Multicultural Ministry Matters

Quick shout out: over at The Blogging Parson , Michael Jensen has some excellent thoughts on why we need theological education , who needs it & what to look for.

Why did King Hezekiah remain silent when Rabshakeh, the Assyrian field commander, taunted Hezekiah and insulted the LORD? Isaiah 36 and 2 Kings 18 record how Sennacherib, king of Assyria, attacked Judah and conquered all the way to Jerusalem. Sennacherib memorialised his conquest of Lachish, Judah's second most important city, in sculpted reliefs in his palace at Ninevah. Those reliefs, and a rock prism boasting of his Judean campaign, can now be seen in the British Museum . I saw them myself last week, when I visited the museum during my UK holiday. Having conquered Lachish, the Assyrian army besieged Jerusalem. Isaiah and 2 Kings both record the Assyrian field commander taunting Hezekiah and the LORD. "Don't let Hezekiah deceive you," he says to the people of Jerusalem, "the LORD can't save you. None of the gods of the other nations were able to resist us. Come over to us Assyrians - we'll look after you." In the face of these taunts, Hezekiah...

I'm back from a three-week holiday in the UK. First week in London , with day trips to Oxford & Cambridge ; second week in Glasgow , with day trips to Mallaig (Harry Potter country!), Edinburgh & St Andrews (Presbyterian country!); third week in the Cumbria Lakes District , with day trips all over the place. Some reflections: Australia sure is a long way away from the UK (*yawn*) (*jet-lag*); The UK is full of history. Things built in the 1800s are new - like the "new" palace of Westminster and the "New Wing" at Magdalene College, Oxford (where C. S. Lewis had his rooms); I love the museums. I saw artefacts relevant to Biblical times in the British Museum in London and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. Highly recommend the Imperial War Museum ; Most of the museums & galleries in the UK are free & have cheap audio tours which provide an excellent commentary; Scotland has, given its small size & population, made a disproportionate impa...

In my previous post , I showed how naturalistic science depersonalises sexuality, turning it into a mere manipulation of bodily functions. In contrast, the Bible treats our sexuality as a good gift from a personal, Triune God, who is love (1 John 4:16) – who is constituted within himself by his relationships. The logic of the Bible is, unsurprisingly, the opposite to atheistic materialistic naturalism. Humans are fundamentally relational beings. God gave us our bodies – including the sexual nature of our bodies – to express these relationships. The way to care for our bodies is, generally, to attend to our relationships: if we are in healthy relationships, our bodies will flourish; if we are in toxic relationships, they will deteriorate. So, from a Biblical perspective, the way to rightly use our sexuality, which both acknowledges its status as a divine gift, and helps us lead healthy, happy sex lives, is to consider how we are using our sexuality to enhance our relationships. This per...

In my previous post I argued that sexual research and therapy were good professions, blessed by God. To deserve such blessing, this research and therapy must be conducted in a manner that acknowledges our sexuality as a divine gift. Naturalistic science presupposes radical materialism – the natural world of physical matter is ultimate reality. It presupposes that there is no creator God, who made the physical universe for us to enjoy. Instead, physical matter is all that really exists. As mere physical matter, it is in itself inert, passive, and lifeless. It operates according to rules that are complex but predictable. The role of science is to discover these physical rules of operation so that we can manipulate them, enhance the physical objects beyond their ‘natural’ state, and use them to ach achieve whatever we want. Naturalistic science dissects and reconstructs so as to control and dominate. Applying this to sexual research and therapy: naturalistic science assumes that everythin...

Sexuality is a good part of our created nature. God made humanity male and female, and commanded humans to "be fruitful and increase in number..." (Gen 1:27-28). Adam rejoiced over Eve as his own flesh and bone, and they were to be united as one flesh, naked with no shame (Genesis 2:23-25). Therefore, gender and sexuality is part of our humanity - it is part of what it means to be in God's image. As part of good creation, our sexuality is open to scientific research and medical therapy. Any research and therapy that helps people discover who they truly are, as sexual beings in relationship with God and other people, is a good thing, and God will bless it. Any research and therapy that assists people to conduct their sexual lives in a responsible, healthy manner, before God, their sexual partner, and the world, is a good thing, blessed by God. Sex research and therapy – like any medical research and therapy – is a blessed profession, pleasing to God. All of this helps us r...

I'm preparing to head off to Glasgow, Scotland, to participate in the 20th World Congress for Sexual Health of the World Association for Sexual Health ("WAS"). I'm delivering a 15-min paper on " Biblical Principles for Sexual Research and Therapy " at a Symposium on Religion & Sexual Health . It'll be on Thurs 16 June between 10:30-11:30 Glasgow time = Thursday 16 June 2011 7:30 - 8:30pm Sydney time. It's my first time delivering an academic paper at a secular conference. Prayers appreciated. Of course I'm also going to have a holiday at the same time: London, Oxford, Cambridge, then Glasgow, Edinburgh, perhaps St Andrew's, then the Lakes District - then home. I'll be travelling with my parents - my mum, Dr. Pat , has various presentations at the conference also. I'm looking forward to visiting St George's Tron Church in Glasgow. So I'll be an Sri-Lankan - Australian Presbyterian in Scotland... I'm finishing off the...

