Appendices to small things

Character study OT1

2006-05-09T22:38:00.000+09:30

Daniel: A character study.

“Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone. Dare to have a purpose firm, dare to make it known.”

These words we sung out loudly in my church when I was young. I remember family worship times; being read some of the stories of Daniel, my parents exhorting us to be a Daniel, as us kids marched around the room singing, “All hail to Daniel’s band!... Dare to be a Daniel…” .

Daniel was a young man, probably of noble descent (1:3), who was taken along with much of his country, into captivity by the Babylonians in 597BC. It is assumed that Daniel was taught of God by his family, which allowed him to stand strong in the midst of overwhelming modernity and wonder, in the city of Babylon. Our first glimpse of Daniel is that he shows aptitude for learning (1.4), he is an intelligent man. Often this combination of intelligence and youth breeds arrogance, but we see none of this about Daniel. His first character trait becomes known as the young men are given a diet of choice food. Daniel decides before God that he will not partake of this food, and informs the officials of this. This self control must not have come easy, especially for one who is already noble, and likely to have eaten this rich food before. However, Daniel listens to his conscience, and humbly proposes an alternative. More than intelligence, Daniel shows wisdom in the dealing of this situation. Both Daniel and the band of young men that he led were favoured by God and given wisdom, and understanding (1:17)

This action required courage – to question the king’s command could have killed him, however this is not the only instance in which Daniel displays courage. Later when the King Belshazzar was condemned by God with the writing on the wall (5:1ff), Daniel accuses him of being arrogant (5:22f), a courageous statement! Of course, the other well know example of Daniel’s courage, is his undying faithfulness to God. When the King decreed that anyone who prays to anyone or thing would be executed, Daniel continued in his ritual of prayer, thanks giving, and asking God for help (6:10f) It is here that surely we find the mainspring of Daniel’s courage – his faithfulness to God (6:20), and unceasing prayer. Prayer is a highlight of the character of Daniel. For much of the book he is consulting God on a matter, or God is giving him dreams and visions concerning things. This prayer also reveals Daniel’s trust in God. A major part of the book concerns Daniel’s prayer and conversation regarding the return of Israel, as prophesied by Jeremiah (9:2). Daniel believed God’s promise, and laboured to that end.

Daniel also is characterised by integrity. This quality is one which people today value so highly, and it is rarely found. Just as politicians engage in mudslinging in our society, so they did in circa 500BC. Chapter 6 of Daniel retells the story of Daniel and the lions. His political peers desired to remove him, and looked for dirt on him (6:4) but his integrity in all matters meant they could find none. These shrewd men then decided to condemn him on his virtue, and the well known story follows, that Daniel’s integrity was so strong, that he would not hide the fact that he prayed to his God, the only God. A reoccurring theme in Daniel’s life is a noticeable lack of arrogance and a high degree of humility. In his revelations of dreams Daniel begins by disclaiming the credit for the interpretation. It was not his wisdom, he states, but it was revealed to him by the true God (2:30) He shuns reward for his interpretations (5:17), but also accepts such authority and responsibility as is given him (5:29, 6:2)

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Daniel’s character is how others described him. Three different Babylonians describe him as one “who has within him the spirit of the holy gods” (4:8f; 4:18; 5:11; 5:14). From this it can be inferred that Daniel was one of those rare examples of men, who had the spirit of God indwelling them. This was obvious to the people around him whom he served. An interesting thing too, is that in Ezekiel 14:14, there is mention of 3 men that God considered righteous, Noah, Daniel and Job. There is some contention whether this passage is referring to Daniel, or Danel – an ancient literary figure, which would seem more likely to be the case, because Daniel was still alive at the time of Ezekiel’s writing, but the New Bible Commentary explains that Daniel could actually be the person implicated, in light of the pattern of being recused from God’s judgement, and the men’s faithfulness. In any case, Daniel was without doubt, a righteous and Godly man.

Daniel is a man who provides a fantastic picture of what can happen in a life solely devoted to God. I hope that many more children, young people and adults will “dare to be a Daniel” and stand courageously, and intelligently for their God.

Standing by a purpose true,
Heeding God’s command,
Honor them, the faithful few!
All hail to Daniel’s band!
Dare to be a Daniel,
Dare to stand alone!
Dare to have a purpose firm!
Dare to make it known.
Many mighty men are lost
Daring not to stand,
Who for God had been a host
By joining Daniel’s band.
Many giants, great and tall,
Stalking through the land,
Headlong to the earth would fall,
If met by Daniel’s band.
Hold the Gospel banner high!
On to vict’ry grand!
Satan and his hosts defy,
And shout for Daniel’s band
- Philip P Bliss

2006-02-13T22:27:00.000+10:30

2006-02-13T22:24:00.000+10:30

2006-02-13T22:20:00.000+10:30

photo

Theological themes in Genesis

2006-01-20T03:04:00.000+10:30

Theological themes in Genesis.

