I believe this is my 100th post. It has taken me longer than Geoff Boycott to get from 90 to 100, but here I am.
The next U.S. general election is to be held later this year, on Melbourne Cup Day actually. So, get ready for the tv news to be filled with all of the hootin' and hollerin' of the presidential rallies. Plus, there will the usual inordinate number of standing ovations, most of them fake.
Speaking of hootin' and hollerin', I go back to the UK congress that I wrote about in my last blog. (Unfortunately, the video is no longer online so I can't verify what my memory is somewhat vague about. Nevertheless, if my recollection isn't quite correct I don't think it changes the premise of my comment). The General gave a stirring sermon in the afternoon. It drew quite a few rounds of applause (no standing ovations thank goodness). What interested me was which comments drew applause and which didn't.
As I mentioned previously, the General's comment about CEO's earning bonuses drew strong applause. If my memory serves me correctly, so did her comments about getting back to saving souls. But the comments that didn't receive applause were related to the Salvation Army youth of today needing to engage with non Christian youth to change the culture. The other comment was relating to prevalence of domestic violence and the need to do something about it.
I don't for a minute believe that those present saw the latter two issues as less worthy than the first two so why the applause for some comments and not others? For what it's worth this is my take on it. It doesn't cost us anything to demand that CEO's stop getting a bonus. I can cheer and nobody is likely to point the finger at me to do something about it. That's the job of our politicians.
Saving souls is a little bit different. It is a central point of belief within the Army. Many people feel that we are losing our point of difference and distinctiveness and that we need to get back to being who we really are. Fair enough. But, if I could be a tad controversial, I would say that the Army long ago fell into the belief that it was the job of the band to do open air meetings and if that was happening then evangelism was happening. Or, more to the point, if the band wasn't doing open air meetings then the Army wasn't engaged in evangelism.
I wonder how many of those cheering are actually actively engaged in activities outside of the church where they are building relationships, sharing life with these people, being there in the bad times. In short, being Christ to those that don't yet know him. Or, were they thinking "yes, it's about time our band did open air meetings again". In other words, like the CEO bonuses, it's somebody else's job to fix it, not mine.
The last two points that failed to draw applause require us, individually , to actually do something. Not the politicians, or the corps officers, or social workers. It is about making a personal sacrifice to get involved. And we instantly become less enthusiastic about it then. We might agree with the need but also recognise that we can't clap unless we are prepared to actually do something about it.
It reminds me of the story of the rich young man in the Bible. I suspect that he was very enthusiastic about much of the law because he was very diligent in trying to keep it. But when Jesus suggested that he sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor it became very personal. Even though he probably knew deep down that this was what his faith was all about, his passion ebbed away very quickly when it all became about personal cost.
It's easy to clap when it doesn't require us to personally get involved.
This isn't about sticking the boots into the UK Salvationists. It's about me seeing myself in the responses to the General's sermon.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Queen's Birthday Honours
A couple of weeks ago the General of The Salvation Army, Linda Bond, speaking at the British Congress made an interesting comment, but not before telling the media not to quote her. She was critical of CEO's for receiving big bonuses just for doing their job. It drew significant applause because, I guess, she was prepared to say what most people were thinking. Nevertheless it's a bold thing for a world leader of an organisation such as The Salvation Army to say in a public forum.
Today, the Queen's Birthday honours have been announced in Australia and I found myself, not for the first time, asking whether we should be handing out these awards. After all, does the same thing apply to these honours as applies to CEO's and their bonuses? Should people receive honours for just doing their job? And not all people 'just doing their job' receive honours. The main honours were awarded to 4 politicians, 3 professors - one of whom advocates the right murder of children if they are born disabled, and 1 activist judge. I doubt whether I will ever receive an honour for giving announcements at church (!) but if I did I don't think I would accept it.
There are some wonderful people who receive honours in the lower categories and are most worthy. But the system suggests to me that we just don't understand what God wants to see in his society. We still give the greatest honours to those who have high profiles or the greatest education. I wouldn't begrudge anyone I know from receiving an honour. I would be genuinely pleased for them. But these awards, despite recognising some really great, down to earth people, and despite encouraging people who have achieved, in my opinion show how little we understand about God.
