Multicultural Ministry Matters

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 .