A friend lent us a book, ‘Stirrings of the Soul – Evangelicals and the New Spirituality’by Rev Michael Raiter – BA, MTh, DipA (Theol), DipEd [Currently - Principle, of Bible College of Victoria, Australia] (c) Matthias Media 2003, published by: The Good Book Company (UK).

I don’t usually read that many books these days, using most of my time to read Scripture, however, I have an interest in the Anglican approach to spiritual matters, as expressed within the Australian/UK  evangelical scene. Consequently, I took some time over the last week to read this book – to be honest, the author spent so much time on the general background of both old and new spiritually I found little detailed analysis that was helpful to me.

It was only when I reached page 193 [The book has only 252 pages.] (The start of a chapter – with the title: ‘True Spirituality: Listening to the Apostle of the Spirit),’ did I start to find the start of a real ‘spiritual’ discussion. Another aspect (which always unsettles me) was the paucity of scriptural references. True there was a sprinkling of ‘short’ references to a few verses in Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Peter. The author centred much of his discussion on spirituality as discussed by Paul, in various chapters of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Corinthians (sounds like a lot of material, but in reality each reference comprises only of a few verses); however, as Paul does in his various letters – the sections discussed were, in general, the same or similar themes – expressed in slightly different ways for Paul’s respective audiences.

I’m of the opinion that any discussion of Christian Spirituality should contain an exhaustive analysis of John’s Gospel, and his letters. In John 3:10-13, we read: “Jesus replied, “You are a respected Jewish teacher, and yet you don’t understand these things? I assure you, we tell you what we know and have seen, and yet you won’t believe our testimony. But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven. … “.  Nicodemus, to whom Jesus was talking, was a Jewish religious leader, who would have known the Hebrew Scripture, better than most – but having an excellent intellectual knowledge (of the Bible) does not help anyone to understand spiritual truths.

I don’t think it unusual that you don’t see a lot of discussion on the last half of John’s Gospel; starting with verses like John 14:20-21 “When I am raised to life again, you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.”

To understand what Jesus is saying – ‘you are in me, and I am in you’; and, He says again in 14:23 - “Jesus replied, “All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them.” Requires an understanding that comes only from the Holy Spirit (and not from any intellectual analysis of the Greek words used [ ]; it is true that the Father and Jesus will come and make THEIR home with each one!

The book does not cost a lot to buy, that’s good, but I can’t recommend it. However, it’s very well written – the language is concise, and his ideas are well set out – making his overall argument easy to follow. In summary, I think it’s better to read John’s Gospel, within a bible study group, assisted by a good commentary – and, lots of input from the Holy Spirit – perhaps, a better use of your time?

[If anyone has read this book and has a different view - I'm quite prepared to discuss any issues.]

I was glancing through a recent edition (February 2010) of Southern Cross (monthly newspaper published by Anglican Media Sydney, Australia), when I spotted an articled, with the title, ‘Serving a Sovereign God’ written by Rev. Dr. John Woodhouse, Principal of Moore Theological College.

In the first instance I thought to myself – this should be a good article, however, by the time I was half-way through it, I was started to think that I had no real understanding of what he was trying to say; either I’m not very educated in the finer points of the English language, or his terminology was so esoteric it’s beyond my understanding.

The lead-in comment to the article is: “John Woodhouse argues that if we truly believe in a sovereign God then the way we live as Christians will be radically different.” Okay, I believe – totally, in the sovereignty of God – then, how will my life be radically different, compared to what it is now? Is his argument centred on the premise that, in general, we as Christians don’t truly believe in God’s sovereignty, we only think we do?  Well, when I finally made it to the end of his article –  I was more confused then when I started.

***

This is my starting point: I firmly and unshakably believe and hold the view that God has power and control over every entity, inside and outside of the known universe. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is outside of His authority – He knows all things, in eternity and over all of time – nothing happens outside of His knowledge; and, more importantly, nothing happens which is outside the scope of His power to change, in any way. Did I leave anything out?