Biblically speaking, relationships are more central to our being than bodily pleasure. We are first of all relational beings. God made humans male and female (Gen 1:27), addressed Adam as a covenant-partner (Gen 2:16-17), and made Eve as a suitable helper for Adam, for whom it was not good to be alone (Gen 2:18). Abraham was to be the channel for God's blessing to flow to all the families of the earth (Gen 12:3). Christ died and rose for his people - the church (Eph 1:22, 2:19-22, etc) who are to mutually encourage each other (Gal 6:2; Heb 10:24-25). We are to use our bodies to enhance relationships. If we are in healthy relationships, our bodies will prosper. If we are in unhealthy relationships, our bodies will deteriorate. Relationships are built on trust, and trust is built on the reliability of a person’s character, usually expressed in their faithfulness to promises. This is because relationships are essentially other-focused. In any intimate relationship – family, spouse, BF...

A few days ago, British physicist Stephen Hawking said that heaven is a fairy story . That comment was of course picked up by the media - more interested in sensationalism than facts - all over the world, and paired with outraged statements from religious leaders. But, as this review of Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design , says, it's old news. Hawking's absolutely brilliant in theoretical physics. But he never has believed in God or the supernatural world. He's always been a standard, predictable naturalist. Which means he, like other dogmatic atheists, simply doesn't engage with the question of whether God exists, because he "knows" that he doesn't. So when he says heaven is a fairy story, the proper response isn't to argue, but to yawn. Leadership Journal has an article on the problem of youth groups watering down the gospel and effectively becoming child-minding with pizza: The Red Bull Gospel . The result? The young people are never real...

In a previous post , I blogged about the arguments for same-gender marriage. I received the foll. question: There’s one other argument used by those in favour of same-sex marriage that you haven’t covered: love. The basic argument goes - the core reason for marriage is the declaration of your love for, and commitment to, another person. Homosexual couples are just as capable of love and commitment as heterosexual couples, so they should be just as able to express their love for each other as heterosexual couples can by getting married. The slippery slope with this argument is that it not only opens the door for same-sex marriage, but also polygamous and polyandrous marriages. How would you respond to this argument? Here's my answer. There’s at least three meanings to the word ‘love’: To use something according to its God-given nature and purpose, which can only be fully known through divine revelation, but can be partially known through scientific, empirical examination; To be comm...

This Fri & Sat, I'm speaking at Inaburra Christian School's inaugural Teen Health Conference . The conference is looking at everything from alcohol to risk taking to sex to travel to bullying. Thurs night open to students, parents and teachers; Friday for students; Sat for parents & teachers. Dunno if it's full yet - I'm sure they'll welcome late registrations - try the rego page . I'm presenting a session on the effects of our pornified world on today's youth. Pornography is fantasy sex - it's visual, superficially physical, anti-relational, and commercial. It treats humans as merely pleasure-seeking organisms: as bodies throbbing in constant emotional and sensual climax, with no dangers, no limitations, and no consequences. That is ridiculously out of step with reality. Real sex is wholistic, embodied, relational, and personal. It involves two people finding out about each other as people - with emotional needs, and bodily limitations. It invo...

Up until recently in human history, marriage has been uniquely between a man and a woman, for the purpose of begetting children and raising a family. Recently, that has been challenged by advocates for same-gender marriage. The logic for same-gender marriage goes like this: Our sexuality is part of our body; We, as individuals, have the right to determine what we do with our bodies; If anyone else tries to tell us what to do with our bodies, including our sexuality, that's the same as doing violence to our bodies - ie, we are "hurt", and we must "scream" and "fight back"; Society must affirm individuals in their search for bodily, sexual self-expression; If society doesn't affirm us, we have been violated, and can "scream"; Because we, as individuals, have the right to determine our own sexuality, then having sex with someone of the same gender is as valid as sex with someone of the opposite gender; If anyone disagrees with 6., we have be...

When presenting the gospel - in an evangelistic setting, or speaking/preaching, or one-on-one, or whatever - what's the better "posture" to take: a "robust" posture of a debate, or a "friendly" posture of dialogue? The benefit of a debate is it permits us to make universal claims: "this is reality, take it or leave it." That agrees with the nature of the gospel - Jesus really is Lord of all, whether we like it or not. And it also agrees with the examples of proclamation in the book of Acts. The problem with a debate is it scares people who are timid or uncertain of their own beliefs - Christian or atheist or whatever - and therefore potentially shuts down true questioning and searching through intimidation rather than conviction. Also, it potentially reinforces a grumpy, doctrinaire preconception of Christianity. The benefit of a dialogue is it invites people to "walk inside my worldview" without making absolute claims of right/wro...

A ministry colleague sent me a query from someone within his ministry context about the origin of evil, asking me to help him frame a response. Here's an edited version of my response. Anyone got any thoughts? Feedback appreciated. The classic dilemma goes as follows: how can a good and all-powerful God permit evil and suffering to exist? It either denies his goodness, or his all-powerfulness. The very simple explanation - classically called the "free will defense" - goes like this: God created humans, and other spiritual creature - like the angel who became the Devil - with a genuine capacity for choice. This genuine capacity for choice is itself a good thing - it gives us dignity, some genuine independence from God, and responsibility. But, while being good, this capacity for choice is fragile . It's natural goodness makes it vulnerable to being used in a bad way - viz, to choose against God, rebel against him, and bring in chaos. Therefore, we should not blame God ...

