do good to those who persecte you.  Fast.  Pray. Look content.  Don't be a hypocrite. 

Then Jesus finishes by telling his listeners that you are like the man who builds his house on the rock if you do what he says.  Not if you trust him, but if you hear his words and then obey them. 

It is the same in Matthew 25 where Jesus talks about the sheep and the goats.  The only distinction between the sheep and the goats is how they have behaved in this world.

Just before Jesus speaks of the wise and foolish men in Matthew 7, he says this:
21    "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22    On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23    And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

I think that we seriously need to reevaluate our position on works.  I don't think that we have it right.

In my next post I will clarify what I think about faith and deeds and their relationship to salvation, but I am interested to hear what others think as well.

Holiness

One of the great books of the NT which is largely underrated (I think) is 1 Peter. 

I really like its allusions to Leviticus and its appeal to Christians to take what they understand about the old covenant and apply it appropriately to the new.  It is the second half of chapter 1 that I want to reflect on.  Here Peter tells is readers to "Be holy, as the Lord, your God, is holy'.  And he quotes Leviticus 19.  Then he tells his readers what holiness looks like.

Firstly, holiness looks like hope.  Peter urges his readers to look forward to the time when the grace of Christ would be revealed.  This is a single and exclusive hope.  If we hope for anything else then we are hoping either in vain, or foolishly for things of no consequence.

Holiness also looks like faith.  Peter describes to his readers how God is faithful and just and then he urges his readers to trust their trustworthy father. 

Thirdly, holiness looks like love.  Peter urges his readers here to love each other.  And since they ave love one for another, to love one another, deeply, from the heart.  This sounds to me like the kind of love that cannot be commanded, but that which comes from a regenerate heart.

I am somewhat surprised here that what Peter considers to be the formula for holiness is faith, hope and love, what we often attribute to Paul, but which is, in fact, just New Testament theology. 

It also strikes me that here holiness is defined by action and thought.  It is an action of the mind and the heart working together in the world. 

If we have not love then we are not prioritising holiness.  If we are not prioritising holiness then we are disobeying God.  Holiness is serious business and we need to take it seriously.

More on Work

These quotes are taken directly from another blog I really like, and it is suprisingly relevant to a previous post. Sorry for the quote within the quote!

During World War II, Dorothy L. Sayers, gave a talk, Why work?, which is worth reading. Here are a few choice quotes

[We should view work] not as a necessary drudgery to be undergone for the purpose of making money, but as a way of life in which the nature of man should find its proper exercise and delight and so fulfill itself to the glory of God. That it should, in fact, be thought of as a creative activity undertaken for the love of the work itself; and that man, made in God’s image, should make things, as God makes them, for the sake of doing well a thing that is well worth doing.

.....

God is not served by technical incompetence; and incompetence and untruth always result when the secular vocation is treated as a thing alien to religion….

.....

Shall we be prepared to take the same attitude to the arts of peace as to the arts of war? I see no reason why we should not sacrifice our convenience and our individual standard of living just as readily for the building of great public works as for the building of ships and tanks – but when the stimulus of fear and anger is removed, shall we be prepared to do any such thing? Or shall we want to go back to that civilization of greed and waste which we dignify by the name of a “high standard of living”?

I found the last paragraph particularly interesting. If I've understood her correctly, she argues that we should work towards impressive public monuments/spaces/whatever instead of focussing resources on the waste that is ever increasing comfort.

This is a really interesting point. Again if I've understood correctly, this seems to be a theological argument from creation. If we, in working, are mimicking our God in creating, then we would build similar things to him. She argues for great public works in peace-time as an appropriate reflection of this work.

This has interesting repercussions for building nice churches and things like this (something I've never considered to be particularly wise).

However, she realises that during war time, tanks and ships are the appropriate thing to direct public resources toward, and rightly so. I wonder whether she would today argue for public resources going toward the necessities of the poor first and foremost?

Be a Man

I am very concerned with the state of the world today, particularly with the plight of the world's poorest people who have no voice and no opportunity to do anything about their situation. But who is responsible for the plight of the world, and whose responsibility is it to do something about it?

I'm pretty sure that the answer is men.

I have a daughter who is almost two years old and a beautiful wife who I have been married to for 6 and a half years. They mean just about everything to me and I love them both a lot. They are my family. I am convinced that God requires me to take responsibility for my family and to be the leader of it. I am the husband and the father and my responsibility is to be the head of the household. Part of that means that I need to ensure that my family is looked after, part of it is to provide material needs for my family, part of it is to bring my daughter up in the way she should go and part of it is to take responsibility for decisions made and actions taken.