A third of the way in; I read: “One way to characterise certain Christian movements is precisely in terms of this truth (God is sovereign). Terms like ‘Reformed’ or ‘Calvinist’ mean many things but they generally mean an embracing of this doctrine. … Those who do not accept this doctrine in its fullness may be variously described, but typically they are called Arminian, … “.

Immediately, on reading these statements I wondered if I was going to get a different flavour of a ‘free will’/’predestination’ debate –  which, is a much flogged horse, long since buried in desert pasture – isn’t it?

Yet, reading on, I stuck something I could not only understand, but also agree with: “Labels (Calvinist and Arminian) are distasteful - partly because they point of differences, but ignore what we have in common. They tend to oversimplify and therefore create caricatures of positions.”[Anyone, wanting to find out what these two movements are about; there’s plenty of material on the ‘net, and Wikipedia has a good, but limited summary.]

In the past, I used the terms Calvinist and Arminian; even said nonsense sentences like, ‘I’m a Calvinist looking back and an Arminian, when looking forward’. I now think they are useless terms, and avoid using them – much better to use the various verses in Scripture to illustrate what God says about being responsible for our actions; and, what He says about choosing His ‘sheep’.

The Rev. Dr. John Woodhouse then looks at two areas of our lives and how they relate to the belief in a sovereign God: prayer and evangelism.

Immediately, the Rev Dr John forgets his previous statement on labels, and writes:“If you have an Arminian prayer life (What’s that, I ask?), then you may think there is a tension between believing in the sovereignty of God and praying. After all, if God is in control of all things, and knows all things, what can possibly be the point of praying?” He starts his response, by saying, ‘We are to pray because we believe in the sovereignty of God … ‘ Now, I’m really confused – Scripture is full of verses which talk about prayer, in particular, Matthew’s Gospel contains a fairly detailed section on prayer – maybe, some of those verses, to illustrate this point, may have helped me?

I’m patient, so I struggle on – to read (and yes, another label): “The extreme Arminian prayer is the prayer that is thought to be effective in proportion to the amount of faith with which it is prayed … “. What do you think, how about the case of a prayer where there is no faith at all, compared to a prayer with  just a little faith – now, what does Jesus say about this case, does a mustard seed come to mind?

He concludes this section by saying: “What we believe about the sovereignty of God will be demonstrated in our prayers.” I agree with this statement, but so far this article has not contributed to my obviously poor understanding of this issue.

Now, onto evangelism, some introductory comments made by the writer: “Evangelism is necessary because God is sovereign – not despite that fact. … Evangelism is urgent because God is sovereign – not despite that fact.” I’m feeling terribly tired now, I really am lost – I think I need a lot more explanation to understand, any of this.

What I mean, by using the words ‘I’m lost’, is to say I can’t find an application of these statements to my own life. I’m trying to acquire an understanding of the writer’s message which can be applied to my Christian life – and, I need simple examples – more importantly, I need references to Scripture – because then I can put the material into a known context.

Summary

The point to my post is this: sometimes theologians become so engrossed in the battle that rages within intellectual arguments, that the spiritual realities get lost in the codified language, they use.

I think, it’s a lot better use of time to prayerfully read Scripture, either alone or in a Bible study group, then to spend a lot of time reading about things, like – what Calvin wrote about pre-destination. The same Holy Spirit is in you, as was in Calvin – Jesus loves you so much that whatever knowledge you need to follow Him, will be given to you – even if a theologian thinks your prayers ain’t perfect – whose are?

 Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 4, verse 30 (NLT): “And do not bring sorrow to God’s Holy Spirit by the way you live. Remember, he has identified you as his own, guaranteeing that you will be saved on the day of redemption.”

The New International Version (NIV): offers this translation: ‘ … do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.’

The way, this verse is presented in the New Living Translation, really brought home to me – God’s guarantee that those who believe in Jesus will be saved.  I think it’s a fantastic verse – worthy to be committed to memory. It may also help us, to recall the rest of what Paul is talking about, in his letter to the Ephesians.

