Thursday, May 28, 2009
Marathon in six weeks and I've hit the injury wall
You may have noticed a distinct lack of training posts lately. That's because the news is all bad. A hip injury combined with a very stressful, wet week last week means I've hardly been running at all in the last two and a half weeks. The new shoes have hardly had a workout at all!
Would your ethics be different if you weren't a Christian?
This is a question raised by Richard Dawkins and others in arguments about whether athiests have any good foundation for their ethics. The argument goes that Christian (or other religious people) say they wouldn't rape or murder even if they weren't Chrstians, and therefore their faith has no impact on their ethics. In reality, Christians simply do what everyone does - follow the moral zeitgeist.
The thing about this argument is that in part it relies on an element of surprised shame. If you're suddenly confronted with the question of 'Would you rape and murder if you weren't a Christian?' Of course your immediate response is 'No I wouldn't.' If you're not murderous now, it's hard to imagine becoming so. And no one wants to be thought of as a murderer being held back by a thin veneer of religion.
But as I've thought about this a bit, I'm convinced that my ethics would be different if I wasn't a Christian. It's hard to say exactly how. But knowing myself and also looking at our society, I think I would be more judgmental, less generous and I'm pretty sure I'd have the 'do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone' attitude to sex.
I perhaps wouldn't immediately be rushing out to murder, rape or rob a bank. There are some very strong external motivations against those things. But I think I would lose my key motivation for resisting the root causes of murder, rape and robbery - hatred, lust and greed, and I'm sure they would begin to flourish in my life. And you never know where it would end up.
What do you think? Does faith make a difference to your ethics?
The thing about this argument is that in part it relies on an element of surprised shame. If you're suddenly confronted with the question of 'Would you rape and murder if you weren't a Christian?' Of course your immediate response is 'No I wouldn't.' If you're not murderous now, it's hard to imagine becoming so. And no one wants to be thought of as a murderer being held back by a thin veneer of religion.
But as I've thought about this a bit, I'm convinced that my ethics would be different if I wasn't a Christian. It's hard to say exactly how. But knowing myself and also looking at our society, I think I would be more judgmental, less generous and I'm pretty sure I'd have the 'do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone' attitude to sex.
I perhaps wouldn't immediately be rushing out to murder, rape or rob a bank. There are some very strong external motivations against those things. But I think I would lose my key motivation for resisting the root causes of murder, rape and robbery - hatred, lust and greed, and I'm sure they would begin to flourish in my life. And you never know where it would end up.
What do you think? Does faith make a difference to your ethics?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Just like an Iphone
I've previously blogged on some of the programs I like to mess about with on my phone. My latest favourite is Ifonz, a program which changes the boring old fashioned Windows Mobile interface (left screenshot) into a trendy, finger friendly, iphone-like interface.
The front screen (middle screen shot) has the clock and icons for eight key functions which include phone, sms, calender, Bible, internet and music player.You can then use horizontal finger swipes to scroll through to other pages of programs that you use.
You can choose whatever programs you want the buttons to link to, and there are lots of cool sets of button graphics you can download from the web as well. You can also change the backgound picture/colour of the screen and all that kind of thing.
The program is still under development, but I've found the latest version runs really well on my phone, and it is definitely the most useful peice of software I have at the moment. And the great thing is you can get it for free here
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Rugby League Sex Scandal and the Moral Zeitgeist
Philip Jensen has written a helpful article highlighting the hypocrisy in the way many people have reacted to the NRL sex scandal - not that the players weren't wrong in the way they treated the poor woman - but the condemnation hasn't recognised the wider problem in our society.
I think this incident also highlights a real flaw in the approach to morals suggested by Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion. I was working on this for an evangelistic sermon last week, and Dawkins suggests that there is no need for God in morals because we can simply follow the Moral Zeitgeist - the moral consensus of our age.
The problem with the moral zeitgeist is that it struggles to offer any critique of the actions of the footballers. The moral zeitgeist when it comes to sex is that what is done by consenting adults in their own bedrooms is a private matter, not to be judged by others. And yet here is an event which meets those criteria and yet which has left many people feeling very uncomfortable.
Dawkins would probably argue that the moral zeitgeist is determined by 'civilized', 'enlightened', 'progressive' society (and rugby league players would probably be excluded from this group.....). He frequently appeals to civilized people and progressive societies without definition, in a most un-postmodern way. He seems oblivious to the critique that because he defines what is enlightened and progressive, he is actually setting himself up as the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.
Dawkins also claims that the Bible simply dishes out commands in a deontological way, with no principles to help people work out right and wrong for themselves in new situations. This, like many of Dawkins claims about the Bible is simply wrong. Love, the nature and purpose of creation, and the example of Jesus are examples of the key guiding principles in Biblical ethics.