There is a strong thread in the Apostle Paul’s teaching of Faith and Righteousness. He speaks extensively on this theme in he letter to the Galatians, and in he letter to the Romans. Also the writer of Hebrews picks up on faith and righteousness. This strong theme in the New Testament traces back to Genesis. The New Testament writers single out Abraham as the example to follow – and well they should, as the father of the nation of Jewish people. Hebrews 11:8 states, “by faith Abraham…” and details in the next verses how Abraham obeyed God without knowing the outcome (Gen 12:1) and set out on a journey. He lived as a stranger in a land that he’d been promised (Gen 13:14f) by faith. Hebrews tells us that even though Abraham was old and “as good as dead” (Heb 11:12) it was his faith that enabled Sarah to conceive and bear a son, Isaac. (Gen 21:2)

Perhaps it was the incredible test that God gave to Abraham that is the most well known act of faith in the Old Testament. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his own son – the one God had promised to him would be the father of many (Gen 22:2). Abraham’s faith was so great that he did not argue with God, but reckoned that God could raise Isaac from the dead – even though he had not seen evidence of this (Heb 11:19). His faith was of gigantic proportion, even to the point that he raised his knife to kill the son he loved (Gen 22:10). Romans reveals that Abraham’s faith in God was not a result of righteousness, but that righteousness was credited to Abraham because of his faith (Rom 4:20ff). This is a foundational principal of Christian belief.

It is not only Abraham who partakes in this righteousness and faith. This theme precedes and follows Abraham, Hebrews again offers us a guide. It was faith, that qualified Cain’s sacrifice to God and credited him with righteousness (Heb 11:4). Following on, Enoch, only briefly mentioned in Genesis (5:21-24) had such faith in God, so earnestly sought him, that God did not even allow him to die (5:24) his faith was such that he “walked with God”. The righteousness of this man, through faith must have been unparalleled before this time, and I suspect, excluding Christ, no man has been so righteous since.

Noah’s absurd faith (Gen 6:9) in building a boat on dry land, for little logical reason was seen as righteousness by God who chose him to continue on the human race. He believed God, even though the things God warned him of had never been seen (Heb 11:7). It was faith that caused both Jacob and Isaac to bless their sons and families (Heb 11:20-21) and this too became their righteousness before God.

Finally, Joseph, at the end of his days, faithfully reminds his family that they must return to the land that God had promised them, (Gen 50:24f). Again, God credited this faith to Joseph as righteousness. Hebrews points out too that the faith of these men was great, and thus their righteousness great, because they did not ever see the fulfilment of the promised God gave them, but they did not give up their belief that God would deliver in the end (Heb 11:13). These ancients were commended as righteous, because though they could not see, they believed unswervingly (Heb1:1).

This theme rings true today. We have faith in our Lord Jesus, that he has delivered us from sin, and that God will establish his kingdom in full on the earth. This is the source of our salvation, faith.

If we learn nothing else from Genesis, we must grasp this theme. Faith is the precursor to righteousness, not the other way around! Humankind can never be holy enough to please God. We do not become righteous and then have faith. Salvation is through faith alone. It always has been so.

What does it mean to be a Christain??

2006-01-19T03:26:00.000+10:30

What does it mean to be a Christian?

I’m not sure if it’s possible to give a cut and dried portrait which can be held up and be said “this is a Christian” and all else is not, because the things that are most essential are in our soul, and can’t be measured by man. The quality of love can really only be tested by God himself. Faith is not ours to judge, people are not ours to condemn.

Perhaps however I can speak of some of the doctrine, formulated over the years that give some shape to the basic tenets of belief that we hold true.

Salvation, atonement, redemption, justification and reconciliation; what do these practically mean? These things are basic beliefs of a Christian, but often end up as long words and complex theories with little relevance to life. Followers of Christ, Christians as they are called, believe firstly in salvation. I remember being an 8 year-old, singing loudly in Sunday school, “no you can’t get to heaven without, S A L V A T I O N” To be a Christian means that you are “saved”. Salvation comes from the belief that God’s original intent was for humankind to be in unbroken relationship with him, but that because of sin, humans are unable to have that relationship with God, and God’s holiness cannot allow humans to be in relationship with him. More than that, this sin, like a cancer, permeates every part of our being, causing us to be unable to live forever. Salvation is the act of God, which caused him to send his son Jesus, to earth as a human, and sacrifice him for the whole of humanity. This salvation is not something that human kind could have achieved on their own, so it is faith in Christ Jesus – unhindered belief in his sacrifice that works our individual salvation.

How it all works is not something that can be put in black and white, the way was can say a car works. It is more like atomic theory. We have these facts, and we think it might all go together like this… but we are not absolutely sure on the minute details. That doesn’t mean that it’s less true or valid, just that we’re human, our minds are finite and have trouble grasping infinite things. Salvation is like the atom, if we use the atomic theory analogy. We know that it exists. We know that it is vital to our beings. We also have figured out, through clues given in the scriptures, and by years of discussion what some of it’s components are. Like an atom, that's about all we know. Eons have passed with people coming up with all sorts of ways an atom might work. Some theories are better than others. Some work up to a point, where another theory might pick up the explanation. An atom is to small for us to fathom, salvation is too large. Nevertheless, let’s discuss what we do know.