As a Christian man in this world, though, I think that my responsibilities go further than my immediate family, because I am part of a very large family which is the body of Christ. In this family all of the women are my sisters and all of the children are my little brothers and sisters. Those who are not part of the family are people who I want to be in the family so I need to look after them as well. Luckily, though, this burden is not mine alone, it is shared amongst all the men in the kingdom.

I am beginning to think that inaction has long been the default of the Christian man and that it is not appropriate. In fact, I think that it is sinful. I think that at times we are too concerned with whether or not we should intervene and err on the side of not getting our hands dirty.

As a father to my daughter, I am to actively seek her good. If a man or woman tries to take her away from me, I will stop them. If I need to I will hurt them. I don't feel bad about this, nor do I think that God would hold it against me. My daughter's purity and safety are my responsibility and I need to ensure that she is kept from danger.

I think that, to a lesser extent, the same responsibility applies to women and children of the church. I quite like Mark Driscoll, and I like the way that he leads his church. His idea is that it is up to the man to deal with his family, but when the man is in error, it is up to the other men in the church to make sure that he is corrected. So when he finds out about wives being assaulted by their husbands, for example, he will, apart from the wife, confront the man about it and tell him that it needs to stop or the church will take action against him. This is God's people working together to keep each other accountable. When men do wrong, they stop them.

Too often this isn't the case. Too often the church does not intervene, but rather lets the abuse continue, claiming that it is a legal issue that isn't the responsibility of the church.

I think that as Christian men in this world we are called to more than inaction and passivity.

A few weeks ago I saw an episode of 4 Corners which highlighted the sue of child rape in South Africa. It is a very real problem there that over half of the girls will be sexually asaulted, particularly those who are black South African. The assaults will be carried out by people that the girls know, be they fathers, uncles, or other members of their communities.

My biggest problem is not tat there are men willing to do this. We already know that the depths of the depravity of man has no bounds and that there are many who care only to satisfy their dinful desires. My problem is that there are not enough men rising up to stop it. I was heartbroken to hear of a father who had killed a young man in his community because the young man was threatening to rape his daughter. He had done it before and was publically proclaiming his intention to do so again. The father went to the police to ask for help, but they offered none so he took matters into his own hands. He now faces murder charges.

The church has enough people in it to effect social change in this world and I believe that it has to start with the men of this world manning up and taking seriously their responsibility to protect women and children.

It is not vengeance, it is protection and we are called to do it. If it means violence at times, then as long as it is considered and done appropriately, then so be it. I know that this is often abused and used inappropriately, but that is not reason enough to see the women and children of this world suffer at the hands of evil.

"Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. Do everything in love."
1 Corinthians 16:13-14.

I'm very interested to hear people's thoughts on this.

The Alienation of Labour

Something I've been thinking about lately apparently has been thought of by others before me and is called the alienation of labour. I'm not sure that my thoughts fit the bill perfectly, but here is what I've been thinking:

What does it mean to be a checkout-chick? I don't mean to bag checkout-chicks in particular, the same comments apply to most professions. What does it mean to be a C++ programmer for Citibank earning $250k per year?

For 8 hours at a time, beep... beep... beep... price check.... beep. How did we get to this?

Here's what I figure. There's a  subsistent community. Everyone grows a bit of everything, milks Betsy, kneads the dough etc. Then someone (Bill?) says "Hey Bert, my beets are awesome, and your lettuce is fantastic. How about I grow beets and you grow lettuces and we swap. That way we both get awesome veg, and we don't have to work as hard." Bert goes along with it, and then before we know it someone says "Hey, I'll throw the farm in and start a store. Bert, you grow lettuce, Bill, you grow beets,..." etc. Suddenly there's bank tellers, store clerks, accountants, managers, ticket inspectors, bus drivers, and checkout-chicks.

I'm not against Bill's idea. I think it was a good one. But the end result sucks. I'm a theoretical physicist and I'm pretty sure I have the best job in the world. But I also think I'm probably the exception (and I sometimes hate it). The checkout-chick is someone I come into contact with on a regular basis, and I know that based purely on our grades at school she ended up with the beep-beep job, and I ended up with mine. And then there's my friends who also got pretty good marks, but instead of getting an awesome job like mine, they became lawyers, and they now spend their time going through 300,000 pages of legal documents looking for the keywords "airplane" or "runway".

It's a fortunate situation for the guy that stretches himself every day. According to Aldous Huxley an ideal society is one where every citizen has that privilege. But it's simply not the case. And I think it is a mistake of history that we ended up like this. I can't believe that the way it was meant to be is that someone's entire job is to drive in circles to get people where they need to go: around and around and around....

I've tried not to make this sounds elitist, I'm sorry if it has. But surely the farming subsistence economy is more rewarding on average... no?