Another set of great verses, from the same Chapter, are these (vs 17-24, NLT): “With the Lord’s authority I say this: Live no longer as the Gentiles do, for they are hopelessly confused. Their minds are full of darkness; they wander far from the life God gives because they have closed their minds and hardened their hearts against him. They have no sense of shame. They live for lustful pleasure and eagerly practice every kind of impurity.

But that isn’t what you learned about Christ. Since you have heard about Jesus and have learned the truth that comes from him, throw off your old sinful nature and your former way of life, which is corrupted by lust and deception. Instead, let the Spirit renew your thoughts and attitudes. Put on your new nature, created to be like God—truly righteous and holy.”

Clearly, when we follow Jesus, we must leave behind our old sinful habits. We must let God renew our thoughts and attitudes – and, we must put on our new, righteous and holy nature.

Yet -  why is it – that so many, who call themselves Christians, want to continue to live ‘for lustful pleasure and eagerly practice every kind of impurity’?

These ‘hoplessly confused’ people often try to re-define what lustful pleasure is, in terms of the cultural standards currently adopted by this materialistic world  - as if, God has no foreknowledge of the twists and turns that this modern world would employ to justify their behaviour!

As mentioned in another post Psalm 1, and 2 form an introduction to the Book of Psalms. Psalm 2 is important, as it is an example of how Jesus has carefully woven His role into the fabric of what we call the Old Testament.

I’m interested in your views on this Psalm – do we, standing nearly two thousand years after the birth of our Christ, read too much into these words written many years before His birth? I think the answer is clear upon reading Acts13:30-37 (see below) – we are also told that Psalm 16 verse 10, does not refer to David but Jesus. Likewise, the substance of Acts 4:23-27, further proves that the Holy Spirit spoke through David about the coming Messiah. Many, (early) Hebrew teachers agreed to the view that this Psalm, in particular, provides us with an insight into what the Messiah would be like, however, recent Jewish scholarship appears to be only focused on disproving the Christian viewpoint.

Psalm 2 (New Living Translation - NLT)

“Why are the nations so angry? Why do they waste their time with futile plans? The kings of the earth prepare for battle; the rulers plot together against the Lord and against his anointed one. “Let us break their chains,” they cry, “and free ourselves from slavery to God.”

But the one who rules in heaven laughs. The Lord scoffs at them. Then in anger he rebukes them, terrifying them with his fierce fury. For the Lord declares, “I have placed my chosen king on the throne in Jerusalem, on my holy mountain.”

The king proclaims the Lord’s decree: “The Lord said to me, ‘You are my son. Today I have become your Father. Only ask, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the whole earth as your possession. You will break them with an iron rod and smash them like clay pots.’”

Now then, you kings, act wisely! Be warned, you rulers of the earth! Serve the Lord with reverent fear, and rejoice with trembling. Submit to God’s royal son (pay homage in purity), or he will become angry, and you will be destroyed in the midst of all your activities – for his anger flares up in an instant. But what joy for all who take refuge in him!”

As discussed above, verses from this Psalm are found in the New Testament: Acts, Hebrews and Revelation; I’ve included additional verses as required to provide the context, as follows:

Acts 4: 23-27 (NLT): “As soon as they were freed, Peter and John returned to the other believers and told them what the leading priests and elders had said. When they heard the report, all the believers lifted their voices together in prayer to God: “O Sovereign Lord, Creator of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them - you spoke long ago by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant, saying,

 ‘Why were the nations so angry? Why did they waste their time with futile plans? The kings of the earth prepared for battle; the rulers gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah (anointed one).’ [from Psalm 2:1-2]

“In fact, this has happened here in this very city! For Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate the governor, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were all united against Jesus, your holy servant, whom you anointed. But everything they did was determined beforehand according to your will. And now, O Lord, hear their threats, and give us, your servants, great boldness in preaching your word.  Stretch out your hand with healing power; may miraculous signs and wonders be done through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

Acts 13:30-37 (NLT): “But God raised him from the dead! And over a period of many days he appeared to those who had gone with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to the people of Israel. “And now we are here to bring you this Good News. The promise was made to our ancestors, and God has now fulfilled it for us, their descendants, by raising Jesus. This is what the second psalm (verse 7) says about Jesus: ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.’ [or another translation expresses these words, as 'Today I reveal you as my Son.']

