We didn't end up going to bible study last night.
Instead, when I got home and found Sam shivering on the couch and wearing a beanie (it was 23 degrees outside), I decided to take him to Leichhardt medical centre. the doctor wasn't very specific. The options he presented included whooping cough/pneumonia/a virus/something starting with a c. The remedy: lots of drugs, water and rest.
Sydney Anglicans have a great page with sermon downloads from a few different churches. Click here. We should keep encouraging this kind of thing.
Spent this morning hanging out at Pablo and Rusty's Gordon - it was sensational. I met up with a guy to read the bible at 7:30 and then stayed on to prepare tonight's bible study, while waiting for peak hour to die off before coming home.
Had two delicious flat whites, and got to briefly catch up with two good mates who work there.
Much better to be on the customer side of the bench during the morning rush!
Still haven't grasped all the details of 1 Thessalonians 5, but the big idea for tonight is to encourage each other with the soon coming return of Christ. Pray that our group would learn to do this!
This guy seems to have found it pretty tough - I'm not sure it's all that hard... I think he's just dramatic for the sake of the article! Was thinking today how much I'd love a Barista job again - it's heaps of fun, but I don't think I'll ever go back!
I made this coffee a few months ago after seeing a guy at Mecca make a leaf and heart at the same time. I'm working on it - will put up a photo of my progress soon. Am starting to get the hang of the double rosetta...
After talking to my friend Liz about this topic last week (except we didn’t call it that), I’ve been thinking a lot about different paradigms we uphold as Christians, and whether or not they are helpful or true.
For example, sometimes I unconsciously view my walk with God as a combination of theory and practicals. Spiritual growth comes from two separate areas – gaining knowledge from the Word of God, and the Spirit’s practical influence in my life. The key is to get the right balance between both. Yes, I want to be rooted in the Bible and learning all I can about the truths of God, but this is incomplete if I don’t supplement the Word with “practical lessons”, i.e. allowing the Spirit to teach me to be more loving through day-to-day encounters, revelations through prayer and other experiences.
There are many ways I subscribe to this uni-degree type model. Often, I’ve plugged in the formula ‘bible-reading plus experiencing God equals a healthy, balanced Christian life’. Or when I was younger, thinking, “church A is where I go for the solid teaching, whereas church B is where I feel spiritually connected to God”.
But is this a false dichotomy? Can you separate the head from the heart? The Bible is not an academic textbook, but the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit, living and active in our lives. It can’t be separated from day to day living, nor can it be divorced from the active work of the Spirit in our lives.
On the other hand, we are also taught by God to test the spirits and weigh up every prophecy. When Paul instructs the Corinthians on proclaiming prophecies in the church, he commands them to do so without abandoning order, selflessness or reason. I don’t think there is a point experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit is to happen at the expense of clear, comprehensible thought.
So here we have a false dichotomy. To separate an emotional response to God from an intelligent grasp of His will – the heart from the head – is to promote a faith without reason (and downplay the impact the knowledge of God should have on our responses. As John Piper says, if we truly grasp the character and mind of God, we should be filled with the most overwhelming, wonderful joy). Likewise, to treat His Word as a mere theological exercise and view our emotional response as a trivial matter for day-to-day living is to deny its power as living and active, divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.
John Stott, who I’ve been reading today while sick from work, exposes another false dichotomy between the personal and propositional revelation of God. The personal refers to God’s individual revelation to a particular people in a certain time and space. The propositional is God’s revelation as it matters on a universal scale, i.e. the revelation as recorded by the apostles and writers of the Bible. He says:
This is a false distinction. God’s self-revelation was indeed mostly personal – through acts of salvation and judgment. But how could such events be beneficial to those not involved in them unless there were witnesses to record and interpret the events?…Thus God’s special revelation was usually a combination of deed and word, event and testimony. We should not therefore perpetuate the myth that God’s revelation could be personal without being proposition too, deeds without words. (Evangelical Truth)
Maybe the answer is not finding a balance between two dichotomies, but adopting a paradigm that allows the Christian to keep both seemingly opposing concepts as equally true - without flattening the tension between them. It sounds complicated, but we do it all the time (how can God be good and still allow evil? How can God be fully in control, yet we are still accountable for our sin?).