Atonement has been described to me as ‘at-one-ment”. This is the part where God and humankind became “at one”. Literally, this is what it means. So it cannot be explained without reconciliation. Reconciliation means that God and man were separated. More than this, they were actively at war with one another. This si not to say that one was trying to kill the other in the way we have a battle, rather, God’s holiness could not allow man’s sinfulness. God is good. There is no darkness in him, and he cannot be friends with darkness. Humankind had sin in its heart. Therefore, there was war between the hearts of man, and the person of God. Erickson, a theologian describes it as “[God] is allergic to sin” The atonement brought about reconciliation. How did it all work? God, as I’ve already said, is allergic to sin. He can’t handle it. His righteousness demands soul-death for those who sin. God is however all merciful. How can one be all-righteous and all-merciful at once? God is everything! God staying true to both parts of his character demanded death, but then paid that price himself (through Jesus). It is that unfathomable mystery. That the one who demands punishment would then be the one punished, willingly! This atonement is final, there are no more repayments to be made, because Christ was perfect in nature, so he totally satisfied God’s requirement. It is because of this that God and humankind can be restored to their original, intended relationship. We are reconciled. Christ’s resurrection is very important to this idea of atonement, because it acts as a proof that the atonement worked. Like working an equation backwards to see if we’ve found the right solution, Jesus’ resurrection is proof that his death, and his attempt at reconciling God with man worked. It is our hope of salvation.

A close relative to atonement is redemption. Redemption seems to have begun from the fall. It carries with it the implication that God was missing something that he wanted to get back. The relationship between God and man was very important to God. He wasn’t going to rest until he had returned what was missing unto himself. When Humans gave themselves over to sin, God had to step in if he wanted to have a relationship with us. He did this, as I have already said, effecting the reconciliation. The battle for goodness was won on the cross – so we have been redeemed. The final part of the redemption equation comes into play at Christ’s second coming – his return to earth, which will put the final nail in the coffin of his enemy, Satan. Until then, nothing can change the fact that God redeemed his people.

Finally, when we stand before God, we are justified. I love this word! AS a human, if someone hurts me, I can forgive them, and love them, our relationship can be restored and grow. Despite this, though it may be free from the attached emotion, I will always remember the hurt. I can not, save an injury to my brain, forget that I have been wronged. God goes one better than that. The idea of justification is that God, through the sacrifice of Jesus grants us a full and complete pardon. The matter of our rebellion against him is stricken off the record! God is not tricking himself at all, but he is granting us full status. The way it works is that God looks at us, but he looks at us through a filter. That filter is the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf. Of course, in order to be seen in this way, we have to willingly accept that Christ’s sacrifice was both necessary and sufficient for us. This is where people talk about “have you accepted Jesus”. It requires that ‘f’ word, faith. Faith is the belief that God will see us as justified and now pure, because of Christ. If we choose not to step behind the filter, to get to God on our own merit or reject him entirely, then God will not justify us. We will be clothed in all the filth that comes from sin, and God will reject us, forever.

So what does it mean to be a Christian? It means faith, faith that Jesus is enough to enable us to stand before God. This is what salvation is. This is the difference between life and death. This new life that we now have has amazing implications! On a universal level, it means that the ground is ready for God’s kingdom to break in, as it is planted in people’s hearts. It means that because our relationship with God is reconciled, our war with the rest of mankind can end, and there can be peace in our relationships, love, and further establishment of God’s rule on this earth.
References.

Milne, B.(1998) Know the Truth(2nd ed.) Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press
Erickson, M. J., (1992) Introducing Christian Doctrine Grand Rapids: Baker Academic

Class notes, Cornerstone Community Inc, Broken Hill 2005 – Lecturer. Wagstaffe, T.

Galatians 6:1-5

2006-01-18T01:36:00.000+10:30

Galatians was a letter written by Paul (1:1) to the church in Galatia (1:2), a situation removed from today by vast distances of time and geography. The issue that it addresses specifically - those who are demanding that the gentiles become Jewish to be Christian(1:14) is not one we see so much today, but the surrounding issues and thoughts speak to us loud and clear at this present time. The major theme of life in the spirit is timeless, as is his practical advice on unity. The portion in Galatians 6:1-5 is one such passage that we need to take heed of.

Paul has been expounding on life in the spirit for the past chapter of Galatians. “Stand firm!” (5:1), “be free”, “serve one another in love” (5:13) “live by the Spirit” (5:16). He gives these instructions and more, contrasting the fruit of a spirit filled life with a life lived for self (5:16- 26), So now the obvious question is, how do we deal with those who fall out of step with the spirit, what of them?