For God had promised to raise him from the dead, not leaving him to rot in the grave. He said, ‘I will give you the sacred blessings I promised to David.’ Another psalm [Psalm 16, verse 10] explains it more fully: ‘You will not allow your Holy One to rot in the grave.’ This is not a reference to David, for after David had done the will of God in his own generation, he died and was buried with his ancestors, and his body decayed. No, it was a reference to someone else—someone whom God raised and whose body did not decay.”

Revelation 2:24-28a (NLT): “But I also have a message for the rest of you in Thyatira who have not followed this false teaching (‘deeper truths,’ as they call them—depths of Satan, actually). I will ask nothing more of you except that you hold tightly to what you have until I come. To all who are victorious, who obey me to the very end, To them I will give authority over all the nations. They will rule the nations with an iron rod and smash them like clay pots. They will have the same authority I received from my Father,”

Finally, In Revelation 12:5 and 19:15, we find references to, ‘rule all nations with an iron rod’.

Reflection on Psalm 2
“Why is it, that those who are made by You, want to flee from your love?
Why is it, that those who are appointed by you, want to lead others in rebellion against you?
Why is it, that those who are imprisoned by sin, want to remain in their bondage?

I know that You rule in heaven and your will is done – your Word never returns unanswered.
We see your anger, roam rightly through the words of your Testament, you plait your own whip.
Everyone, now knows that your anointed one; your High Priest is glorified and honored in the City of Peace. 

I believe in Jesus; and through Him You are my Father.
I believe, I will see a new heaven and a new earth – there will be no rivals claiming possession.
We, my brothers and sisters, will share in Your Son’s inheritance and His authority.

We have all been warned of your judgement – from the rulers of the mightiest nations to leaders of the desperate and poor.
There is shelter to be found in Your loving embrace, there is joy to be found in serving You.
I understand Your anger with those who follow their own paths, and ignore You: You, who stands with outstretched pierced hands, offering eternal peace and love.”

Any comments?

Further into the article (follow the link for full details), I read the following: “In his homily during Easter Sunday mass at St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, Cardinal George Pell emphasised the broad appeal of his faith to a standing-room only congregation.

He was applauded when he welcomed a delegation of Muslims from the group Affinity Intercultural Foundation, which he said promoted “the worthy project” of friendship between the faiths.

“Christians don’t believe that Easter is for Christians only, as Catholics don’t believe that Easter only brings salvation to Catholics,” he said.

“It brings about the possibility of eternal life for all good people. There are many rooms in the father’s house after death.”

Cardinal Pell urged everyone to be “agents for the spreading of goodness” and said that God’s grace was not limited by accidents of birth. ”

Let’s have a look at the quote Cardinal George Pell uses, regarding ‘there are many rooms in my Father’s house’. It comes from John’s Gospel, Chapter 14, now-  the context is that Jesus is talking to His disciples – not a crowd of visiting religious dignitaries, so the following verses provide the back drop to this statement; plus, I’ve included the verses that follow on, which also provided the setting for Jesus’ relationship with His Father (Verses 1-10, NIV):  ”Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God ; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you (the disciples + followers of Jesus). And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (These key words are often passed over by many.)

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?”

As you can see, Jesus words are directed to a specific group of people – His words were not directed at a general crowd of diverse peoples!

Next, let us look at the words ‘the possibility of eternal life for all good people’. For this, we can go to Luke 18:18-19 (NIV): “A certain ruler asked him (Jesus), “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”  “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.”

The sad outcome is that Jesus said that there are no good people, so for everyone who does not qualify as ‘good’ (and no one does); and, they are not subject to the mercy of God through Jesus (I use these words to cover both ‘belief in Jesus’ and ‘His sovereign will’ on whom He will have mercy on): then there is no possibility of eternal life – now that’s a bit different to what Cardinal George Pell implies – don’t you think?