(for what it's worth I think the alienation of labour has more to do with the fact that people work for a company that they have no vested interest in)

Eliminating World Hunger

A fairly innocuous comment I made earlier today on Graham's excellent world cup fever post got me thinking.

I figure the thing stopping us from fixing world hunger (and clean water etc) is the same problem that our ridiculous govts had in Copenhagen: If no one else is doing it, then neither will I.

I find world hunger to be a crippling problem. And I figure, "'sure, I could give half of what I have away, but it will make such an insignificant difference (if you call many lives insignificant) that I suppose I won't:".

So here is my proposal. We start a pledge of some type. People sign up to say something like "If this many people pledge to give 5% of their personal assets away, then so will I".

Why won't this work? I know I'm not the first one to come up with it. But I can't figure out why it won't work. If you own a house, you remortgage 5% of what you've paid off, if you own a car, have a bank balance, whatever, you figure out 5% and you give it away. I'd do it... but I don't own much.

But then again, I think that heaps of people would... wouldn't they? Like... 20% of people that heard about this would agree to do it... Or is it not that many?

Why is this not a good idea? And if there's no good reason, then let's do it!

World Cup Fever

This morning Australia played their first game of the World Cup and lost 4-0 to Germany.

As the World Cup has been approaching, though, I have been considering the appropriateness of South Africa hosting such an event. They have spent over $2 billion in preparation for one month's worth of football. That is a lot of money. It is estimated that by the time it is all over and accounted for the cost could be over $5 billion.

My problem is that in South Africa the wealth disparity is huge. Several million of the population have no access to running water or electricity. Over 50% of the country's population lives below the poverty line. Aids runs rampant throughout the nation, as it does the continent, and the unemployment rate is over 25%.

How could we possibly think that it is appropriate for the world to converge on a nation to play soccer at world class facilities when, just a few kilometres from every stadium there are people living in desperate poverty. They have no running water, no electricity and no sanitation.

I am concerned that as I watch and enjoy the World Cup games I am condoning what I think is a gross misallocation of resources. $5 billion is enough to provide running water, electricity and sanitation to many people in South Africa who don't currently have it. But instead it's being spent on one month's worth of sport.

The usual line is being pushed that this will increase tourism and spending and that the costs will be recovered in only a short time. Experience tells us, however, that this is not true. Even in Sydney ticket sales to the arious stadiums in Olympic Park have not covered their costs. Why would it be in any way different here. In Greece their economic downfall is in part being blamed on the incredible amount of money that went in to the Athens Olympics in 2004, which has not been recovered.

I think that as Christians we need to be very careful about what we support. I do not support the 2010 World Cup and if that means not seeing Australia play any more games then I can live with that.

Differentiability

This is going to be a tad high faluting depending on your background, and for that I apologise. I think this issue is pretty important though.

The big bang:

I know a lot of people don't think the big bang happened, but let me tell you now, it did : )

Now that we've established that. I recently saw an interview with an extremely eminent philosopher. I don't know if he is a Christian or not. But he was saying that a creator causing the big bang is a more 'elegant' origin of the universe than the multi-verse theory.

Quickly, here is my version of multiverse:

The vacuum of space has 'zero' energy (as I'm sure you're aware). So you would imagine that the vacuum doesn't do anything. But this is not true. Actually, the vacuum has an average energy of 'zero'. On a very tiny scale it actually fluctuates. This is in some ways what quantum mechanics is all about - fluctuations, uncertainty. So it fluctuates. So here or there the energy might be positive for a fraction of a second, and somewhere else it might be negative for a fraction of a second. But on average it's zero.

But if you have a big enough box, somewhere or other, sooner or later, you'll get a really big fluctuation. It's inevitable. And eventually, one of these fluctuations will be so huge, that the energy will spontaneously change to matter (think Einstein, E = mc^2. E is energy and m is matter. So energy and matter are the same thing).

So we have a massive fluctuation that turns into matter - we have a big bang.

But of course, it's unlikely that a universe as big as ours would be the only fluctuation. And so there are many universes of various sizes, and ours is the one we live in. Thus there are multi-verses.

Ok, back to the eminent philosopher. He argues that the creator originated big-bang is more elegant than multiverse. I've heard at least one preacher quote this as well - an extremely good preacher who I have immense respect for. But I think this is wrong. Firstly elegance is difficult to define. Secondly I don't feel like it's very satisafactory. And thirdly, multiverse fits my idea of elegance much more precisely.

Think about it. The key ingredients in big bang are space, the laws of physics, and an anomalous BANG. The key ingredients of multiverse are just space and physics. No anomalies needed. It's self consistent. I find that to be more elegant.

But then where is the need for God? Well here's the main point of my post:

God created a differentiable manifold.