The only way we can do this is to fully grasp, in our hearts and minds, the glorious wisdom of God, the goodness of His grace, the wonder of His wisdom, which frustrates even the most intelligent amongst us. This isn't an abandonment of our desire to know God more, a resigned "oh well, I guess God will be God and there's nothing I can do about it". Instead, it's about having Christ dwell in your heart so you may understand this, about having what Paul prays for in Ephesians:
I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power together with the saints to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge - that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
P.S. I'm sure there are many inaccuracies in what I've written, but please try to grab the general spirit of what I'm trying to say when you correct me!
As I was preparing this parable for Scripture, I noticed something I haven't grasped before. Often when we look at this story, the 'take home' message is simply: be like the Samaritan - which is a good thing to be.
But if that is all we take away, I think we miss much of what this parable is teaching us - because Jesus' parable is perfectly crafted so that we can draw something from every person in this parable. In a nutshell it teaches us who we shouldn't be like, who we should be like, and who we are like.
1. Who we shouldn't be like - the Pharisee or the Levite. These guys are religious, but don't help their brother, in fact they pass by on the other side. If anyone should have helped this guy, it should have one of these two.
2. Who we should be like - The Samaritan. Despite being the cultural, social, theological and political enemy of the man lying on the road. He takes pity on the man, helps his immediate needs with bandages and oil, goes out of his way to make sure the man will be ok for the future, and covers the whole cost from his own pocket. No wonder that Jesus tells us to "Go and do likewise".
3. Who we are like - the beaten up man. This parable not only shows us the manner in which we are to love as followers of Jesus, it also is allegorical as it shows us how Christ loves us. We are, on our own merits before God, equivalent to a man lying dead on the side of the road - Ephesians describes us as "dead in our transgressions and sins." We are helpless, until the one we regarded as our enemy comes to save us.
Romans 5 puts it like this: "Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Jesus is like the Samaritan, he saves his enemy: and he saves his enemy at great personal cost. 2 Corinthians 8 talks of the cost: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich."
Our saviour is the ultimate good Samaritan, thus he can say to us "Go and do likewise".
This year I've been teaching year 5 Scripture at Annandale North Primary School. I love it. The kids are lovely and are so open to hearing about Jesus. Our theme for the term has been 'love', and we've spent a number of weeks learning about God's love. But this week, we are going to be looking at how we are to love.
I've decided to spend tomorrows lesson looking at the good Samaritan. Pray that these kids would 'Go and do likewise'.
Well it looks like the Labor party is in for another term in NSW. Sam and I are watching the election results and as predicted, they are winning by a landslide.
This election is the first time I've ever voted for the Liberal party. I've always given my vote to the ALP, but I don't think they deserve another term with the mess the state seems to be in at the moment. A change is better than nothing.
However, I'm voting for Kevin Rudd in the federal election.
If you haven't subscribed to 'On the Poddy' yet - do it. It's funny stuff. This week they are trying to get up to number 1 on iTunes - I'm seeing that they are currently number 16. You can help them out by clicking here.
For the record Dave - I've downloaded the podcast on both Soph and my laptops...
Oh, and happy birthday!
My sermon on Romans 14 came through on the podcast tonight, but I can't seem to see it on the website yet...
Download it through our podcast feed here.
If you have some feedback shoot me an email or leave a comment.
When we got married, Sam and I were given set of two big mugs, and when I say big, I mean that lovely round shape that’s perfect for hot chocolate or pumpkin soup; a mug with a thick handle and chunky sides that beg to be cradled on a cold Monday morning.
Just put my first entry on church's new website - it's really easy! Think I am going to use this lots more.
Sam and I had some friends over and I made, if I can say this without too much boasting, a fantastic pizza.
I invented it with a friend from work:
Pizza base
Tomato Paste
Artichokes
Boconcini cheese
Bake all of theese in an oven, then on top, add fresh:
Baby spinach leaves
Olives (I didn't add these, but in hindsight I would have)
slices of proccuitto
sliced Roma tomatoes
salt and pepper
USe a square pizza base and if you can, serve the pizza on a flat wooden board (I used my chopping board) and just dump the fresh ingredients on top. It looks great, tastes yum and is a really cheap dish!
