Multicultural Ministry Matters

News flash: the Free Church of Scotland , one of the most significant Presbyterian denominations which split in the 1800s from the Church of Scotland , has permitted hymns and musical instruments in its churches. To be precise, they have given "liberty to its congregations to sing hymns and use instruments, if individual Kirk Sessions [Church Elder's Committee] so choose". Yes I know that sounds really lame, but bear with me while I explain why it's important. The Free Church is theologically conservative, but has also been historically energetic. They set up New College at the University of Edinburgh , which now hosts the School of Divinity - that is, the university's theological faculty. They sent missionaries to Africa, India (Calcutta, Bombay, Poona and Madras), Canada, Australia (!) and the Middle East. Their theology was probably the closest to the Old Princeton Presbyterianism of Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield . A lot (most? all?) of this energy has c...

Patrick Schreiner , Tom Schreiner's son, has posted his dad's responses to N. T. Wright and Frank Thielman .

John Dickson , director of the Centre for Public Christianity , is at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature . He posted the following summary of an exciting paper by German NT scholar Jorg Frey, in which, John says, "with one simple insight, he resolved a major 'problem' concerning the differences between John and the three other Gospels." He kindly let me re-post it: * * * * * Scholars have long pointed out that the central theme of Jesus' preaching, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, was 'the kingdom of God'. It is everywhere in those Gospels. John virtually ignores that theme, preferring to speak of a nebulous 'eternal life' instead. This was seen as one serious against John's reliability. It does look like a serious problem. Prof Frey, after outlining the problem, pointed out that in John 3 in the Nicodemus story we find the first and only references (two of them) to 'kingdom of God' AND the first references to...

N. T. (Tom) Wright is famous (or infamous) for his view on justification, which many (myself included) take to be closer to a Catholic, synergistic view than the classic Protestant view - which we insist is the Biblical view. To simplify the debate (without, hopefully, distorting it too much): Wright says "justification" refers to the church - God accepts those who identify with Christ as the mediator of the covenant. The "Lutheran" or "traditional" response is that such a view makes our act of identification with Christ meritorious - it waters down the idea that justification is an entirely gracious act of God, springing entirely from his willed generosity. The "Lutheran" view of justification is that it is a judicial declaration which sets the sinner in a perfectly right relationship with God. God is therefore the active agent in justification; humans are merely passive recipients. Wright replies that the Holy Spirit is active in empowering th...

In our previous post , we saw that Christ restores our sexuality in the present, by reaffirming heterosexual marriage, and modelling contentment and self-control. In the future, our sexuality will be transcended in God’s new creation. The restoration of our sexuality, while real, will always be incomplete in the present - as will be all aspects of our human restoration. The Bible looks forward to a new creation, a new universe, where everything that is corrupt and painful will pass away, and we will only ever enjoy life and peace and safety. Only in this new creation will the effects of sin – of our willed rejection of God – be finally dealt with, and our human wholeness completely restored. In this new creation, our sexuality will not just be restored, it will be transcended. The bible talks about God’s relationship with his people as a bride and bridegroom. In one of the final chapters of the bible, the Apostle John sees this vision - Revelation 21:2, 3: 2 I saw the Holy City, the ne...

In our last post , we saw that Christ restores our sexuality - but we yet await a final restoration. In the present, sexual restoration involves three things: (1) the normativity of heterosexual marriage; (2) contentment; and (3) self control. We have already seen Jesus validate marriage in Matt 19. Committed heterosexual marriage remains the context wherein to enjoy sex. If sexual partners are committed to each other for life, then sex is part of that shared life together. It is not just a one-night stand. We can encourage them to conduct their sexuality in such a way as to serve each other, and give each other the best possible sexual experience, over their whole life. The normativity of sex within marriage calls for sexual contentment , both within and outside marriage. Life with a regular sexual partner, married or not, still involves unmet sexual desires. Constant sexual satisfaction is a myth – it only happens in the movies. So, within marriage, we are called to contentment – to ...

In our last post , we saw how our rejection of God - sin - affects us all, including our sexuality. Because we’re all broken people, we need someone to fix us from the outside. Jesus forgives us for rejecting God. And, he restores us to human wholeness. This is what he achieved in his cross and resurrection. Think of Jesus’ death on the cross as the ultimate sickness – sickness to death. And think of his resurrection as the ultimate healing – so healthy that he can never die again. He takes the consequences we deserve, so we can enjoy the life God always planned for us. So, Christians are always hopeful. It doesn’t matter how bad a situation is, how much someone’s failed themselves, or failed anyone else – they can be restored by Jesus. We can always say to anyone: hang in there; don’t give up; there is hope. This restoration is real, but in this life, partial. We'll explore this more over the next few posts.