We see further when we stand on the shoulders of giants. 21st century Evangelicalism has benefited immensely from the labours of mid-20th century evangelical scholars. They were people who, convinced that if the God of the Bible was the creator of all things - as the Bible claims he is - then he is also the creator of the rational mind, with its desire for clear explanation of phenomena. And, if the same God who caused the Bible to be written about himself also created the whole world, then this whole world should fit together the way the Bible says it would. Therefore, they committed themselves to evangelical scholarship - to studying the Bible and the world, not as "objective scholars" - a so-called objectivity which assumes away the supernatural without argument, and is therefore both radically subjective and a cipher for atheistic materialism - but as self-concious believers in the Lordship of the crucified and risen Jesus. We've had our luminaries here in Australia -...

Let me confess to a moment of cynicism. When I first heard of the Africa Bible Commentary project, I thought "oh please - another expression of post-modern reality fragmentation. We already have plenty of Australians, Americans and Europeans ignoring the Bible's own assertions, reading their own situation into it, and then admiring their own reflections and proclaiming it as the word of God - do we have to make the Africans do the same?" I'm glad to discover how wrong I was. Conrad Mbewe, a Reformed Baptist from Zambia, has written an excellent review of the Africa Bible Commentary . He commends it as being an excellent example of "conservative evangelical scholarship" where "the commentators allowed the passages they were commenting on to speak for themselves – however uncomfortable that might be – which is an important aspect of conservative evangelicalism." Nevertheless, the commentary is appropriately contextuslised for Africa: "All the b...

Shout out: Over at the Gospel Coalition blog, Kevin De Young has an excellent post on wealth: Money and Possessions in Proverbs .

The school I attended in Sri Lanka is St Thomas’ College . I reckon history has been unkind to St Thomas. Despite the adjective usually attached to his name – “doubting” Thomas – I reckon he’s actually a good model for a believer. That is, if you follow the correct Thomas. The world is a big place. We can’t possibly travel everywhere & experience everything. So how do we gain reliable information about the world? Through people telling us what it’s like. When they tell us what it’s like, we can share some of their experiences. We can see what they see, hear what they hear, and thereby come to a reliable knowledge of whatever it is they’re telling us about. That works through time – we know history through the records of witnesses – and in contemporary time – people share their experiences with us. And that’s the same way we can know about Jesus rising from the dead: through the testimony of the eyewitnesses. That’s the challenge Thomas faced. John 20:24-25 (NIV 1984): 24 Now Thomas...

This follows on from my previous post on Jesus, the radical reformer . John 2:18-22: 18 Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken . The risen body of Jesus is the one true temple – the one place where God and man con come together in peace and harmony. Jesus had taken charge of the temple. He was controlling the place, and dictating what true worship was. The Jewish leaders ask him: what right have you to do that? They want him to perform a miracle, to prove that he has the right to take over the place, and dictate true wo...

John 2:14-16: 14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” When we read the account of Jesus clearing the temple, we instinctively cheer him on. But Jesus’ actions are actually rather strange. Because when we look carefully, we can see that this market was originally set up to help people worship God, not get in the way of it. The merchants were selling “cattle, sheep and doves” (v14). They are sacrificial animals. God specifically permitted people to purchase sacrificial animals on site: Deuteronomy 14:24-26 24 But if that place [the central place of wor...

Human beings flourish in an environment where we’re confident that those who have authority over us care about us, and use their authority for our good. We’ve all been in situations where someone who had authority over us – a parent, a teacher, a boss – didn’t really care about us. They were distant, withdrawn: “Just get the job done.” “Do your homework. Don’t bother me – I’m watching TV.” Perhaps they even used their power to oppress us – like the boss takes the credit for all the businesses successes, and shifts the blame for all the mistakes. How demoralising is that…? Then there are situations where the people in authority over us used their power to care for us, and advance us. Like the teacher who deeply knows the content of what they’re teaching, and also deeply wants the class to know it. Their enthusiasm is infectious. John 1:1-5: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were ...

To be human is to be embodied, to be a physical, biological creature. Christians view all of physical existence, from the grandeur of the cosmos to the particularity of the human body, as the good creation of a benevolent God. Physical existence is not divine, but it is good by creational intent, and human existence as embodied is an aspect of this good physicality. The goodness of embodiment is also supported by and grounded in two additional key theological themes of traditional Christianity, the doctrines of the incarnation and of the resurrection of the body. Clearly, bodily existence must not be intrinsically evil or incompatible with the perfect good if God can become fully human. Clearly, the teaching that the final state of redeemed humanity will be as persons of resurrected and perfected bodies, and that we will, in that state, enjoy God forever, must deepen our appreciation of embodiment. We are more than bodies - there is a trans-materialistic, spiritual or soulish, aspect o...