Until the top honours go to the people who spend countless hours, without pay, helping the underprivileged and our politicians miss out altogether because they have just been doing their job (and in the process quite often show what bad roles models they are too), I will continue to treat them with a degree of contempt.
Today, the Queen's Birthday honours have been announced in Australia and I found myself, not for the first time, asking whether we should be handing out these awards. After all, does the same thing apply to these honours as applies to CEO's and their bonuses? Should people receive honours for just doing their job? And not all people 'just doing their job' receive honours. The main honours were awarded to 4 politicians, 3 professors - one of whom advocates the right murder of children if they are born disabled, and 1 activist judge. I doubt whether I will ever receive an honour for giving announcements at church (!) but if I did I don't think I would accept it.
There are some wonderful people who receive honours in the lower categories and are most worthy. But the system suggests to me that we just don't understand what God wants to see in his society. We still give the greatest honours to those who have high profiles or the greatest education. I wouldn't begrudge anyone I know from receiving an honour. I would be genuinely pleased for them. But these awards, despite recognising some really great, down to earth people, and despite encouraging people who have achieved, in my opinion show how little we understand about God.
Until the top honours go to the people who spend countless hours, without pay, helping the underprivileged and our politicians miss out altogether because they have just been doing their job (and in the process quite often show what bad roles models they are too), I will continue to treat them with a degree of contempt.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Who hears accurately?
"While the cargo was being unloaded, we looked up the local disciples and stayed with them seven days. Their message to Paul, from insight given by the Spirit, was "Don't go to Jerusalem."" Acts 21:3-4
The local disciple's message to Paul was "Don't go to Jerusalem". Agabus the prophet's message was "This is what the Holy Spirit says: The Jews in Jerusalem are going to tie up the man who owns this belt just like this and hand him over to godless unbelievers." Paul's response was "The issue in Jerusalem is not what they do to me, whether arrest or murder, but what the Master Jesus does through my obedience. Can't you see that?"
Who was right? The local disciples and Agabus both warned Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Both claimed it to be a word from the Holy Spirit. Paul claimed to be being obedient to Jesus. So, did God want Paul in Jerusalem or not? Someone wasn't hearing the word of God correctly.
I can actually take some encouragement from this. Sometimes when I read about the early church they seem to have a direct line to God. Everything is so clear cut as though God is speaking audibly to them. Yet, even the most spiritual of them seem to be hearing different messages from God.
There have been times in my life when people have literally said to me "God has said to me...." Yet what they have told me just doesn't sound right. I have questioned whether I am so out of touch with God that I'm just not hearing what they are telling me I should be hearing.
There will be occasions when the word from God is so loud and clear that there is no doubt. But more often than not the message from God isn't quite as clear as some people would like to make out. It's probably just as well as it encourages me to keep listening and not be so arrogant as to think that hearing from God is as simple as turning on the radio and hearing the word of God for my life at that time.
The local disciple's message to Paul was "Don't go to Jerusalem". Agabus the prophet's message was "This is what the Holy Spirit says: The Jews in Jerusalem are going to tie up the man who owns this belt just like this and hand him over to godless unbelievers." Paul's response was "The issue in Jerusalem is not what they do to me, whether arrest or murder, but what the Master Jesus does through my obedience. Can't you see that?"
Who was right? The local disciples and Agabus both warned Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Both claimed it to be a word from the Holy Spirit. Paul claimed to be being obedient to Jesus. So, did God want Paul in Jerusalem or not? Someone wasn't hearing the word of God correctly.
I can actually take some encouragement from this. Sometimes when I read about the early church they seem to have a direct line to God. Everything is so clear cut as though God is speaking audibly to them. Yet, even the most spiritual of them seem to be hearing different messages from God.
There have been times in my life when people have literally said to me "God has said to me...." Yet what they have told me just doesn't sound right. I have questioned whether I am so out of touch with God that I'm just not hearing what they are telling me I should be hearing.