Paul begins by reminding them all of their relationship in Christ addressing them as “Brothers”. He says that if someone is “caught in a sin” those who are spiritual should be the ones to restore them, but they too should be careful not to sin. (6:1). The word ‘caught’, does not as we might suppose, refer to a person whose hidden sin is made open. Paul uses (Grk) Prolambanō, meaning to take one off guard, or surprised (Thayer). This is a sin which has crept up on a person, and suddenly they find themselves in a place they never intended to be. So here we find that Paul’s advice is for a specific situation, a specific kind of sin. The kinds of people are listed in 5:21 & 26 are not those this advice is pertaining to, the person, who knowingly and wilfully sins. The people who are caught up in a sin should be gently restored by those who are spiritual. Phneumatikos (Grk) means those who are filled with and governed by the spirit (Thayer). Previous to 6:1, Paul says “Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit” (5:25) Paul is talking to all the Galatians here, so everyone should in theory fit this profile of being spiritual. Paul says that we know the spiritual person by the fruits in their lives (5:22). It’s not necessarily the person of highest rank in a church, or the person who knows the most about the scriptures, or leads a “righteous” life, the spiritual one is simply one who walks in the Spirit and displays the evidence of it. The spiritual ones are to restore their wayward brother or sister gently (6:1). The full meaning of restore, is to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be. 1 Peter 5:10 uses this same word, to say that God will, after we have suffered, restore us himself, to make us firm and steadfast. Paul also uses Katartikosō to say, “aim for perfection” (2 Cor 13:11). It’s like bringing a person back to full health or the person who is aiming for fitness, and so actively striving to that end. Paul uses a continuous present tense for gently, which implies patience and perseverance (Vines). Like our physical health, restoration of our spiritual self is not an instant matter.

This verse also holds a warning. Watch out! (6:1) There is the chance that the rescuer could also be caught in temptation. The implication is that we need to actively take heed, the same kind of looking, skopeō (Grk) being used as we look at the unseen, (2 Cor 4:18) and looking out for other people’s interests (Phil 2:4). More than merely observing, Vines tells us that this requires mental focus. The temptation that may be faced is not the kind of testing that comes from God (Heb 11:17), but an inward enticement to sin. James 1:14 talks about this kind of temptation, that comes from within us, and when we indulge it, leads us to death. There are two possible ways a person, when restoring another could be tempted. Firstly there is the sin of pride, that they are helping the other person, and are therefore “better” and less prone to sin, and the other kind where in focusing on the other person, they neglect their own spiritual battle, and are caught themselves.
The second verse carries this charge; “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ.” Paul has already reminded the Galatians of their relationship in Christ (6:1), and now he tells them to act this out by carrying, bastazō (Grk) to put on ones self and endure, each other‘s burdens. This he repeats in Romans 15:1, “We who are strong ought to bear (bastazō) with the failings of the weak” we are not to merely pity or look down on them as we run ahead, but to help them along, carrying some of their burden. The burdens are a weighty kind. The Greek, baros always implies heaviness, some thing that is hard to carry (Thayer). In doing this, Paul says that we fulfil the law of Christ. What is the law of Christ? Matt 22:37, Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love God and our neighbours, the Law and the Prophets hang on this. So then, the Law of Christ is simply, love. By sharing the load of our family, we obey Christ’s law. This practically means that the love we show will look like that depicted in 1 Cor 13, most specifically in this case that we won’t be keeping score and being impatient (2 Cor 13:4) with those whose burdens we help carry.

Paul’s next warning is about right thinking in regard to our own value. If we think that we are something when we are not, we are deceived (6:3). Again, Paul uses strong language here. Pataō (grk) means to give a false impression, but this is not the word Paul uses. The word is phrenapataō (Grk) to deceive in one’s mind, with subjective fancies (Thayer). This is serious, because the person actually believes that they are better than they are. To be yourself fooled puts you into a very dangerous position, because the person who believes themself to be safe when they are in fact not, are blind to the traps and fall in. Such a person, as Paul has already warned could get “caught” like the brother in verse 1. Instead, each person is to test their own actions (6:4). Dokimazō (grk) suggests a test to prove if a thing is genuine or not (Thayer). Thankfully the word also has an expectation that the proving is not a negative test with the intention of finding guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, but to find that the work is indeed genuine.(Vine) 2 Cor 8:8 Paul uses dokimazō to say that he wants the Corinthians to show the genuineness of their love. Having thus proved the genuine quality of their own action, each person can then have a valid ground for rejoicing [ kauchema (Thayer)] in their own actions. Paul said, this then leaves no need for us to compare ourselves with others (6:4) which could then lead to the sinful kind of pride. Paul again exhorts the believer to right thinking about themselves in Romans 12:3. Humility in our thoughts is the antidote to the pride that can easily creep into our lives.

Because we have a right judgement of ourselves, each of us is to carry our own load (6:5). Again in the English we see that we are to carry a load. The Greek reveals though, that in this case it is a different load. In verse 1 the load is baros a weight. Here is is phortion (Grk) that is just something to be carried (Vine). There is no feeling of weight; simply that it is our allotment, our responsibility. This is what we will present before God at judgement. (Vine) A similar theme to this is found in 1 Cor 3:13, where Paul says that our work will be tested with fire. If it is of poor quality, such as straw wood and hay – of little eternal value, it will be burned up. Only that which is valuable in God’s sight will last for us to present to him.