I've just finished writing an article for our church newsletter, to be letter-box dropped around Easter. The idea is to introduce the idea of "relationships" to sow the ground for future mission. Carrie subbed it for me, so much credit goes to her.
Prizes* for anyone who can write a killer conclusion (one or two sentences only).
And apologies for talking about Gen Y. I am so over the term Gen Y - this will be the last time I write about it.
By SOPHIA RUSSELL
In the 80s, it was all about believing in The Power of Love. In the 90s, Bryan Adams crooned “I’d die for you, walk the mile for you” and Shania Twain pledged her love “From this moment on”.
Today, love songs are a lot less optimistic when it comes to commitment. From Beyonce comes, “Don’t you ever get to thinking you’re irreplaceable”. And from teen band PussyCat Dolls: “I don’t need a ring on my finger, I get off being free”. Even Justin Timberlake, who once cried a river after Britney left him, has now taken to celebrating the freedom of casual relationships in his songs rather than a lifelong commitment.
Are these just meaningless pop songs, or do they reflect a larger trend in today’s society? Social commentators have often put the spotlight on “Generation Y” and its lack of commitment to a long term plan, let alone to relationships. If we are to believe what we read in the papers and the magazines, this hip, technology-savvy generation of twenty-somethings pursue marriage less, career and travel more, and run a mile from anything that requires long-term commitment.
And it’s not just Gen Y. With divorce on the rise and the birth rate declining, it seems the concept of “relationship” and all the things that go with it – commitment and fidelity – are on the way out in the 21st century. If you add to the mix hectic schedules, job-related stress and the lack of time to spend with our children, Sydney-siders can’t be blamed for thinking that our commitment to relationships has been lost in the noise of the city.
However, it’s possible that we have made too many assumptions when it comes to statistics. While social commentators have been quick to pronounce the death of long-term relationships due to the fact marriage rates have fallen sharply over the past 10 years, this may simply mean that our desire for committed relationships is being expressed in ways outside of marriage.
Figures from the last Census in 2001 show that 72.5% of Australian households were occupied by more than one person (in Annandale, 62%), suggesting the majority are choosing to live with someone, whether it’s family members, a life partner or a share-house of friends. In the cinema, movies about people falling in love and dealing with relationships are still making money in the box office. Even the internet, once perceived as a threat to the family unit, has become a new social forum, with platforms like MySpace responsible for creating thousands of online communities and networks. At the end of the day, we still want to be committed to someone – whether for friendship, companionship, or the simple fact that kicking back on a weekend is much more enjoyable when there’s more than one.
Our need for relationships is not something new. God said it in the beginning when he finished creating the first human being: “It is not good for man to be alone”. We were designed for relationship. Perhaps that is why we instinctively crave it, whether in the form of friendship, romantic love, as children or as parents. This desire doesn’t stop when one generation abandons Bryan Adams for Justin Timberlake. The desire for relationship was real for the first man and woman, and it’s still real for us today.
When people think of reaching out to the God of the Bible, they often think of “being religious”, i.e. something you’re born into because of your parents, or ascribe to as a tradition. However, Christians understand God in the context of a relationship. God not only put the desire for relationship in us; he also fills it. He offers every one of us a relationship that never fails. It’s the kind of bond that goes beyond the self-indulgent pop tunes of today, beyond the declarations of love from the 80s and 90s.
*Prizes is probably deceptive. More the singular "prize", and more a coffee made by Sam.
His memorial service has brought the name of Jesus into the media.
This was in the Herald:
"This was a service heavy with prayer and religious imagery - God, like Mellish's parents, had lost his only son in his 30s, said Dominic Steele, of the group Christians in the Media. One of Mellish's sisters, Lucy Chik, chose a reading that said: "Sorrow is better than laughter, because a sad face is good for the heart."
More here.
I love these kinds of stories. Kinda like the guys who ram raid a place and forget that their number plate is attached to the bumper bar they've left on the shop floor...
Click here. I do hope she can get it together. Perhaps we should pray for her?
Soph and I were chatting the other night about praying for celebrities. Does anyone have a non-Christian celebrity on their prayer list? Should we pray for them?