There will be occasions when the word from God is so loud and clear that there is no doubt. But more often than not the message from God isn't quite as clear as some people would like to make out. It's probably just as well as it encourages me to keep listening and not be so arrogant as to think that hearing from God is as simple as turning on the radio and hearing the word of God for my life at that time.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Moral bludgeoning
I read the following comment today in a financial newsletter that I receive: "The Future Fund, so far at least, seems to be oblivious to the notion of ethical investing with investments in weapons manufacturers and tobacco companies." It's a funny world in which we live where many in the 'chattering class'* are regularly up in arms about anyone with a conservative point of view having the temerity to voice that point of view. At the same time our enlightened chatterers are working tirelessly to get their liberal, left leaning point of view made law, often at the expense of democracy and freedom and all the while earning a generous tax payer funded salary that it my opinion would be better spent on hospital beds.
I mean, is a weapons manufacturer actually ethically worse than a wind farm company? If democratic countries such as USA, Britain & Australia left the development work on weapons to such bastions of humans rights as Iran, North Korea, China and so on, then it wouldn't be long until the meaning of justice was a distant memory to those of us in the West, just as it would have been had Britain rolled over and allowed Hitler to rule Europe. On the other hand, wind farms are a blight on our landscape, kill native birds, cost millions of tax payer's dollars and are an unreliable source of power generation at best. Which is the ethical investment? Gosh, I can hear them making a path to my door now to take me away for re-education at Senator Brown's gulag.
And what of our great minds frothing at the mouth over Gina Rinehart's purchase of shares in Fairfax. What will happen to the climate change reporting they ask? Well, maybe both sides of the story might make it into the paper for a change.
OK, this is a strange way for me to commence my first blog in I don't know how many months. I am not actually quite as far right leaning as it may seem from my comments above. I am conservative leaning but quite liberal in other ways. But if people want to enlighten me about issues such as ethical investing, climate change, aboriginal affairs or same sex relationships they are going about it the wrong way. By trying to ram their moral statements down my throat they are turning me off. If I could read both sides of the climate change debate in The Age rather than have a bunch of academics beating their chest about their moral superiority and the evilness of those who don't accept their faith, then I might actually be on their side.
This isn't just a rant. The point of my ramblings is because what I am seeing and hearing reminds me of the way we Christians have tried, and often still do try, to force our views on the population. Sometimes we could question how many of those views God would actually agree with. Surely quite a bit of what we 'believe' has been drummed into us from a young age but the chances are we wouldn't be able to mount a strong Biblical argument as to why we believe it. To a degree, the church is now paying the price for its moralising and lack of compassion when dealing with sensitive issues. It's something that the Greens and other activist groups would do well to learn from (hello to everyone at Crikey!). But, as for me, how have I learned from the mistakes of the past? Of the things I believe in, how many can I honestly defend and how many are just cultural things that have been passed down and are not Biblically sound? And, most importantly, are my actions more likely to bring people closer to God or drive them away?
*Wikipedia/s definition. "The chattering classes is a generally derogatory[1] term first coined by Auberon Waugh[2] often used by pundits and political commentators to refer to a politically active, socially concerned and highly educated section of the "metropolitan middle class,"[1] especially those with political, media, and academic connections."
I mean, is a weapons manufacturer actually ethically worse than a wind farm company? If democratic countries such as USA, Britain & Australia left the development work on weapons to such bastions of humans rights as Iran, North Korea, China and so on, then it wouldn't be long until the meaning of justice was a distant memory to those of us in the West, just as it would have been had Britain rolled over and allowed Hitler to rule Europe. On the other hand, wind farms are a blight on our landscape, kill native birds, cost millions of tax payer's dollars and are an unreliable source of power generation at best. Which is the ethical investment? Gosh, I can hear them making a path to my door now to take me away for re-education at Senator Brown's gulag.
And what of our great minds frothing at the mouth over Gina Rinehart's purchase of shares in Fairfax. What will happen to the climate change reporting they ask? Well, maybe both sides of the story might make it into the paper for a change.
OK, this is a strange way for me to commence my first blog in I don't know how many months. I am not actually quite as far right leaning as it may seem from my comments above. I am conservative leaning but quite liberal in other ways. But if people want to enlighten me about issues such as ethical investing, climate change, aboriginal affairs or same sex relationships they are going about it the wrong way. By trying to ram their moral statements down my throat they are turning me off. If I could read both sides of the climate change debate in The Age rather than have a bunch of academics beating their chest about their moral superiority and the evilness of those who don't accept their faith, then I might actually be on their side.