In the situation the Galatians faced with the Judaisers, this advice from Paul would have been extremely applicable. There would have been people who while desiring the truth, fell into the sin of legalism, and other things. The church here needs to know how to deal with these people, and the process is different than for dealing with those who knowingly and boldly sin. This may even have been an approach that Paul had to take with Barnabas and others who were caught up in wrong thinking and action (1:13)

In so many instances we see people who love God being caught unaware by a sin which has crept into their life. Suddenly they are overtaken by it, and they say “but I never knew that it was happening”. It only takes small steps for sin to overtake us. The answer, Paul has already given us. “Keep in step with the Spirit” (5:25). In fact this passage on how to deal with those who fall out of step is sandwiched by advice on life in the Spirit. 6:7- 10 say that what we sow, we reap. If we practice life in the spirit, then that is the result we will have in our lives. If we unknowingly little by little move away from that, be it because of conceit, envy or otherwise (5:26), we will need to be recalled and restored by our family in Christ.

References,

Thayer, J., H (1896) Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon,(4th ed) Peabody; Hendrickson

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., White, W.,(1985) Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Nashville: Nelson

The Holy Bible, New International Version (1984) Zondervan Bible Publishers

How did Jesus fulfil the role of the Messiah?

2006-01-18T01:35:00.000+10:30

Who was Jesus of Nazareth?
The Jesus of Nazareth was a man born in Israel some time around 0AD (more likely 6 BC). He was born to a Jewish family, with a lineage tracing back to the beginning of mankind, and most impressively to King David (Mt 1:1-6). He progressed through childhood, involved in the typical Jewish activities of the day (Luke 2:42) and grew in the usual fashion (Luke 2:52)

He was fully human (in case anyone wants to debate the point), experiencing a gamut of emotions and human experiences from; weariness (Jn 4:6), hunger (Mt 21:18), thirst (Mt 11:19) to joy, (Lk 1:21) sorrow (Mt 26:37) compassion (Mt 9:36) astonishment (Lk 7:9) anger (Mk 3:5) and the ultimate of human experience, death. (Mk 14:33, Lu 22:63)

Jesus was unique amongst humans, in that he was sinless, but he was not exempt still from temptation. In fact he experienced temptation of the intensity that no one else could have endured. (Mt 4 :1) He had his own desires and wants, but he gave them up to do the will of the God (Lk 22:44).

Who was Jesus Christ?
A better question would be, who is Jesus Christ, because the Christian belief that was God as well as man also includes that belief that Jesus, while he died, was given life again by God the Father, and is forever living (Acts 3:32-34).

Jesus as God is foundational to Christian belief. Jesus mysterious conception, born of a virgin, having no earthly father is first evidence toward his unusual 2 in 1 nature. As God, Jesus did not have full power of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. His earthly body restrained him to one place, and we see that he grew in knowledge as he grew in life (Luke 2:52). In this his own understanding of his relationship to God would have grown, and not been a complete understanding at birth. His knowledge of people’s thoughts and of the law and prophets as an adult is clearly out of the ordinary, but it does seem that full knowledge was not given to him at this time.

Though he had the power to call “more than 12 legions of angels”, Jesus was subject to the human frailties mentioned above. All authority however, was his as he told his disciples (Mt 18:28) this was demonstrated in his ministry of healing and casting out demons, and that even the “winds and waves obey him” (Mt 8:27)

Jesus definitely made the claim to be God, sometimes overtly, at other times he implied this. John has recorded many of Jesus’ claims to be at least the source of life; Bread of life, Water of life (4:13-14 7:37), Light of the World, giver of eternal life(10:28). At last his ultimate claim, “I and the Father are one” (10:30)

So we have Jesus, born in Nazareth, also called the Christ. Why was he called this? Christ is the Greek word , Christos, which means ‘anointed one”. This is the word the Jewish people used to describe their coming Messiah.

The claim that followers of Jesus make is that he is the looked for Messiah, the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. To ascertain the veracity of this belief, we need to match the expectations of the Messiah with the life of Jesus.

Who is the Messiah, and why is he important?
The Messiah was eagerly anticipated by the Jewish people at the time of Jesus. Various prophecies pointed toward a person who would come and bring about the Age to Come, the dawn of the Kingdom of God.

Zeph 1:14-18 Speaks of a time in which God would break into this world and punish sin, 3:8-13 speaks of a time where God would rule and put humanity to right. This coupled with prophecy in Isaiah 9:6, and Daniel 7:13 of a deliverer, and one with authority form God built a picture which the Jewish people interpreted as either a “warrior prince” who would come from among them and deliver them through battle from their oppressors, or as a time where one LIKE a man would suddenly break in and the gentiles would be judged. Either way, this messiah would bring a powerful and sudden end to the current world order.

In addition to the prophecies in the scriptures, many apocalyptic writings of the time expanded on the idea of messiah, bringing both accurate and not accurate expectations to the minds of people.