I dislike confrontations. I hate them more than going to the dentist, or sitting for an exam, or waiting for half an hour at central station for my train to arrive.
So you can imagine how reluctant I was to raise the issue with HR when some unexpected problems came up with my new contract.
The situation: I've changed jobs within my company - this year I'm essentially a cadet journalist, which means I circulate around different magazines for three month stints, plus additional training with Fairfax. when I accepted the position, it was with the understanding that it was a 12 month commitment with no strings attached.
A month after I started my first round, I was given a contract to sign. Everything was pretty normal, except for one clause which stated that I was to work for an additional 12 months for my company upon completion of my contract, turning what was originally a year long commitment into 24 months. On top of that, if I were to break my contract, I would owe the company $10,000 - the money they originally forked out to send me to Fairfax for training. this was the first time I had heard about these conditions.
There was no clause in the contract about what would happen should I fall sick, pregnant, etc, so it left me in quite a vulnerable position. When I (reluctantly, might I add...as I said, I hate conflicts!) took the matter up with HR, I was told in a nutshell, "we're not changing it, you either sign it or you're out of the program".
My question: As a Christian, what would you do? Would you sign the contract and submit to the authority of the company, or would you complain?
Part of the reason they added that clause is that people often use the program as a stepping stone into Fairfax, without my company "gaining any benefit" from training someone (I would be lying if I said I hadn't considered it). As a Christian, is this something we should consider in our career decisions? Is there a call to be loyal to companies that look after us - to give our bosses, no matter how money-driven they are, what they are due?
...for Christians in the Media. What do you think of it? Hopefully we'll get a crossfire section there eventually!
Should be much better for pointing people towards it for events and information.
Had a great night with the students at Christians in the Media last night. Matherson and Pam spoke with our communications students about postmodernism. Excellent stuff from both of them - thanks guys.
They encouraged our students not to be afraid of philosophy, but to delve in and engage with ideas and theories, while at the same time seeking to grow in their understanding of their faith. I don't think enough people are helping tertiary students (especially those in the arts) to think about the ideas that shape our society and culture - too often churches have their heads in the sand. We need to understand these ideas and then engage with them from a Christian perspective. We simply cannot ignore postmodern culture anymore than the church in the 19th century could ignore modernism and the enlightenment.
One great resource we have is the Macquarie Christian Studies institute. You can now do studies for credit in your degree through them - we should really encourage students to take hold of opportunities like this!
Our next Network night will be 'Jesus: in Cyberspace' - CraigS will be one of the speakers, along with Karen Beilharz and John Sandeman. Should be a great night!
For our Bible reading this year Soph and I are trying to get through the reading program proposed by 'For the Love of God', although we've altered it a bit. We're only doing two chapters a day. This has meant that we are reading through Galatians the last few mornings.
A few things have struck me as I've read through this part of Scripture so I thought I'd share them with you.
1. Paul's gospel is the gospel of substitutionary atonement - that is - Christ, who was innocent and sinless took the place of a cursed sinner as he died on the cross. In this act he bore the judgment due to sinners. And since Jesus has dealt with punishment, those who were once guilty sinners can now be considered as 'righteous' and 'justified' before God.
In laymans terms - it's a straight swap - a substitution. Christ takes our place as the guilty one and takes the punishment, while we take Christ's place and are declared right with God, and now no longer fear God's wrath.
Galatians is filled with this wonderful message. In fact, throughout Galatians it seems Paul cannot separate Jesus or the Gospel from it. For example, the first thing that Paul thinks of when he mentions Jesus at the start of the letter is Jesus' sacrificial death for sin. Galatians 1:3 ...the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the from the present evil age".
Paul understands that this justification before God comes only through faith in Christ (2:16), and that righteousness is credited to us as it was to Abraham (3:6 - ie we did not deserve it - it is credited to us).
This crediting of righteousness to our account required Jesus to be cursed on our behalf. Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written "Cursed is anyone who is hung on a tree". This is the gospel that Paul preached.
2. Paul's gospel came from God. Galatians 1:11 I want you to know brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Enough said.
3. Paul's gospel was the same gospel as that of the other apostles. Chapter 2 describes Paul's interaction with the apostles and notes that on meeting the other apostles James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me.