Here’s the introduction: “A recent article in The New York Times discussed the difficulty facing some American-born Jews, now living in Israel, to prove the authenticity of their heritage. One young woman went with her fiancé to the Tel Aviv Rabbinate to register to marry. This governmental court asked her to prove she was Jewish.

If a court of law asked you to prove you were a Christian, how would you do it?”

(The link above, should take you to the full article.)

Here are two examples: First, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL). The Canberra-based non-denominational group yesterday launched its election website, compiling party policies on issues ranging from gay marriages and abortion to homelessness.  [Link to article: Christians target Labor's libertarians  by Siobhain Ryan | October 30, 2007 ]

In this article, we read: “It is using the responses to mobilise the Christian vote in 15 key marginal seats. ACL managing director Jim Wallace praised both Labor and the Coalition for engaging with Christians pre-election. But he said the ALP was “less clear” on where it stood on a recent Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report. (The opposition leader)  Kevin Rudd needs to reject the “libertarian views” of his party colleagues if he is to pass a key test of faith, says the ACL.”

Mr Jim Wallace (and others), please understand this -  the Liberal or Labor Party will abandon Christian values if it means that by adopting them, they will lose votes – their advisers can count the difference between the votes for the Christian position and the vote for the ‘popular’ position! That’s why, they protect their Christian ‘identity’ for lost political positions by having a conscience vote – the ‘numbers’ people  know the outcome on the floor of the ‘house’ before any parliamentary vote. Hence, for example, an abortion drug debate may end up with a conscience vote because the leader of the prevailing Christian-supported party, will have been advised that it’s already a lost position.

In Australian politics, Prime Minister Howard has already demonstrated that he will spin mis-information to protect his Christian position (kids overboard); yet will disclose his reading of the voting population (the popular vote) by introducing bills on immigration, targeting West Papuans – an ethnic (and largely Christian) population suffering ‘political’ and cultural genocide. A federal Labor government will be no different – an issue that will cause Kevin Rudd many sleepless nights.

Mr Wallace, the Liberal government if re-elected will introduce legislation on such issues as: ’homosexual rights’, etc.; and, whoever is leader will most likely – have a conscience vote – the legislation will pass. Is that clear! The ‘libertarian’ views of the general population – that is, the most votes – will prevail.

A second issue: represented by this article ”Heat on PM to cut link to pastor.” by Misha Schubert, October 31, 2007 -  it’s my view that Pastor Nalliah should not address any League of Rights meeting, for any reason. If he feels led to minister to their members then he can invite them to his meetings.

In a general sense, all those who are against Jews, because of their race/culture – are not Christians. To clarify this issue – it’s appropriate to critise Israel, for example on their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza ( re with-holding of electricity / water) – but, it’s not alright to malign Jews because they are Jews.

Extract from the article, as follows: “PRIME Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello are under pressure to distance themselves from an evangelical church leader who has spoken at a meeting of the far right-wing League of Rights. Pastor Danny Nalliah, the head of Melbourne-based Catch the Fire Ministries, has confirmed he addressed the group, despite being warned that they were ‘anti-Jewish’. Pastor Nalliah has been given top-level access in recent months to the Howard Government, which he has endorsed enthusiastically.”

(He has actively lobbied against most other political parties.)

Pastor Nalliah has the same problem as the ACL – political parties are not homogeneous beasts – they play the lobby-group game – try to please all, and alienate none – what wins the most votes, count! Pastor Nalliah is a pawn in their game! A potentially happy pawn because he may get to share in the lime light, if Howard wins the election!

It is an edited extract from an address given at the Sydney Institute last night to mark the launch of his book God and Caesar: Selected Essays on Religion, Politics and Society

I think that whoever edited the address and extracted what was printed, either had a profound sense of humour or in a great hurry – perhaps both. (Please note: I’m not anti-Catholic, but some things are too important to be presented to the public in such an odd way.)

The strangest part of this story is perhaps its heading “Christianity vital to democracy’s future”, well Cardinal Pell I don’t think God worries a lot about whether a government is democratic or a roman republic or a theocracy – can you correct me, and demonstrate from Scripture the error of my thinking?