The Bible's insistence that sex is for a man and a woman in the context of marriage is a refreshingly clear ethic in the face of the confused attempts to sort out what was wrong with the Rugby League Players' actions and attitudes, and is certainly much firmer ground than the moral zeitgeist which is the cause of the problem not the solution.
I think this incident also highlights a real flaw in the approach to morals suggested by Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion. I was working on this for an evangelistic sermon last week, and Dawkins suggests that there is no need for God in morals because we can simply follow the Moral Zeitgeist - the moral consensus of our age.
The problem with the moral zeitgeist is that it struggles to offer any critique of the actions of the footballers. The moral zeitgeist when it comes to sex is that what is done by consenting adults in their own bedrooms is a private matter, not to be judged by others. And yet here is an event which meets those criteria and yet which has left many people feeling very uncomfortable.
Dawkins would probably argue that the moral zeitgeist is determined by 'civilized', 'enlightened', 'progressive' society (and rugby league players would probably be excluded from this group.....). He frequently appeals to civilized people and progressive societies without definition, in a most un-postmodern way. He seems oblivious to the critique that because he defines what is enlightened and progressive, he is actually setting himself up as the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.
Dawkins also claims that the Bible simply dishes out commands in a deontological way, with no principles to help people work out right and wrong for themselves in new situations. This, like many of Dawkins claims about the Bible is simply wrong. Love, the nature and purpose of creation, and the example of Jesus are examples of the key guiding principles in Biblical ethics.
The Bible's insistence that sex is for a man and a woman in the context of marriage is a refreshingly clear ethic in the face of the confused attempts to sort out what was wrong with the Rugby League Players' actions and attitudes, and is certainly much firmer ground than the moral zeitgeist which is the cause of the problem not the solution.
The Holy Spirit and...
Some final thoughts on the role of the Holy Spirit in Acts. I found a helpful observation in the little book 'Engaging with the Holy Spirit' by Graham Cole, which originally comes from Broughton Knox. In Luke-Acts, the expression filled with the Holy Spirit is almost always followed by or follows the conjunction 'and'. For example In Acts 4:32 the believers are filled with the Holy Spirit AND continue to speak the word of God with boldness. Similarly the 7 men chosen to help the apostles in Acts 6 are to be full of the Holy Spirit AND wisdom, and one of these men, Stephen, is full of faith AND the Holy Spirit.
The 'Holy Spirit and' filling in Luke-Acts is not something we influence. As Graham Cole puts it "...there is no hint that to be so filled was an intentionally co-operative activity involving the persons concerned and the Spirit of God. Instead these intances of fullness - both Old Testament and New - appear to have been the sovereign work of the Spirit"
I also think the fact that the Holy Spirit is often linked with some other quality also points to the reality that you don't see the Spirit himself as much as the effects of his work. So to be filled with the 'Holy Spirit and wisdom' is to be full of Holy Spirit inspired wisdom, and to be filled with the 'Holy Spirit and speak the word of God Boldly' is to speak the word of God with Holy Spirit inspired boldness. This fits with the prayers that the believers pray in Acts which are not for the Spirit explicitly but for boldness and perseverance.
Filled with the Spirit Language is only found in Luke-Acts in the New Testament with the exception of the command to be filled with the Spirit in Ephesians which seems to be a more congregational experience than in Acts.
In practice then, I think we shouldn't just be searching and praying for the Spirit. We should be praying for and working towards the qualities that will help us serve Jesus and his mission, and as we do that God may graciously fill us with the Spirit and the ability to serve him.
The 'Holy Spirit and' filling in Luke-Acts is not something we influence. As Graham Cole puts it "...there is no hint that to be so filled was an intentionally co-operative activity involving the persons concerned and the Spirit of God. Instead these intances of fullness - both Old Testament and New - appear to have been the sovereign work of the Spirit"
I also think the fact that the Holy Spirit is often linked with some other quality also points to the reality that you don't see the Spirit himself as much as the effects of his work. So to be filled with the 'Holy Spirit and wisdom' is to be full of Holy Spirit inspired wisdom, and to be filled with the 'Holy Spirit and speak the word of God Boldly' is to speak the word of God with Holy Spirit inspired boldness. This fits with the prayers that the believers pray in Acts which are not for the Spirit explicitly but for boldness and perseverance.
Filled with the Spirit Language is only found in Luke-Acts in the New Testament with the exception of the command to be filled with the Spirit in Ephesians which seems to be a more congregational experience than in Acts.
In practice then, I think we shouldn't just be searching and praying for the Spirit. We should be praying for and working towards the qualities that will help us serve Jesus and his mission, and as we do that God may graciously fill us with the Spirit and the ability to serve him.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Door Knocking
On Saturday we did some door-knocking for the first time since I've been at Clayfield. Our aim was to invite people to 'Open Church' services which we are holding next Sunday, and the three pairs who participated received a very good response.