Not sure what a manifold is? It's nothing. Literally. It's a mathematical construct. But it's still there - here there and everywhere in fact. And it doesn't need to be there.

God made the world continuous. He made at least three dimensions - up, forwards and left (and there's actually at least one more). He made time. This thing we call space is ridiculously clever, and by no means a necessary property of existence.

So whatever you believe in: Creation Science (please don't), or Big Bang, or Multiverse, or whatever. If anyone takes issue with your theism, instead of arguing that point, I feel like you might as well just go back one step. Go even more fundamental. Who created dimensionality? Who created continuity of space-time (differentiability)? Why is there up, down, left, and at least one more. Why does time go forwards and not backwards? There are fundamental properties that determine the nature of our existence which are by no means innate to existence.

Speaking of Philosophy - Feminist Hulk, Men's Toilets, and Cultural Presence

I'm not a tweeter because it's stupid and ridiculous and I can't think of anything more mundane in the whole world.

But I was just reading some of my faviourite blogs (usually on physics) and ended up on an interview with Twitter personality, Feminist Hulk. I can't get enough of the Hulk talk, here are some examples:

HULK USE ALL-CAPS. HULK CHOOSE NOT TO IMPOSE HIERARCHY ON LANGUAGE. PLUS, BIG HULK FINGERS MAKE SHIFT-KEY PROBLEMATIC.

HULK MAKE CAPITALIZATION EXCEPTION FOR bell hooks.

And

HAIKU DO NOT RHYME. / HULK COULD CLAIM RHYME TOOL OF MAN. / REALLY, JUST TOO HARD. 

(that was Haiku) and finally

HULK POLITELY REQUEST CHANGING TABLE IN MEN’S ROOM. HULK CHOOSE NOT TO EMPLOY SMASH IN THIS MOMENT. MULTIPLE TOOLS FOR CHANGE. 

The Christian aspects:

1. What should we think of feminism - think Kirsten Birkett and the loss of the family wage, but at the same time there are tonnes of good things right? Tonnes...
2. ALL men's toilets should have change tables. It's ridiculous that only the ladies do. Not only am I stuffed if I go out alone with Rose, but there's also the equality issue
3. This person cares so much about this stuff they've created an hilarious alter-ego (yes, I used an - first time ever). What should we care more about, and how can we do similar things. Lots of Christian organisations tweet, that's for sure. But yeah... that question  

Armchair Philosophy

Ever heard this one?

A philosophy student was sitting an exam, and the essay question was "Why?". He wrote "Why not?" and walked out. He got 100%.

I can't believe I was told that story in all seriousness. It's absolute rubbish. Not only is it not an answer, and apart from the fact that there are now two questions and zero answers, and the two questions are almost equivalent anyway, there's a much more fundamental reason why it's rubbish - that's not how philosophy/thinking/logic/metaphysics/whatever works. It's just not.

But this is what people think. Let me give you an example you may be guilty of:

1. If Postmodernism is true, then there are no absolutes
2. That is an absolute statement
3. Postmodernism is not true.

I've heard people say this, I've heard it in sermons, I've heard it many more times than its content warrants. Do we really think that the best minds on the planet have not thought of this three line counter-argument and adequately rebutted it? Of course they have! It's not a counter-argument. It doesn't invalidate postmodernism. And in fact postmodernism has a lot to say to Christians and our view of knowledge and epistemology and authorial intent and many other things. Preachers that discard PM as quickly as they raise it do Christianity no service, and are by no means intellectually rigorous.

Here's another one I hear a lot. It's more of a scenario. It goes like this:

The theology of X states that Y. It has enjoyed many proponents throughout history including A, B, C, and more recently D.

To which I, the know-it-all say "but Ephesians 2:10 says this about pre-arranged good works, therefore that entire theology is nonsense". On the one hand I sympathise with this. There are some pretty lame theologies out there that can be rejected with one counter-verse. But it's pretty rare. And in any case, my concern is with the ease that we do it. Do we honestly think we're the first person on earth to read Ephesians? Are we getting too arrogant these days?

Anyway - the point I wanted to make was that one-line counter-arguments to deep (or even not so deep) philosophical stances are never ok.

The trouble makers here are by no means only Christians.

Last year at uni the Christian group had a table that people could come and write on. The banner advertising the table said "My problem with Christianity is...". It got a really solid response, heaps of people wrote about sex-related stuff and arrogance and fun and hypocrites and all the usual suspects. This was really good stuff to hear for a lot of reasons.

The responses that annoyed me though, went like this:

1. A complex or ordered structure must be designed.
2. A god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates.
3. It too must require a designer
4. Its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum.
5. The existence of god is then a logical fallacy

Hold on a sec 2000 years worth of great minds, some dude from some backwater has a five line argument against theism - why didn't we think of that! Lets pack up and go home.