In our previous post , we noted God's pattern for healthy sexuality is heterosexual monogamy. We've already seen that sex is not the original sin. Sexuality is implicated within our sin - but it's a victim of sin, not the perpetrator of it. The Bible presents sin as damaging our sexuality, along with the rest of our humanity. In Genesis 3, sin is presented as a willed rejection of God’s rule over our lives. It’s an attitude: “I don’t want you, God, to be in charge of my life; I want to be in charge of my life.” This active rejection of God affects our whole being – including our sexuality. In Genesis 3:16, God lays out one of the consequences of rejecting him: To the woman he [God] said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” This turns the previous blessings of sexuality, in Genesis 1 and 2, upside down. In Genesis 1, man and woman were commanded to ...

In our previous post , we saw how sexuality is a good gift, from God, for our pleasure and for procreation of life. Sex is so good, that God gives us a pattern within which to enjoy it. It’s like driving a car. A car is a good machine, useful for getting from place to place. But if we don’t control the car – if we deliberately break the rules, or if we just let it go wild – it’s dangerous. It can kill people. Similarly, sex is good. But it needs to be managed and controlled, or else it can be dangerous. Both Gen 1 & 2 present sexuality between a man and a woman, in the context of a committed relationship. It's heterosexual. Genesis 1:27 says “male and female he created them”. In Genesis 1:28, the command to “be fruitful and increase in number” presupposes child-bearing sexual activity, which, until very recently, was heterosexual. In Genesis 2, God creates a woman, Eve, as a companion – to stand beside the man. And it's a committed, lifelong relationship, ie: marriage. Gen...

In our previous post , we thought about the implications if sex were intrisically sinful. In contrast, the Bible tells us sex existed before sin. The first two chapters of Genesis have the stories of how God made the world. Sin only comes in chapter 3. So chapters 1 & 2 are about pure humanity – humanity before sin. Genesis 1:27-28a: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth…” To be in God’s image is to be like God, while not being God. One of the first aspects of being like God is having babies - which would, for us humans, involve sex. Having children images God because God gives life, and loves life. God is Father - and fathers have children. God is not sexual in himself; but our sexuality is an irreducible element in our imaging of God's life-giving nature. So, our sexual nature is tied to being in God’s image – ...

Back to everyone's favourite topic: sex! These posts are adapted from my presentation a couple of weeks ago at the 'sexuality and religion' panel at the annual conference of the Australian Soceity of Sex Educators, Researchers and Therpists ( ASSERT ). It represents my continuing efforts to arrive at a comprehensive, Biblical view of sexuality, with a view to helping all people - Christian or not - to live healthily with this very important aspect of human life. ***** Some people think Christians believe that sex is the original sin. That is, God considers all sexual activity to be intrinsically and irredeemably wicked and offensive. To have sex is to offend God. If this were true, it would have two effects. First, it would give us a warped view of God . God becomes the cosmic killjoy. Because the one activity that gives us greatest human pleasure is deemed to be the one activity that most offends God. Secondly, it gives us a warped view of ourselves . If we believe in God,...

Couple of excellent posts out in the blogosphere: Eternity news says the best way to keep kids Christian is not to preach at them in specific religious classes or chapel, but to give them an all-encompassing world-view. Mike Gilbart-Smith has posted some notes from Stuart Townend's seminar on Corporate Worship, delivered at Oak Hill College. The "A.R.T. of Corporate worship"

September is a flat month for me. And has been for the last coupla years. As in I find myself running on empty, not really motivated to do anything. The results are lagged - witness my lack of blog posts in October. I suspect it's just mid-year exhaustion. Especially with a hectic winter - MYC, SweatCon and Religion in the Public Square conferences. I'm not too worried coz I'm not alone. When commented on this to an older minister, he nodded and said "[school] term three is death term." Even Erik Raymond of Irish Calvinist says he's been suffering from blog coma ... although when I scroll down his blog he's been posting every day for the last coupla weeks... oh dear... (*intimidated*). Anyway... I'm back in the blogosphere now. More posts on the way.