Everyone knew of the church (we did two streets right next to the church building), with some having visited or attended in the past. Some people of course were not at all interested - although no one was rude. Most people were happy to be invited, although not indicating they would attend. And 4 or 5 people were very interested and indicated that they might well come along.
It remains to be seen whether anyone actually turns up on Sunday. But it certainly gives us something to thank God for and pray for. It has also convinced me that doorknocking has an ongoing place in our churches mission efforts.
I should mention the helpful advice I found in some old posts at Craig's blog and at Sydney Anglicans Website.
Everyone knew of the church (we did two streets right next to the church building), with some having visited or attended in the past. Some people of course were not at all interested - although no one was rude. Most people were happy to be invited, although not indicating they would attend. And 4 or 5 people were very interested and indicated that they might well come along.
It remains to be seen whether anyone actually turns up on Sunday. But it certainly gives us something to thank God for and pray for. It has also convinced me that doorknocking has an ongoing place in our churches mission efforts.
I should mention the helpful advice I found in some old posts at Craig's blog and at Sydney Anglicans Website.
Monday, May 11, 2009
New Shoes
Simone and I enjoyed spending some time together today. Among other things we went shoe shopping. It's only six months since I got my last pair, but when you are training for a marathon you wear down shoes remarkably fast. You can see the difference between my new shoe on the left and my old one on the right.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Training update
My marathon training has been a bit like my blogposting recently - not very regular. I have continued to struggle with some soreness in my right hamstring as well as with a very busy couple of weeks. This week however has been better and I've got through some solid runs without any soreness.
I've also discovered that you're supposed to replace your running shoes every 500-800km. Problem is, training for a marathon it's only taken me about 6 months to do 1000km. So looks like I'm going to have to shell out for a new pair. And I thought running was going to be cheap!!!
I've also discovered that you're supposed to replace your running shoes every 500-800km. Problem is, training for a marathon it's only taken me about 6 months to do 1000km. So looks like I'm going to have to shell out for a new pair. And I thought running was going to be cheap!!!
More on Filled with the Spirit
Continuing to follow the 'full of the Spirit' language as I'm working through Acts in our current sermon series. In Acts 6, the apostles make 'being full of the Spirit and wisdom' a requirement for the 7 men who are to sort out the problems with the feeding of the Hebraic widows and Greek widows. Then Stephen, one of the 7, is specifically mentioned as being 'full of the Holy Spirit and faith.'
Given that the Spirit has already been so closely associated with the bold proclamation of Jesus in Acts (Acts 1:8, 2:1ff, 4:8,31) it's no surprise that Stephen goes on to give a huge sermon to the Sanhedrin before being martyred, and Philip (another one of the 7) also has a significant evangelistic ministry.
I am wondering however, given that the 7 men were chosen to free up the apostles for their own ministry of word and prayer, if the apostles were anticipating this kind of proclamation ministry from them, or if it was just a bye-product of the Spirit's focus on mission in these early days - to be full of the Spirit inevitably meant to boldly proclaim the Gospel.
Either way, it raises the question of how to use the 'full of the Spirit' language today. We are just looking to elect new elders in our church, and I have to admit I haven't used full of the Spirit language to describe the kind of men we are looking for. This is ok in one sense, because Paul doesn't use this language in 1Timothy or Titus either. But to speak of being 'full of the Spirit' is a helpful way of highlighting that we are not just looking for human qualities in church leaders. We are looking for evidence of God being at work.
Time to see how this is going to play out in my talk for Sunday....
Given that the Spirit has already been so closely associated with the bold proclamation of Jesus in Acts (Acts 1:8, 2:1ff, 4:8,31) it's no surprise that Stephen goes on to give a huge sermon to the Sanhedrin before being martyred, and Philip (another one of the 7) also has a significant evangelistic ministry.
I am wondering however, given that the 7 men were chosen to free up the apostles for their own ministry of word and prayer, if the apostles were anticipating this kind of proclamation ministry from them, or if it was just a bye-product of the Spirit's focus on mission in these early days - to be full of the Spirit inevitably meant to boldly proclaim the Gospel.
Either way, it raises the question of how to use the 'full of the Spirit' language today. We are just looking to elect new elders in our church, and I have to admit I haven't used full of the Spirit language to describe the kind of men we are looking for. This is ok in one sense, because Paul doesn't use this language in 1Timothy or Titus either. But to speak of being 'full of the Spirit' is a helpful way of highlighting that we are not just looking for human qualities in church leaders. We are looking for evidence of God being at work.
Time to see how this is going to play out in my talk for Sunday....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