In fact, that's a bit rough, even if you're Regius Professor of philosophy you can't presume to do that (I doubt that person would) and actually think it's worth anything.

It's this that makes me angry with Dawkins. He speaks way outside his field on things he simply doesn't have the capacity to handle correctly. Having a phd in one particular field of physics, one important thing I've learnt is that it doesn't mean I'm going to be useful in any other field of physics, let alone biology or whatever.

As Christians we're obliged to be armchair philosophers, theologians, cultural prophets, and many other things. And through the Bible and the Holy Spirit and logic we have some shot at a correct understanding of things. But I guess my concern is that we don't become two dimensional and reductionistic, and most importantly, that we don't reject ostensibly alternative points of view. We must learn from them and figure out how they inform our view of Christianity, or give us a framework to understand and express the truth in new ways.

I reckon...

Stuff and the Christian

Around 6 months ago, Tony got me onto a website called The Story of Stuff. This website contains a vide presentation by Annie Leonard about how we obtain stuff and what happens from extraction to disposal and how it affects our planet, our environment, our psyche and the lives of those who live in developing countries around the world.

The video proposes that we are unable to go on the way that we are and that on a finite planet the linear system that we have in place doesn't and cannot continue to work.

One of the tough questions posed for me is 'Who is paying for the things that I get?' We are all looking for bargains and the opportunity to accumulate as many things as we can for as little cost as we can. I think that this attitude is unhelpful. Now when I see ads on tv for cheap clothes and electronics and the like, I feel terrible because I know that if I particiate in the accumulation of these things then I am most likely being party to a system which sees the world's poorest people paying for my things.

This happens when we import goods that have been produced cheaply. More cheaply, in fact, than they can possibly be produced. The cost is most ofen paid by the workers who are paid much lower wages than they should be. I expect that my wage will allow be enough to feed myself and my family, provide them with safe, adequate shelter and clothing and provide for education costs as necessary. Extras are to be seen as extras and should be carefully considered, I think. Not necessarily cut, but carefully considered.

If I recognise and see that this is true, then, what should my response, as a Christian be?

Firstly, I think that we need to recognise that the plight of the masses is going unheeded because it is unheard. The world's poorest people, the billion who are hungry, have no voice in the global community and no way to make their voices heard. Proverbs 29:7 tells us that
'The righteous care about justice for the poor,
but the wicked have no such concern.'
To care for someone is to have more than feelings of concern for them, but rather it is to do something about it. I cannot say that I care for people and do nothing for them. That is not caring.

What does this have to do with stuff?

If I accumulate things that I know are obtained via the suffering of others, then I am participating in systemic injustice and I am a perpetrator of it. I know that chocolate that is not fair trade is most likely sourced from West Africa, and is very likely produced by child slaves. If I know this and continue to buy the chocolate and do nothing about it, then I am condoning it and, in effect, saying that the chocolate bar in my hands is more important than justice and safety for the child who has been kidnapped from Burkina Faso.

About 90% of all toys that exist in the world are made in China, and most of those are made in sweatshops where workers are paid inadequate wages, forced to work overtime, not given enough days off and whose lives are shortened by unsafe working conditions. If I buy these toys knowing that this is the case, then I am saying that it is more important for my daughter to have the plastic toy than it is for the woman who works in the unfair conditions to even see her children.

Christians could effect social change today if they just stopped buying goods produced via the exploitation of workers and were willing to pay extra for things produced in a manner that was fair for everyone. If all Christians did this then there would be no shift in workers and little unemployment as a result as the same factories that produce the goods now would be given the money required to treat their workers well.

Much more thinking and consideration is needed on this and related topics, but we must not be participants in the kind of injustice that sees children kidnapped and forced to work away from their families, or mothers forced to make a choice between providing for their children or having a relationship with them.
Please be aware that your spending habits have far reaching consequences and, I think, God will hold us accountable for them.

I dont want to be the rich man in James 5:
¹Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. ²Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. ³Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. ⁴Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. ⁵You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. ⁶You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.

I'm interested to hear others' thoughts.

For the joy set before us: Philippians 2 part 2

Lesley is guest blogger today, extending a previous discussion of Phil 2, and raising the important issue of joy in obedience:

I think it is clear that Paul is telling his readers that we all have to follow in Christ's footsteps, and that being made Christ-like is quite painful; that ultimate service can lead to ultimate sacrifice and that Paul suspected that this could be his ultimate end - I think that he referred to this when he said that he may be poured out as a libation on the sacrifice, but that it was the faith of the Philippians that was the most important thing and that their faith brought him great joy.