Did Jesus claim to be the Messiah?
Not all agree that Jesus believed that he was the messiah. One incident in John 6:14 depicts Jesus actually running away from a group of people who believed he was the Messiah and intended to make it public. This may have been because of the misconceptions the people had of the Messiah. Jesus was infact the Messiah, but not in the way they supposed. This is confirmed when Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is, and upon Peter’s answer, “You are the Messiah” (TNIV), Jesus asks them not to reveal this to anyone (Mark 8: 29f). This shows that Messiah is an accurate title for him, but he is choosing to not publicly reveal it yet.

When Jesus does reveal it, he does so to the most unlikely of people, (John 4:26) a Samaritan lady. At that time Jewish people did not speak to the Samaritans, and in neither society were women considered reliable, yet Jesus revealed the truth to this woman first. Perhaps this was indicative of the change in thinking that he wanted to bring to the minds of people.

Was Jesus the Messiah?
The role of the Messiah was to bring about God’s Kingdom. The work of Jesus is important to look at here. How did Jesus work to bring about the Kingdom of God? Unlike the common expectation, Jesus did not lead any great military conquest. On the contrary he even appeared to be a pacifist, urging his followers to put away their swords when he was arrested, and healing the man (his enemy) whom had been injured in the event (Luke 22:49f)!

Instead Jesus filled this role in a way far deeper than anyone could have predicted or understood. Firstly, Jesus revealed God to human understanding, he spoke truth, but more than that he was truth. He said, “anyone who knows me, knows the Father” (Jn 14:7) and John begins explaining that Jesus is the revelation of God (Jn 1:1). This role of a prophet fulfils prophesy about the Messiah found in Deut 18:15 “The Lord your God will raise up a prophet like me from among your people.” Though the connection is not immediately obvious, Peter identifies this verse as pertaining to Jesus (Acts 3:22).

The second part of Jesus fulfilment in the role of Messiah is that he also acted to reconcile us to God, then next step in the coming of God’s kingdom. This is referred to as his priestly role. Jesus had the unique position of being both fully God and fully man. This means that he could come before God, on the behalf of man precisely because he himself was a man. A creature cannot act on behalf of an entirely different creature; it can only act on behalf of its own kind. Jesus, the man, was entirely qualified to do this (Jn 1:14). Jesus also made a sacrifice on behalf of the people to atone for them. The meaning of this is that Jesus in his priestly role made a sacrifice that was to pay for the sin of the people against God. The flip side is that because he was God and without sin, his sacrifice was pure enough to suffice, and remove the necessity of further sacrifice.

By bridging the gap that had made God and people separated, and had allowed evil to rule in the world, Jesus also fills the Messianic role of ruler and King. There was the promise to King David, that God would establish his throne forever (2 Sam 7:12) which the people eagerly awaited. At Jesus birth the heavens proclaimed his kingship, which was recognised by the Magi, (Mt 2:2) and the angel of God promised his mother that he would be such a king (Like 1:31). He claimed that the Son of Man was the ruler of the Kingdom of God – and he himself was the son of man (Mat 13:41). As the Kingdom of God is present wherever people acknowledge his rule and authority, it is certain that Jesus fills this role. Jesus was acknowledged by the people as King in the triumphal entry (Luke 19:38) and his charge at his death was for claiming to be, “the king of the Jews” (Jn 19:42f)

So Jesus fills most adequately the role of Messiah, God’s anointed one.

CD2-A

2006-01-18T01:33:00.000+10:30

“Why don’t you just operate under the authority of the church? – after all it is God’s ordained tool for his mission!”

It is true that churches are a tool that God uses for mission, however, study of the early church as presented in Acts and the Epistles shows that this method is not the sole tool that God uses in the mission of his kingdom.

For sure the model of the local congregation has prominence in the New Testament. A mission band is another model which is shown to us. The mission band differs somewhat from the local congregation (church). It is based on the model used by itinerate Jewish rabbis who would travel proselytising, whereas the church is based on a synagogue, community pattern. In a mission band, such as Cornerstone seeks to be a dynamic equivalent of, the band is limited in number, due to the specific commitment that is made. In our case we are defined by a commitment to actively live as disciples of Jesus and seek to make disciples, and to study to increase our knowledge of God and his kingdom. A local congregation however is defined by it’s geography. As a result, it embraces a wide range of commitments, and focuses on the life of the body of the congregation. The members of a mission band accept an altered lifestyle, which involves a humble income and limited personal belongings, a more disciplined standard of behaviour, restrictions for a time on personal relationships; in short, a small range of commitment is embraced. These things are because we are established specifically for mission, and we embrace a lifestyle of mission.

A mission band is structured and operated entirely different to the local church. A good example of this kind of band is found in 3 John. Here we find reference to a group of brothers who are not under the authority of the church, but are formed rather “for the sake of the Name”. They were itinerate, but fellowshipped with local congregations.

Cornerstone teams, as I’ve already said are structured in this fashion. A team is a group of disciples who have been sent by a Cornerstone centre to live in a town and spread the message of God’s Kingdom there. A team has a leader who is responsible for the team, but acts under the authority – as do all of the team, of Cornerstone community, but ultimately under the authority of Jesus Christ who gave the mission to all who follow him.

So while both local congregations, mission bands [and others] are tools God uses to further his Kingdom, Cornerstone choses the model of mission band, and we do not operate under the authority of a local church to help keep our mission clear and focused.