This isn't just a rant. The point of my ramblings is because what I am seeing and hearing reminds me of the way we Christians have tried, and often still do try, to force our views on the population. Sometimes we could question how many of those views God would actually agree with. Surely quite a bit of what we 'believe' has been drummed into us from a young age but the chances are we wouldn't be able to mount a strong Biblical argument as to why we believe it. To a degree, the church is now paying the price for its moralising and lack of compassion when dealing with sensitive issues. It's something that the Greens and other activist groups would do well to learn from (hello to everyone at Crikey!). But, as for me, how have I learned from the mistakes of the past? Of the things I believe in, how many can I honestly defend and how many are just cultural things that have been passed down and are not Biblically sound? And, most importantly, are my actions more likely to bring people closer to God or drive them away?
*Wikipedia/s definition. "The chattering classes is a generally derogatory[1] term first coined by Auberon Waugh[2] often used by pundits and political commentators to refer to a politically active, socially concerned and highly educated section of the "metropolitan middle class,"[1] especially those with political, media, and academic connections."
Thursday, September 15, 2011
R.I.P. Andrew Jackson
Every now and then you meet someone who leaves quite an impression on you. Padre Andy was one of those guys. Andy was here for treatment on a brain tumour and, being the cousin of my friend Cathy, spent a fair bit of time at the Christelow household. So, Andy became 'one of us' in our Bible study group.
It's very easy to become insular in a church setting. Churches have that horrible ability to develop a culture which ends up being about ways to behave, dress, speak and reverence for traditions. And so it morphs into some sort of correct Christian behaviour model that ends up being totally irrelevant to world in which we live and, as a result, makes God look weird and irrelevant to those who don't yet know him.
One of Andy's endearing qualities was that he a follower of Christ who connected easily with people who weren't church goers. He was politically incorrect from a Christian perspective yet, what is our role? Is it help people connect with our God who wanted reconciliation so badly that he chose to sacrifice his own son on a cross? Is it to help those in need and be there for them? If the answer to those questions is yes, then Andy was a great example of how to do that and not care what other more 'holy' people thought about him.
I didn't know Andy for all that long but I valued him as a friend. And he challenged me about how I carry out my role in life as a disciple of Jesus.
Enjoy your reward Padre!
It's very easy to become insular in a church setting. Churches have that horrible ability to develop a culture which ends up being about ways to behave, dress, speak and reverence for traditions. And so it morphs into some sort of correct Christian behaviour model that ends up being totally irrelevant to world in which we live and, as a result, makes God look weird and irrelevant to those who don't yet know him.
One of Andy's endearing qualities was that he a follower of Christ who connected easily with people who weren't church goers. He was politically incorrect from a Christian perspective yet, what is our role? Is it help people connect with our God who wanted reconciliation so badly that he chose to sacrifice his own son on a cross? Is it to help those in need and be there for them? If the answer to those questions is yes, then Andy was a great example of how to do that and not care what other more 'holy' people thought about him.
I didn't know Andy for all that long but I valued him as a friend. And he challenged me about how I carry out my role in life as a disciple of Jesus.
Enjoy your reward Padre!
Friday, September 9, 2011
Does God still have power?
I managed to get a doughnut for August - no blog postings at all. Almost 2 months between posts. Bit slack...
I'm not sure what day I'm supposed to be up to in the devotional booklet we were all given at church for our planned giving programme, but I was reading day 13 today. One part of scripture quoted was 2 Timothy 3: 1-5 and this bit particularly caught my eye "...having a form of godliness but denying its power."
I mentioned briefly when doing devotions at songster practice that my theology over time has become much more liberal in some areas but one of the downsides of that was that I somehow also lost a bit of belief in God to work miracles.
Some areas where I am a bit more liberal these days are regarding a 7 day creation and some of the Old Testament miracles. I very much believe in intelligent design but, whilst I think that God could easily have created the word in 7 literal days, and make it look millions of years old, I don't think he did.
Similarly, was Jonah swallowed by a big fish? Did some of those things that we read about Elijah and Elisha happen exactly as explained in the Bible?