This is is how I read it and I would only say that we have to be careful not to dwell on the hard parts of that whole process and not remember the joy that must be present or it has nothing to do with God at all. I think this is why Paul emphasised his joy - we must actively seek joy - Jesus said that it was for the joy set before Him that He endured the cross and so I think our whole lives need to be lived with this in the forefront of our minds and not get bogged down by the suffering.

It is at moments of extreme tension that it is hard - just as Jesus said in the garden -  and then it must be a case of "Not my will but Yours" knowing full well that the Lord will give us what we need to endure - but we must do that for the joy that is ahead of us still.

I think that the willing obedience of Christ (and therefore Christians) should be both a joyful and a terrifying thing. Joy for what is ultimately ahead of us, fear and trembling at what is immediately ahead of us.
  
I think it is important to keep a balance because the fear and trembling cannot be the only attitude you have - that just leads to defeat and depression and is not achievable as a weak mortal - it is the joy, hope and ultimate victory or reward that must balance that holy fear and trembling - all of which of course is divine and not conjured up by us.

There, but for the grace of God, go I

Each week in my school one of the teachers runs devotions for the rest of the staff of a morning. This week I am on devotions, so I thought I'd share what I've been thinking about for this morning's time together.

I have been captivated over the last few years by the story of a Jewish man named Simon Wiesenthal. Simon was a jewish man living in Poland when WWII broke out. He has an amazing story to tell and survived the war only by the providence of God, which becomes very clear when you hear his story.

One day he had a rather unusual experience. He was, whilst being held in a concentration camp, assigned to work detail at a school that had been turned into a hospital. One morning as he arrived a nurse came to him and, asking if he was a Jew (as if the striped pyjamas didn't give it away), was taken to the room of a dying SS soldier. There the soldier told Wiesenthal about his life, culminating in a story which he told in graphic detail of a time when 300 Jewish men, women and children were piled into a house. The SS platoon then lobbed grenades in through the windows to set the house on fire, then as the house burned with the people inside the soldieers shot anyone who tried to escape through the windows. After telling this story to Wiesenthal the soldier explained that part of his belief system required him to seek forgiveness here on earth for crimes committed, so he asked Wiesenthal to provide that forgiveness. Wiesenthal, after sitting with the man for over an hour, holding his hand and hearing his story, never spoke a word, then he left. He came back a few days later to find that the soldier had died. Wiesenthal was somewhat haunted by this decision and put the question out to the world: What should I have done?

The story is recounted in a book called 'The Sunflower' and it contains 53 responses from people Wiesenthal invited to answer the question that he posed. Some are good, others are drivel, whilst others still offer no response.

One of the noteable responses is from Albert Speer, who served as a minister in the Nazi party and was Hitler's architect. In his letter he recognises that he has attained some moral guilt and responsibility for what happened under the third reich and that whilst it is not required for Wiesenthal to offer forgiveness for what happened, his kindness and compassion certainly made the life of the guilty man easier.

So my question then is: How do I respond to the terrible systemic injustices that I see in the past and in the present and how should I respond?

Certainly revulsion is appropriate. As I read about and try to understand what happened to some Jewish people during WWII I am disgusted by what I hear. One camp was nothing more than the end of the train line followed by a pit of fire where Jewish men, women and children were shipped to be disposed of. There there was a brick wall where some German officers were renowned for smashing the heads of children against them to silence them. This wells up in me emotions I cannot describe and it pains me to think about it.

I think, though, the problem comes wen we have feelings of anger towards the perpetrators of systemic injustice. I think that feelings of anger tend to come from an attitude that says "I would never do that, so how dare you do it." I think that as Christians we have not understood our sinful nature if this is our attitude. I believe that it is always true that 'There, but for the grace of God, go I.' If I believe that this is true then I have to believe that in my sinful depravity I am capable of being those German SS officers who did the most horrendous things. I am capable of being Josef Mengele who, when women begged to be able to stay with their children, smilingly obliged as he sent them both to the gas chamber. I am capable of being the Hutu soldier in Rwanda who, so filled with hate for his countrymen identified as Tootsies, would bludgeon to death women and children just because they were what they were.

If I recognise that the only reason I don't do these things and worse is because of the grace of God then my attitudes toward the people who perpetrate them changes. Instead of anger I feel sorry for the people who commit such acts as they have not been held back by God and I feel saddened by what is going on, but I feel no right to retributive justice as determined by me. Then, when these perpetrators repent, as Albert Speer seems to have done, whether or not it is sincere we are, here on earth, ready to receive that repentance and forgive, and leave the ultimate judgement up to God no matter how heinous the crime.

