There's a good article in the Online Opinion journal comparing the charitable and transforming impulse of Christianity with the lack of anything similar for atheism. I understand this is not a complete argument for God, and I also want to acknowledge that the history of Christianity is not all rosy. But I think in the gave of the "Christianity poisons everything" line of attack, it's important to give some balance.
Predictably there were immediately a million angry coments on the article which all seem to assume that simply by using the ,word "nonsense" and the phrase "spaghetti monster", you have conclusively dismissed the idea of God.
The greatest irony though, was the howls ,of protest about the idea that atheism was in any way an organized, identifiable group like a religion. I was wondering of any of these comments were posted from the atheist convention in Melbourne where 2500 atheist have gathered to encourage one another i n their faith and congratulate themselves on their superior intelligence. According to the Smh, it sounds like the atmosphere has rivaled anything Hillsong puts together.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Why does Paul go to Jerusalem?
One possible answer is that he wants to deliver the gift that he has been collecting among the gentile churches. This makes sense historically, and I suspect is part of the reason. The problem though, in the context of Acts, is that Luke never mentions the gift. I assume therefore that there is something else significant in his mind about the trip to Jerusalem.
The second answer for the Jerusalem trip is that Paul wants to immitate Jesus (and perhaps other prophets) who went to Jerusalem to die. Luke certainly seems to highlight some similarities between Jesus and Paul in this section of Acts - The prophecies of trouble in Jerusalem, the crowd calling for his execution and the trial before the Sanhedrin all echo Jesus' experience. However these similarities seem to flow FROM Paul's trip to Jerusalem rather than be motivation for his trip.
I wonder if Paul went to Jerusalem for one last desperate attempt to win the Jews for the Gospel. This would explain his willingness to go along with the cleansing ritual, and also the detailed testimony he gave to the crowd where he tried to explain why he became a follower of Jesus. Sadly of course he is emphatically rejected by the Jews in Jerusalem, and the visit to Jerusalem becomes the Launchpad for him into the heart of Rome itself.
Anyone else got any thoughts on this part of Acts?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Have a little Faith
I read the book have a little faith by Mitch Albom recently. I think it's pretty popular out there in the community, and I suspect it's a good barometer for how many non hardline-atheist westerners think about faith in general, and especially about the relationships between different faiths.
The setting of the book is Mitch's journey getting too know the rabbi from his childhood synagogue so he can write the old man's eulogy. What was originally going to be a few short interviews turns into an 8 year relationship, as Mitch finds there is much to love about and learn from the old man.
Interspersed with Mitch's account of his growing relationship with the rabbi, there is the account of a boy growing up in a very disadvantaged home, who has an interest in God, but ends up in jail and doing drugs. As the story progresses, we find out that this second man has been converted and runs a church in a depressed part of Detroit.
Mitch Albom has a clear respect for both these men, and in the end I think he tells their stories the way he does to make a classic pluralist argument. Surely these two men who are both do wise and good are both serving Good on their own way, and took try and judge between them on the basis of doctrine is narrow and fundamentalist.
If can be difficult too respond to this kind of outlook because it involves condemning either a wise old rabbi or a reformed drug addict who is giving his life to serve peopled in the situation her has come out of himself, but I think two points can be made.
Firstly, I suspect both the rabbi and the pastor are a lot less pluralistic than Mitch Albom. Although they both try and be tolerant, the pastor believes people need to come to Jesus to be saved. And you suspect the rabbi wouldn't be keen on the idea that Jesus is God, even though he wants to be in good relationships with his catholic neighbours. It is only Mitch himself, who is essentially a non-practicing Jew, who really doesn't think these things matter.
The second point that strikes me is that the pastors story is so essentially Christian. To be converted from a background of drug addiction and disadvantage is such a testimony of grace and forgiveness and the power of the Spirit.It actually highlights the uniqueness of the gospel message. How many rabbi's are there with a story like that?
So all in all, 'Have a little Faith' is a warm and easy read, but it does have definite pluralist overtones. It could be useful as a conversation starter on these issues, or as a way to get your mind around the way our culture its thinking about these issues, or of course as sermon illustration material.
The setting of the book is Mitch's journey getting too know the rabbi from his childhood synagogue so he can write the old man's eulogy. What was originally going to be a few short interviews turns into an 8 year relationship, as Mitch finds there is much to love about and learn from the old man.
Interspersed with Mitch's account of his growing relationship with the rabbi, there is the account of a boy growing up in a very disadvantaged home, who has an interest in God, but ends up in jail and doing drugs. As the story progresses, we find out that this second man has been converted and runs a church in a depressed part of Detroit.