First Cardinal Pell talks about the enduring nature of Christian belief – and, the anger of some well-known atheists because belief in God has lasted so long. In this introductory part of the discussion, while he dwells on these atheists – he says: “It is, after all, not unheard of for children to grow up angry at a father who is remote, absent, or unknown.” I though, was that a large, red herring that just swam past?

He then jumps into the fire of ‘how did we get here’: He goes on to say: “And the alternatives are creative intelligence – that is, God – or blind chance. It would be infuriating to concede that Christ, the Buddha, Aristotle, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Newton, Beethoven and Einstein are pointless froth in a heartless universe.” Well, Cardinal Pell, colourful language but what are you trying to say? Is it, that atheists find it infuriating to concede that various creative minds are pointless froth in a heartless universe? Perhaps they would have used different words to your frothy universe but in essence – yes, they do say intelligent people are the result of specific evolutionary processes! I don’t agree with their view but perhaps you meant something else; and, as I’m not in the same ball-bark as Shakespeare or Einstein. I’m really not sure what the point is, that you are trying to make, which will eventually tie in democracy and Christianity. One additional issue that I have with this last statement – is that including Christ in that list was, in one sense, a very poor inclusion – was it not?

So, I’m reading along holding the three key words; ‘Christianity’, ‘vital’, ‘democracy’; and waiting patiently for the various threads of the article to be drawn together so that I can go onto the next news item – and perhaps, being all the better – having learned something.

Cardinal Pell then launches out with the key statement: “Catholics remain the largest religious minority in the country.” Does that mean the Cardinal is really saying that Catholics are vital to democracy’s future?

He makes a number of statements which have no supporting evidence: one, ‘that Australians are pragmatic rather than ideological about the relationship between religion and democracy’; two, ‘the idea that religion is irrational and must be excluded from public affairs is not a native Australian plant’; and three, ‘it is important to have a critical mass of active religious believers in the community, partly because of the so-called social usefulness of religion, particularly in picking up the pieces of social and personal dysfunction.’

I’m starting to approach the end of the article but where’s the case for Catholics being vital for our future democracy.

Well here’s the start of it: “But more deeply than this, I also think many Australians appreciate that having a goodly number of active believers is essential to ensure that the values of a fair go and respect for others are promoted and passed on to the next generation. ” and ; “most Australians expect the churches to help pass on to young people the (essential) values.”

The core case for this view presented by the Cardinal is that most Australians expect the Catholic Church to help pass on our essential values to the next generation.

The problem is: “the fertility rates of every Western country are below replacement level“; and the solution is “Catholicism’s role in (democratic) Australia, is to help turn this situation around.” but the extracts in this article do not explicitly say what is meant here, which is, Catholics should have more kids, and that aligns well with Catholic tradition!

Now, don’t you feel enlightened – Christianity is vital to democracy’s future because of our higher birth rate. Which may mean that those atheist will soon become extinct because they don’t breed as much – this has its humous side, don’t you think?

Hidden in the last part of the article is this dangerous statement: “The key public task facing all Christians today is to make the case for Western civilisation and to replenish the sources from which it takes life and strength.”

Cardinal Pell – there is a whole lot wrong with our current Western civilisation – and I, for one, will not be making a case for it! There is nothing inherently Christian about any particular brand of civilisation – what makes any government entity, Christian, is the way they follow Jesus!

I do understand, and have some empathy for, the theories that homosexuality may have a genetic and/or environmental background. In a similar way, I understand that anger, theft and other forms of sexual or antisocial behaviour may be influenced by genetics or environmental factors.

None, of any existing predispositions, change the sinful nature of the human condition regarding our response to any actions arising out of the way we live and relate to others, The factors which make us ‘who we are’, are taken into account, but do not change the need to test our actions against what God wants, as defined by what has been clearly articulated in Scripture! God knows our heart, our background and our genetics; consequently – our culpability regarding our sinful acts will be perfectly judged by Him.

We live with the characteristics which God has allowed us to inherit or develop. That’s a good starting point, don’t you agree?