Because we know, if we are honest with ourselves, that the depths of our own depravity knows no bounds and it is only God who holds us back from acting on it. We have no right to hold against others what God doesn't hold against us.

I'm interested to know your thoughts.

Why believe the Bible?, and Why I think the Circle of Authority is Nonsense...

Ever had one of those incredibly frustrating arguments with a Mormon where, regardless of the obvious content of the Bible, and the lack of supporting content in the history books, they stick to their guns because "The Holy Spirit has revealed to me the truth, and I know it to be true".

This is nonsense.

Not to go around bagging other religions, (actually... that is what I'm doing and intending to do), Jehovah's witnesses believe the reading (of the Bible) of a few (6?) guys despite the world's best scholars' translations from the greek, Islam believes Mohammed and is encouraged (a euphemism at times) to believe blindly and not question "the Prophet", Buddhism is based entirely on one guys experience with no supporting evidence aside from apparently clever arguments, Hinduism is impressively ancient, but is based on mythological stories that should have declined in parallel with Greek mythology, and don't even get me started on how ridiculous catholicism is...

So why be a Christian? Is it any better?

John Dickson has written a nice little book on this: If I were God I'd make myself clearer. Something from this book that stuck with me is that every major religion in the world except two fails to make historically verifiable claims. That means that every major religion in the world except two must be believed based on the personality of its prophets/gurus/scribes/brainchilds/inventors alone. The two exceptions: Mormonism and Christianity. Regarding the former he goes on to say that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus visited the U.S., that the tablets and magic glasses exist, or anything else that Mormonism claims. Regarding Christianity there is ample historical evidence regarding many historical claims, I need not go into it.

But at many times people have said the following to me about this: "historical evidence is all well and good, but it's not really relevant to me, I believe because the Holy Spirit has convicted me".

What I say to that is, with respect, I think that's rubbish. There are supporting passages to be sure, but taking the entire biblical corpus into account I simply cannot agree. I mean, what if you thought the HS convicted you of mormonism, or ritual suicide, or terrorism? I wouldn't agree with that. At the end of the day I think it's probably just a lucky coincidence that you are a Christian, and that Christianity is true.

Enter the Circle of Authority:

I'm a Sydney Anglican in almost every way. One way that I am not, is that I cannot agree with the widely taught circle of authority.

The argument goes like this: You should believe the Bible because the Bible says it is true. If you say that you believe the Bible for some other reason, then that thing is your ultimate authority, not the Bible. So if you believe the Bible for historical reasons, then history is your ultimate authority, not the Bible. So in order to get yourself onto this circle of authority, you need an insertion point. BUT the insertion point is not a higher authority, it's merely a tangent.

Here's the thing about the pictorial analogy: It's rubbish. An isertion point is a higher authority. It's a reason to believe the Bible in the first place. I don't care how much geometric analogies you come up with, if you have some initial reason for believing the Bible then that is the authority that had you believe the Bible - a truism if ever I've heard one.

Secondly, I hate to use the word Bibliolatry, because I don't want to be associated with 99% of the people that use that word, but I frankly I do not worship the Bible, I worship God. So I believe the Bible, because God has revealed to me that the Bible is the true way to know God. I don't believe other sources about God as authoritative, just the Bible, because my insertion point to the Bible is God, and God doesn't give me any other authoritative sources, but in fact several other fallible ones (my feelings, my view of creation etc, they're all tainted, and sit in subjection to the Bible).

So how does God reveal to me that the Bible is true? Sinai, Jesus' miracles, the Resurrection. At Sinai (Ex 19 in particular) God says something like : You shall know for all time that this law I'm giving you is authoritative BECAUSE I'm here speaking to you in person today. It's God's personal appearance that's authoritative. How is that authoritative for me? History! The history books. The mixed Biblical and historical and archaelogical accounts have lasted 4000 odd years because they're reliable (along with various other reasons). Jesus' miracles are well attested to, and he says to ... Thomas? A pharisee? I can't remember. Somewhere in John: If you don't believe the words I'm saying then believe on account of the miracles. The resurrection is ridiculously well attested to historically. And so on.

So why do I believe the Bible? Because I have good reasons to believe that God really did say : Believe the Bible. That's it. Being convinced of that, I'm free to believe the Bible absolutely, but not because it says so, but because God says so.

A quick word on the Holy Spirit: I believe that the world is irrationally anti-Christian because they don't have the BIble. The HS is an antidote to sin. We cannot believe the truth without the HSs conviction. Nevertheless, a HS argument alone I believe is a dangerous thing, and is ultimately not in line with the Biblical account. God really did appear in person on several occassions and claimed it was for, in part, verification-al purposes. So why reject those offerings, calling them irrelevant, and claim only the HSs conviction as your ultimate source of authority? The HS comes along side us to attest to the truth of the rest of the Biblical account. We must give him a secondary role to God and Jesus, that's what he wants.