The following are all key elements of the mission band model, and are important aspects of a Cornerstone mission team.

Objectives, priorities and strategies are all important for determining and following through the mission. The way that we implement these is to decide on a statement of purpose as a team – something which captures the spirit and desires of the team and which directs our priorities – goals. The goals are important as they describe the specific areas which the team wants to follow. Having decided on the directions the team then follows through with strategies and tasks. These detail the practical ways in which the team will endeavour to fulfil the mission. They serve two purposes, to direct the team in the way they are going together, and then as a check to see if the original purposes being reached, and to help us determine if the goals and strategies are still relevant

The structure is the mode in which we operate in a team. This includes how the mission team approaches work, community, mission and discipleship. For a Cornerstone team, the structure includes work that it supports the team but it is viewed as an act of worship, and a mission field. Community is vital as it supports the inter-team relationships where the team grow together and provide a welcoming and supportive atmosphere for those who it attracts. Mission is the main focus of a mission team, and is the central focus, while discipleship holds the whole thing up. If we are not first disciples of Christ who are growing in our walk with him, we will lack the power and motivation with which we spread the message of the gospel. For many of us on a Cornerstone team this includes our studies as both material for growth, and as a discipline.

In a team a financial basis needs to be gotten from somewhere. Some mission teams (not within Cornerstone) choose to ask other Christians to support them, however Cornerstone teams chose to follow the example of Paul and be financially sustainable – so as not to be a burden on anyone, and possibly to ward off the treat of becoming lazy.

Corporate life – better described as community life, as I explained in the structure is vital. To share together our spiritual lives, to worship together and to carry each other’s burdens, and celebrate each other’s joys will mark as being different. It will give us the flavour of the Kingdom of God. A strong corporate life in a team will be a place of exhortation, discipline, and nurture and above all, love. This tangible expression of God’s love will draw others to him, and keep us refreshed and strong spiritually so that we can continue the work God has called us to.

The original ecclesia (grk) were an assembly or gathering. The early churches picked up on this word to describe what it was they did together. Cornerstone mission bands too can be called a dynamic expression of ecclesia, being both relevant and contemporary.

Characteristics of the early ecclesia include
teaching of the apostles,
worship (including a wide range of activities and expressions)
love
commitment to living simply,
community
evangelism.

In our teams we are committed to study of the scriptures, and learning from those who have gone before us in faith. This is a contemporary expression of devotion to the apostle’s teachings.

Worship is expressed as an activity of daily life, but also in corporate worship times, prayer, breaking bread, and work.

Love should be the foundation of all we do. It is the mark of a disciple of Jesus and should hold first priority on team.

We work as much is required to meet bills and commitments, and to offer hospitality to people. We each work reduced hours to maximise time available to work for God’s Kingdom and disciple people. We do not live extravagantly, so that we can give generously.

Community is expressed creatively and worked on consciously. We share our living space and commit to love each other intentionally. We are also ready to share with those who enter our home, and share relationship with them.

Evangelism is the purpose of our team. A mission team actively seeks to win people for God’s kingdom, and this is done in creative and genuine ways. We do not seek to use gimmicks or mass produce converts, but we are a team specifically for the purpose of introducing people to the truth of God’s Kingdom. This looks (as it should) different in every team and town.

What I learned [CD1-A]

2006-01-18T01:16:00.000+10:30

In this CD1-A module we visited many things that I had previously heard about and had made a part of my life and belief. One thing that was covered in greater depth was the eschatological framework of the Kingdom of God. To see that God’s kingdom was a matter of whether I put myself under his rule or not is a challenge. It means that I have to actively choose his kingdom. In praying “your kingdom come” I have to follow through in my life the next part of the Lord ’s Prayer. “Your will be done”. That is an active challenge that I think will continue with me always.

I think the single most impacting part of this unit was the idea of walking in the spirit. I’ve heard this many times before, I’ve attempted to practice it in my life, and I’ve even taught it to others. The STAR and HELP reminders hold principles that I have already studied and attempted to practice. I think though, that my fundamental thinking was flawed. I remember a conversation with Russel about whether it was actually possible to be perfect. I argued that humanity is irreversibly flawed, and that I can’t help but sin – even if I don’t want to, citing Paul in Romans 7:21f as evidence that even he couldn’t stay free from sin. Russ countered my argument by explaining that as long as I continue walking in step with the spirit, I need not sin. Of course as soon as I do fall out of step with the Spirit I will sin, but it is possible to be pure. He also pointed out the last part of Romans 7:25 “Thanks be to God who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

This I realised was a new way of thinking. Before I had resigned myself to sin, and in doing so let it rule over me, as if it were stronger than the Spirit if God. Instead of saying “Of course I sin, how can I do otherwise?” And leave it at that, I can now say like Brother Lawrence “ By myself I will sin, and can’t do otherwise, unless You, God enable me.”