Background

Scripture (Old Testament and Paul’s letters) clearly tells us that active homosexuality is wrong – can there be there any debate on this statement? I answer: Yes, but only by those who deny that the spiritual truths of Scripture apply to all generations (past and present). As if God was ignorant of how the human race would ‘evolve’, and we would end up to be totally different to what He expected – you may live in hope that God is indeed, so powerless and lacking in foresight! I prefer to live my life knowing that He is all powerful and all knowing – He exists outside of time (Jesus created time.) and knows exactly how, where and when all things start and end.

Another plea, in support of active homosexual relationships, is that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. Let’s look at the context: at the time of Jesus. Israel was an ‘island’ of a nationalistic culture which was very religious and strongly anti-homosexual. We know this from the writings of Joseph ben Matthias (better known as Flavius Josephus (AD 37-c.100), and other Roman historians of the time – these historians recorded the strict religious views of this State. Josephus records; that even, the self-centred and murderous ruler, Herrod the Great, was well aware of the anti-homosexual views of the religious rulers of this time. In addition, there was a national response, after the Maccobean rebellion, which increased the anti-Greek and anti-hedonistic rhetoric of the Jewish Rabbinic teaching of the time; which included their strong condemnation, in general, of all types of sexual sin. Did Jesus say, at any time, that this strong anti-homosexual response was wrong? Did he add anything to His criticism of their teaching; on purity, wealth, and religious traditions regarding their ‘extreme’ position on homosexuality – the resounding answer is: No! In summary, the fact that Jesus did not condemn their stance on homosexuality is more of a problem for the pro-gay group then it is for people who hold similar views to me.

In a way – the attack on the view that homosexuality is wrong – is an attack on God. My reasoning for saying this is because the ‘liberal’ church’s position on homosexuality can only be sustained if the relevance of Scripture is questioned. Once we question this aspect of scriptural teaching then any part of what we call the essential elements of Christian creed can also be questioned – and, if we use the Jesus Seminar reports or John Spong’s writings as an example, this is certainly the case. Taking the current line of testing Scripture’s alignment to cultural relevance where does the logical extreme of this argument take us to – again, if current literature is a guide, to the conclusion that Jesus was human and did not die to save us – and; who benefits from that false conclusion – our old enemy – the prowling lion.

Current Issue

What initiated my thoughts on this topic was the report that “Archbishop Fred Hiltz, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, paid a traditional call on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on Oct. 16. … (you can read more about it at this site. During their two-hour meeting, Archbishop Hiltz described the current state of the Anglican Church of Canada, particularly after the national meeting, General Synod, this past June. He spoke about the issue of human sexuality, and explained the diocese of Ottawa’s decision to approve blessings of same-sex unions. (The diocese of Montreal, which later passed a similar motion, had not yet met). Archbishop Williams appeared receptive to the Canadian church’s actions. “He described our approach to handling the whole matter as ‘coherent,’” said Archbishop Hiltz. “We also, in that conversation, focused on the pastoral statement of the bishops and the kind of value that has for the church.” In another report on their Synod meeting, I read this: “ … many people want more opportunity to study and listen to determine whether this change (blessing of same-sex unions) is a theologically appropriate and Spirit-led development of doctrine. … “

My view is that it is NOT theological appropriate and it is NOT led by God. God, is the same God, of the Old and New Testaments – He has not changed – He has always known about our cultural changes over the centuries. The Bible was written with us in mind.

So, Archbishop Hiltz, remember this (Luke 17:1-3a): “Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourself.”

In conclusion, I’m more than happy to sit down with any homosexual, murderer, or thief and discuss what Scripture has to say about sin. I’m also more than prepared to talk about the love of Jesus for them and His death which paid the penalty for all our sins, for which I’m especially, eternally grateful. Keep in mind that while Jesus loves you with all His life – He is not always nice – sometimes if you want to go against God’s will, He will turn around and say: “Get behind me, Satan.” – He only says such harsh words, to shock you into the reality of your sin, with the view of saving your life. Such is His love!