This was much too long for a blog. Sorry about that.

Any thoughts?

How to Have the Attitude of Christ - Fear God

One of the longest chunks of scripture I know by heart (although I assume it's not word-for-word in any particular translation) is this embarrassingly short bit from somewhere in Philippians 2:

Therefore brothers, as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence but also in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works through you to will and to act according to his [good?] purposes.

I know it not because it was a memory verse from my childhood, but because it's one of those key passages you look up when you're thinking about what it means to fear God, and so over time it's kind of stuck.

Anyone who is churched in even a vaguely similar context as me will know a much longer song version of the preceding chunk, which also happens to be the "Since..." bit that goes with the therefore above (ie. Since this, Therefore that).

The chunk goes something like this: You should have the same attitude as Christ, who although he has some claim to God-ness, became a servant (to God - not people) by becoming a man, and was obedient even to the point of death. And because of this God exalted him and made his name great.

Therefore brothers...

I've heard a couple of sermons on this passage, and never has it been treated adequately. The problem, I think, is that we baulk at the phrase fear and trembling and end up make excuses for the passage. I am convinced there's only one reasonable reading which is dictated by mere logic. Here it is in short:

Because the Philippians are obedient types, the working out of their salvation is a fearful thing. God has purposes that he is working out in the world, and he is using his faithful elect to achieve them. In the case of Christ this meant torture and death. In the case of Christians, it means filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions: could be torture and death, could be something else. All we know is that if you are faithful you should expect suffering. We know that the exalting bit will happen, and sometimes we'll ask "How long, Oh Lord" until your vengeance on the wicked is exacted? But for now the expectation is that, like Christ, we will be fearful and trembling, at what God has in store for us before that happens.

I don't care how many times that word fear is used in the New Testament (four I believe) and how it is used in any other context. It's irrelevant. And I don't care what our existing theology of fear is. It's irrelevant as well is it not? The context and logic of the passage takes precedence, and the passage needs to change the way we think, not be manipulated to confirm our pre-existing notions. No?

I'm terrified that my reading of this passage is accurate, because I'm not terrified enough of God's plans, which makes me wonder whether I'm seeing God right, and whether he's treating me as an obedient son, or merely a cry-baby who still needs milk and cookies, not meat.

I can't emphasise enough how unpopular this reading seems to be, and how necessary it is from basic comprehension of the entire chunk.

Nominal Calvinism

This week I was exposed to cultural/nominal Calvinism. It was a really weird thing. I was vaguely aware of such a thing from my childhood. Long before I knew there was ever a guy called Calvin, I had heard that the church I grew up in was traditionally Calvinist which meant they didn't approve of dancing. There are several errors in that sentence... the more you look the more you see.

This week in Leipzig, 20 years later, it came up again!

Now, I would call myself a Calvinist. My only hesitation is that Calvin didn't invent the theology to which I'm referring, but was himself a follower as well. So in fact would call myself a biblical Christian - but obviously that won't do.

Anyway, this week in Leipzig I went to dinner with my very excellent advisor Bernd. We were talking of Luther, the printing press, and the Bible. The unification of Germany in terms of language was largely due to Luther's translation. The dialects still exist, and apparently Bernd (who is from the south) cannot understand a Hamburger's dialect. So it was a big deal.

That subject got us on to religion in Germany in general. I learnt a lot from this. There are towns in Stuttgart where the Catholic and Protestant sides would, up until recently, have separate bakeries, and when, say, the Catholic one closed up for a holiday, the clientèle would frequent the local Muslim-run bakery rather than the protestant one, such was the animosity.

More interestingly though, I learnt that there is a town in Stuttgart which is vehemently "Calvinist", which until recently had only one park bench. It now has none. The reason it was removed was because someone who has time to sit about on a park bench is not being sufficiently industrious, read Calvinist. There is also a tradition in much of Stuttgart where the inhabitants of an apartment block must take turns cleaning the common area (the stair-well etc). I'd heard of this, but didn't realise it had anything to do with Calvinism. It turns out it is only a Calvinist thing, and only traditionally Calvinist parts of town adhere to this, and indeed take pride in it.

I've read about half of the Institutes of the Christian Religion (mainly books two and three I think), as well as a handful of Calvin's sermons. I have at least some idea what Calvin believed and taught. And despite his shortcomings (which I learnt all about in church history), I can safely say that the majority of Stuttgart do not believe what Calvin taught, and Calvin certainly did not teach the majority of what Stuttgarter's do.

 I suppose if you look hard enough you'll find nominal anything-ers.