Mitch Albom has a clear respect for both these men, and in the end I think he tells their stories the way he does to make a classic pluralist argument. Surely these two men who are both do wise and good are both serving Good on their own way, and took try and judge between them on the basis of doctrine is narrow and fundamentalist.
If can be difficult too respond to this kind of outlook because it involves condemning either a wise old rabbi or a reformed drug addict who is giving his life to serve peopled in the situation her has come out of himself, but I think two points can be made.
Firstly, I suspect both the rabbi and the pastor are a lot less pluralistic than Mitch Albom. Although they both try and be tolerant, the pastor believes people need to come to Jesus to be saved. And you suspect the rabbi wouldn't be keen on the idea that Jesus is God, even though he wants to be in good relationships with his catholic neighbours. It is only Mitch himself, who is essentially a non-practicing Jew, who really doesn't think these things matter.
The second point that strikes me is that the pastors story is so essentially Christian. To be converted from a background of drug addiction and disadvantage is such a testimony of grace and forgiveness and the power of the Spirit.It actually highlights the uniqueness of the gospel message. How many rabbi's are there with a story like that?
So all in all, 'Have a little Faith' is a warm and easy read, but it does have definite pluralist overtones. It could be useful as a conversation starter on these issues, or as a way to get your mind around the way our culture its thinking about these issues, or of course as sermon illustration material.
Monday, February 22, 2010
New Acts Commentary
The only disappointment so far is that it doesn't deal with the theory that Luke-Acts is a legal brief for Paul's defense before Ceasar. Not sure I agree with this theory, but I would have liked Peterson to interact with it. If you are going to preach Acts, this would be one of the first commentaries I would buy.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Swype touchscreen keyboard
I have to mention this amazing new keyboard I have on my phone. It's called swype, and it makes typing stuff on a touchscreen phone so much faster.
Unlike a normal keyboard where you have to touch the keys one by one, with swype you slide your finger from letter to letter to make each word. It does take a little while to get used to, but once you've got the idea it is much less sensitive to slight miss-hits on the keys, and much better at predicting what you really want to write.
As an example, I found this post quite comfortable to type using swype, but I would really have struggled to do something this long with a normal touchscreen keyboard.
It will be interesting to see if phone manufacturers start including a swype keyboard as a standard feature.
Unlike a normal keyboard where you have to touch the keys one by one, with swype you slide your finger from letter to letter to make each word. It does take a little while to get used to, but once you've got the idea it is much less sensitive to slight miss-hits on the keys, and much better at predicting what you really want to write.
As an example, I found this post quite comfortable to type using swype, but I would really have struggled to do something this long with a normal touchscreen keyboard.
It will be interesting to see if phone manufacturers start including a swype keyboard as a standard feature.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Acts 15
I'm preaching on Acts 15 this week, which is the big discussion the early church had about wether Gentile christians were required too follow the law of Moses in order to be saved.
The tricky part of the passage is that although the apostles and elders say no, the gentiles don't have to follow the law of Moses, they do ask the gentiles to do four things - don't eat meat offered to idols, don't eat strangled meat, don't eat blood, and don't engage in sexual immorality.
The big question is, why are these four commands given? I had always thought that this was a matter of not offending the Jewish Christians, and that's why we no longer have to keep these commands today - most Christians just aren't in contact with any Jews. The problem with this reading is sexual immorality. It isn't just a ceremonial concession to maintain fellowship with Jewish brothers and sisters, it is wrong under any circumstances.
Fortunately, Kutz our student did assignment on this recently. His suggestion (which follows Ben Witherington), is that the four issues addressed are a kind of shorthand for worship at idol temples, and what the apostles are saying is "you don't have to follow the law of Moses, but don't go back to living the life of an idol worshipper.
I think I'm convinced - so Kutz has more than earned his pay this week (not that you have to do much to earn a student minister pay!!).
The tricky part of the passage is that although the apostles and elders say no, the gentiles don't have to follow the law of Moses, they do ask the gentiles to do four things - don't eat meat offered to idols, don't eat strangled meat, don't eat blood, and don't engage in sexual immorality.
The big question is, why are these four commands given? I had always thought that this was a matter of not offending the Jewish Christians, and that's why we no longer have to keep these commands today - most Christians just aren't in contact with any Jews. The problem with this reading is sexual immorality. It isn't just a ceremonial concession to maintain fellowship with Jewish brothers and sisters, it is wrong under any circumstances.
Fortunately, Kutz our student did assignment on this recently. His suggestion (which follows Ben Witherington), is that the four issues addressed are a kind of shorthand for worship at idol temples, and what the apostles are saying is "you don't have to follow the law of Moses, but don't go back to living the life of an idol worshipper.
I think I'm convinced - so Kutz has more than earned his pay this week (not that you have to do much to earn a student minister pay!!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
