Explaining a recent CD released by Vineyard Music Group, its director of public relations explained,
People aren't content with yesterday's level of closeness. They want something more. We feel this album gives them that.
The result? A CD with titles including "My Lover, My God," "Touch Me All Over," "Naked Before You," "I'll Do Anything You Want," "Deeper" and "You Make Me Hot with Desire." It's not that surprising Walmart felt the need to refuse to stock the CDs.
Apologies for my long silence. I have comments to reply to and emails to send and I'm not in that position yet. But I needed to share this.
In Scotland's Presbyterian church (which is probably more like our Anglican church in that historically it had strong social and political ownership) there is currently debate over whether it should receive as a minister a man who is living in a homosexual relationship. Some disagree and have signed a petition. What surprised me is that William Philip, who formed the petition, has noted,
Several who have signed up have been intimidated into removing their signatures because employers have threatened discipline just for someone daring to express their support for the orthodox Christian position on human sexuality. Some chaplains from the hospital or prison service have been threatened with discipline and perhaps even dismissal. So we are called narrow and intolerant, simply for asking that church leaders observe what the church has always believed and stood for
I'm not clear if the only people threatened with losing their job have been chaplains. I dearly hope people in other fields haven't been threatened. But even for these chaplains the implication is worrying. Can you only act with loving concern for someone if you think what they're doing isn't a sin? Are the two mutually exclusive?
Listening to wise christians of the past is a great way of helping us reflect on how we listen today.
One of the interesting conversations I had in the last week while we were visiting Rockhampton was with a few guys that were suggesting that the good things I do is less genuinely good than when they do good things because I do them because I'm a Christian. If I understood them correctly, they're saying that they do things simply because they're the right things to do, whereas I do them only because God says to do them. While I had heard similar comments before, I hadn't thought about it recently and only now have I had a chance to reflect on their comments.
My first reflection is that I do things because they're the right thing to do, as well as because God says to do them. That is, it's not like I object to doing the good things that these guys were talking about. I'm no different in that respect. I love helping friends. I'm moved with compassion when I see people having a rough time. And I think it's great that they want to do good things. It seems only natural. I live in this world where I have a natural desire to seek to do the good. It works. It makes the world a better place. It expresses love that I genuinely feel. Speaking as a Christian, God's made the world to work that way. Loving God's world doesn't mean blindly obeying his commands. It means obeying his commands with my eyes wide open—responding to the world in a way that "fits".
Second, do non-Christians really have no other motivation than that it's the right thing to do? I do the right thing because it benefits others, it pleases me and it pleases God. Don't non-Christians do the right thing because it benefits others and it pleases them? How long would people do the right thing if it always didn't benefit them? How long would it seem the right thing? Altruism is satisfying. I enjoy it, as I say. There's nothing wrong with that. But doesn't it taint our altruism? And shouldn't we stop and consider how long we'd be altruistic if it wasn't pleasing to us?
But third, the question of whether a Christian or non-Christian is more moral depends on whether you believe there's a God. If there isn't a God, it does seem more moral to act without the need of extrinsic motivation. But if the God of the Bible is there, then the good we do is a gift from him. And to do that good without acknowledging the gift is, well, a form of pride. So I appreciate these guys arguments. I can see that in their worldview, they seem more moral than I do. But I hope they're also willing to see how it looks to God if he actually is 'the giver of every good thing'.
I've been working through Hebrews preparing to preach it later in the year, and I'm in the midst of chapter 11. At the same time, I've been following several discussions on B-Greek about Con Campbell's explanation of aspect. I get the impression that some are cautious about the theory of aspect in general and that most find his explanation of the perfect unsatisfying. Frankly, I've been fairly persuaded and have been moving more towards a temporal understanding of tense.
But then I've encountered 11:17 and 28. Here the perfect doesn't have a clear "past event with present consequences" meaning. Apparently Gundrie argues the perfect emphasises the events' abiding impact, but I just don't see that contributing anything to the broader argument. My best reading? The perfects emphasise the climactic events in the authors two most extensive accounts of lives of faith (Abraham and Moses). The perfects are emphatic, not temporal, and so Con's "heightened proximity" approach gives a good account at this point. I'll pull out Porter and think through what a stative account could mean, but it's not immediately obvious to me.
Like Kamal, I'll be presenting at the combined Presbyterian colleges' conference, Descendi Studio next week. I think I'll be on Wednesday. However, I must confess I'm not presenting on Calvin. Neither am I presenting on my project from last year looking at Doctrines of Scripture in Islam and Evangelicalism.
Rather, I'll be looking at why Queensland Presbyterians who chose to remain presbyterian did so during the formation of the Uniting Church in Australia (ie. back in the '70's). It was an essay I did for Church history last year and probably of interest to many attending the conference.
What will it be about? It doesn't claim to be comprehensive, but I question some claims I found about that people remained Presbyterian solely (yes, some historians went that far) because of their cultural backgrounds. Instead, I'll be suggesting that at least in Queensland, doctrinal issues—especially the question of Scripture—were significant to many who chose to "continue Presbyterian".
Why do I care? Well, I'm not historically Presbyterian, but I'm training to work with them. So I wanted to know about a defining event in the life of this denomination in recent years. I think it's impact is still felt both practically (eg. why some regions don't have churches, why there's a sudden need for ministers in the denomination) and theologically (eg. why has Queensland Presbyterianism been so theologically conservative post-union, when might we be seen as betraying what people at that time were fighting for, when are we not). I want be unpacking all that in my presentation, but I hope that's what I started to learn last year doing the research.
Posts
All Comments