These days I am comfortable that those questions don't threaten my faith. But reading "having a form of godliness but denying its power" challenges whether I am somehow making God smaller. The God who created life is no less powerful if he then let it evolve rather than create everything over a 7 day period.
The challenge in moving in a more liberal direction when it comes to theology is to not throw the baby out with the bath water - not to have a form of godliness but deny its power. God is still able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to do it. I need to remember that God is still the God of miracles and make sure that I don't make him small enough to fit into my very limited intellectual capacity.
I'm not sure what day I'm supposed to be up to in the devotional booklet we were all given at church for our planned giving programme, but I was reading day 13 today. One part of scripture quoted was 2 Timothy 3: 1-5 and this bit particularly caught my eye "...having a form of godliness but denying its power."
I mentioned briefly when doing devotions at songster practice that my theology over time has become much more liberal in some areas but one of the downsides of that was that I somehow also lost a bit of belief in God to work miracles.
Some areas where I am a bit more liberal these days are regarding a 7 day creation and some of the Old Testament miracles. I very much believe in intelligent design but, whilst I think that God could easily have created the word in 7 literal days, and make it look millions of years old, I don't think he did.
Similarly, was Jonah swallowed by a big fish? Did some of those things that we read about Elijah and Elisha happen exactly as explained in the Bible?
These days I am comfortable that those questions don't threaten my faith. But reading "having a form of godliness but denying its power" challenges whether I am somehow making God smaller. The God who created life is no less powerful if he then let it evolve rather than create everything over a 7 day period.
The challenge in moving in a more liberal direction when it comes to theology is to not throw the baby out with the bath water - not to have a form of godliness but deny its power. God is still able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to do it. I need to remember that God is still the God of miracles and make sure that I don't make him small enough to fit into my very limited intellectual capacity.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Engraved on my heart
" This new plan I'm making with Israel
isn't going to be written on paper,
isn't going to be chiseled in stone;
This time I'm writing out the plan in them,
carving it on the lining of their hearts.
I'll be their God,
they'll be my people.
They won't go to school to learn about me,
or buy a book called God in Five Easy Lessons.
They'll all get to know me firsthand,
the little and the big, the small and the great.
They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven,
with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean.
By coming up with a new plan, a new covenant between God and his people, God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust." Heb 8
The heart is the centre of our being, the thing that keeps us alive. And God has carved his new plan on the very thing central to keeping us alive.
When you carve something it stays carved. It isn't something temporary. God's salvation is not temporary. It isn't God's intention that this salvation is some sort of passing fad. It is God's permanent gift of eternal life.
God didn't sacrifice his son for some temporary quick fix. He meant it to be eternal and intensely personal.
As it says in verse 13 - "God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust." It's never to be used again.
And we don't have to have a privileged upbringing attending Scotch College or Geelong Grammar to get to know God personally. Little, big, small or great, we are all the object of his love.
Thank you God for making a permanent way for me to spend time with you. And thank you for engraving your plan on my heart, never to be removed again.
isn't going to be written on paper,
isn't going to be chiseled in stone;
This time I'm writing out the plan in them,
carving it on the lining of their hearts.
I'll be their God,
they'll be my people.
They won't go to school to learn about me,
or buy a book called God in Five Easy Lessons.
They'll all get to know me firsthand,
the little and the big, the small and the great.
They'll get to know me by being kindly forgiven,
with the slate of their sins forever wiped clean.
By coming up with a new plan, a new covenant between God and his people, God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust." Heb 8
The heart is the centre of our being, the thing that keeps us alive. And God has carved his new plan on the very thing central to keeping us alive.
When you carve something it stays carved. It isn't something temporary. God's salvation is not temporary. It isn't God's intention that this salvation is some sort of passing fad. It is God's permanent gift of eternal life.
God didn't sacrifice his son for some temporary quick fix. He meant it to be eternal and intensely personal.
As it says in verse 13 - "God put the old plan on the shelf. And there it stays, gathering dust." It's never to be used again.
And we don't have to have a privileged upbringing attending Scotch College or Geelong Grammar to get to know God personally. Little, big, small or great, we are all the object of his love.
Thank you God for making a permanent way for me to spend time with you. And thank you for engraving your plan on my heart, never to be removed again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)