4. Paul declares that anyone who preaches a different gospel is cursed. Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned Paul says this not just once, but twice. Those who 'pervert the gospel of Christ' or 'throw people into confusion' are on very dangerous ground.
5. Paul is not influenced by what men (no matter who they are) think. Galatians 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. In fact he says even if an angel from heaven or Paul himself are heard with anything else on their lips we are not to listen to them. No matter who it is, what position they hold or what place they occupy in the churches history - if they do not cling to Paul's gospel - that Jesus "gave himself for our sins to rescue us" - we must not side with them.
... this Sunday on Romans 14. It really is a wonderful part of God's word. I have been thoroughly challenged in my preparation.
I think that verse 17 is key: For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
So often we are interested in asserting our rights to freedom with regards to what we eat and drink. And while we are free to eat or drink all things with thanksgiving, we need to realize that the Kingdom of God is not about food or drink. It is about righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. How quick we are to forget this and become tied up fighting our brothers and sisters over the things of this world.
Today I have a few more things to add, and then I want to spend the afternoon praying through my sermon - something I was challenged on last year at the AIM preachers conference. More than practicing our preaching on our feet, we need to pray through our sermons on our knees, that God would use our humble efforts to build his church.
My sermon should be up on the web next week.
Our new youth group at Annandale Community Church is called 'Crossfire'. We've been running for two Sundays now, and we've had a best attendance of 6 so far. It might sound small, but we're excited as we know that from small things, big things can grow.
I've loved getting back into youth ministry. The kids are at an age where they are beginning to think seriously about life and want to engage with the gospel on a real level. Plus they are heaps of fun and like doing crazy stuff!
Please pray for our new leadership team, and our small group of youth.
I will make a coffee for the person who can tell me what is in the hand of the youth in the photo? Double shot if you can tell me what they did to win it!
Just came back from a great Bible study at Channel 9. We spent our hour trying to work on answers for tough questions that our group have faced around the office. They were so encouraging - they really worked at trying to consider how to use the scriptures in their answers and how their Christian worldview works out in real life. It was a great time and really practical stuff.
1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Sorry for the sideways shots! I am an immigrant in some ways so technology eludes me. My husband, who is a native through and through, will probably fix this later.
Last week I owed my mum some money, so I went online transferred $100 into her account. Thinking that it was all too easy, I didn't realise that it would be such a source of confusion for my mum, who is slightly computer-phobic. After a few phonecalls and a lot of explaining, she decided to wait until her statement arrived in the mail to confirm whether or not she received the money.
A big difference between my mum and I, apart from age, is our experience with technology. While mum grew up in an age reliant on mail and telephones, I spent much of my teenage years surrounded by emails, DVDs, msn and mobile phones. Mum had to migrate into the world of technology. I was a born a native.
Last week at training, I learnt the difference between the digital immigrant and the digital native.
For the immigrant, digital technology is a skill they had to learn in order to adapt with the changing world. This person:
Acquired computer skills at some stage of their work life, due to necessity
Can remember a time when you couldn't burn a copy of a CD
Reads the paper
Bought their mobile phone for a distinct purpose and uses it only for calls
Still needs prompts to engage with technology (usually from the native)
The native was born with modern technology and can't conceive of a time before email. This person:
Has never known a time when they couldn't navigate a computer or the internet
Surfs smh.com
Thinks CDs are outdated (you mean you didn't have an iPod when you were a teenager??)
Has a mobile phone because everyone else does - and uses it for everything but calls
Lives and breathes modern technology - even without meaning to
There doesn't have to be a huge generation gap to distinguish a native from an immigrant. Someone born in the 90s can have a dramatically different experience of technology compared to a child of the noughties. There is also a sliding scale as to how "native" you are. Although I'm proficient with email and blogging, I have no idea how to share video files, have no interest in "youtube" and only use my phone to message and call. My youngest brother, however, can watch a youtube clip, send an instant message to a friend, wait for a program to download and answer his mobile phone, all at the same time. It's amazing to think what the children of today will be able to do in 10 years time.
So my question is this. There is no doubt that we are becoming a society filled with more natives and less immigrants. How does this affect the way we do outreach? The way we preach a sermon? Meet for church?