There are a lot of questions I would like to explore about their justification for such a methodology – it leaves almost every study of ancient history, in any field of human endeavour, with nowhere to go but to be consigned to the bin, labelled ‘myths’.

And now John Spong is in Australia promoting his new book, Jesus for the Non-Christians, sorry Non-Religious.

There is an interesting article by Mark Hadley on Spong, to be found on the Sydney Anglican website. In addition, Mark Thompson in the August 2007 edition of the Southern Cross wrote that despite all his ‘grandiose’ claims in the book, “(It) is really little more than the rehash of long-discarded critical theories and doubts which scholars resolved years ago.”

John Spong on Margaret Throsby’s Morning Interview ((20/08/2007), ABC, Classic FM – said a number of interesting things: one is that the traditional view of God, as an old man in the sky, who keeps records of our actions and who occasionally intervenes in human affairs by miraculous means, is fiction. Well, I agree with the overall view that this simplistic representation of God is nonsense . I don’t think many Christians actually hold the sort of view Spong has attributed to the general Christian community. He even tried to make his remarks more acceptable by saying that since Galileo/Newton had demonstrated that Hebrew cosmology had been superseded by a better scientific understanding of what was the ‘sky’ – because of this new knowledge – the supernatural, as represented by miracles should be cast out into the darkness where religious delusions abide.

He sees mankind as being different from animals because of our self-consciousness, awareness of mortality, and a sense that we stand alone. To him, God is an experience, God is love – a life-force which motivates the universe. Love is a power which make us more than we can be, without it. God’s presence is permeated throughout the world, and it is possible to explain God by our experience of him. Man cannot describe God, he is beyond imagination.

John Spong’s god is found in a form of timelessness, the eternal ‘now’; and we can aspire to ‘otherness’, transcendence and holiness. This means that we have the ability to chart our own destiny. On the other hand, the traditional Christian God, Spong sees as being born out of tribalism, a defensive mechanism created by insecure people.

Spong sees Jesus as the quintessential human that did experience the presence of God; people on the Christ ‘path’ can experience God through Jesus. In addition, hoisting his universalistic colours to the mast – he says that God is not a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu or a Moslem – there could be many paths to his description of God. I think he was saying that if God did not exist then because of our desperate needs, I guess referring to our need to know life’s meaning, we would have created the concept of a God.

You can see there is a thin syrupy layer of sweet truth spread over a pile of fine sounding falsehoods. His views (as expressed in the radio interview) are dated and flawed – his basic arguments are shallow and simplistic. Perhaps, his book gives a better presentation of his ideas. No one can be threatened by a life-force of love. Plus, it’s true, the apostle John did say that ‘God is love.’ Yet, it’s clear that Spong has never been able to understand the Gospel message – it’s a complete mystery to him. As the apostle to the gentiles, once expressed: ‘To intellectuals, those who try to rationalise all things including God, find the good news about Jesus to be meaningless.’

John Spong, has no answer for people like me who have had a ‘road to Damascus’ conversion. I feel sorry that John Spong will soon die and he will meet an amazing and divine Jesus who actually is beyond imagination but who can be found throughout all of Scripture.

The following is what prompted me to comment on this story: “The Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, told the Australian it was a mistake for the Australian Anglican Primate to invite Bishop Spong here to promote his book. ”

Is this true? Surely, the Primate understands that John Spong is NOT a Christian! Anyone listening to his interview with Margaret Throsby this morning, would be able to discern that he is not a Christian. The retired Bishop might have called himself, at some earlier time, a liberal Christian, but there comes a point that you are so far liberal that you have left the ball-park!  Religious definitions can be twisted but if you don’t believe in the resurrection; and, in one very real sense – if you don’t believe Jesus is God, then you are not one of God’s children! I probably should not put in the scriptural references because I’m sure the verses I’m thinking of, are not in Spong’s intellectually accepted version.

Surely, dear Bishop Forsyth has been ill-advised about the Primate’s invitation to John Spong – I could believe that Spong might be sponsored by groups such as the Progressive Christianity Network but the Primate of the Australian Anglican Church – this I can’t believe – because it would call into question his beliefs about Jesus!

What’s your view?