The last thing that impacted me in the module was the phrase in HELP – Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness. The idea of not just wishing for righteousness or agreeing with it in principle, but actually being hungry and thirsty for it has grabbed me. I think of that thirst on a hot night when I wake up and need a drink. I know that if I don’t quench it I will be unable to sleep and a headache will soon follow. I greatly desire a drink at that time, so much that I will risk a stubbed toe or banged head (as usually happens because I’m not awake properly) to get it. I don’t care what I have to use as a cup, so long as I can have a drink. Do I feel like that for righteousness? I confess that I have only rarely. Since reading that phrase though at the beginning of my time here, it had whet my appetite. I have felt the rumblings that desire more and a genuine yearning for righteousness in my life.

These are the things, after some months of reflection that have made an impact on me from this module.

Daniel A character s

2006-01-03T12:10:00.000+10:30

Daniel: A character study.

“Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone. Dare to have a purpose firm, dare to make it known.”

These words we sung out loudly in my church when I was young. I remember family worship times; being read some of the stories of Daniel, my parents exhorting us to be a Daniel, as us kids marched around the room singing, “All hail to Daniel’s band!... Dare to be a Daniel…” .

Daniel was a young man, probably of noble descent (1:3), who was taken along with much of his country, into captivity by the Babylonians in 597BC. It is assumed that Daniel was taught of God by his family, which allowed him to stand strong in the midst of overwhelming modernity and wonder, in the city of Babylon. Our first glimpse of Daniel is that he shows aptitude for learning (1.4), he is an intelligent man. Often this combination of intelligence and youth breeds arrogance, but we see none of this about Daniel. His first character trait becomes known as the young men are given a diet of choice food. Daniel decides before God that he will not partake of this food, and informs the officials of this.  This self control must not have come easy, especially for one who is already noble, and likely to have eaten this rich food before. However, Daniel listens to his conscience, and humbly proposes an alternative. More than intelligence, Daniel shows wisdom in the dealing of this situation. Both Daniel and the band of young men that he led were favoured by God and given wisdom, and understanding (1:17)

This action required courage – to question the king’s command could have killed him, however this is not the only instance in which Daniel displays courage. Later when the King Belshazzar was condemned by God with the writing on the wall (5:1ff), Daniel accuses him of being arrogant (5:22f), a courageous statement!  Of course, the other well know example of Daniel’s courage, is his undying faithfulness to God. When the King decreed that anyone who prays to anyone or thing would be executed, Daniel continued in his ritual of prayer, thanks giving, and asking God for help (6:10f) It is here that surely we find the mainspring of Daniel’s courage – his faithfulness to God (6:20), and unceasing prayer. Prayer is a highlight of the character of Daniel. For much of the book he is consulting God on a matter, or God is giving him dreams and visions concerning things. This prayer also reveals Daniel’s trust in God. A major part of the book concerns Daniel’s prayer and conversation regarding the return of Israel, as prophesied by Jeremiah (9:2). Daniel believed God’s promise, and laboured to that end.

Daniel also is characterised by integrity. This quality is one which people today value so highly, and it is rarely found. Just as politicians engage in mudslinging in our society, so they did in circa 500BC. Chapter 6 of Daniel retells the story of Daniel and the lions. His political peers desired to remove him, and looked for dirt on him (6:4) but his integrity in all matters meant they could find none. These shrewd men then decided to condemn him on his virtue, and the well known story follows, that Daniel’s integrity was so strong, that he would not hide the fact that he prayed to his God, the only God. A reoccurring theme in Daniel’s life is a noticeable lack of arrogance and a high degree of humility. In his revelations of dreams Daniel begins by disclaiming the credit for the interpretation. It was not his wisdom, he states, but it was revealed to him by the true God (2:30) He shuns reward for his interpretations (5:17), but also accepts such authority and responsibility as is given him (5:29, 6:2)

Perhaps the most amazing thing about Daniel’s character is how others described him. Three different Babylonians describe him as one “who has within him the spirit of the holy gods” (4:8f; 4:18; 5:11; 5:14). From this it can be inferred that Daniel was one of those rare examples of men, who had the spirit of God indwelling them. This was obvious to the people around him whom he served. An interesting thing too, is that in Ezekiel 14:14, there is mention of 3 men that God considered righteous, Noah, Daniel and Job. There is some contention whether this passage is referring to Daniel, or Danel – an ancient literary figure, which would seem more likely to be the case, because Daniel was still alive at the time of Ezekiel’s writing, but the New Bible Commentary explains that Daniel could actually be the person implicated, in light of the pattern of being recused from God’s judgement, and the men’s faithfulness. In any case, Daniel was without doubt, a righteous and Godly man.

Daniel is a man who provides a fantastic picture of what can happen in a life solely devoted to God. I hope that many more children, young people and adults will “dare to be a Daniel” and stand  courageously, and intelligently for their God.

Prophets + Kings = ?

2005-11-07T20:46:00.000+10:30

Israel in the early monarchy had a chequered history when it came to the relationship between prophet and king. The first prophet king relationship was that of Samuel and Saul. Samuel was directed by God to choose Saul as a king, to rule Israel – the place that Samuel until then had effectively occupied. Having been chosen by God, Saul was accountable for his position to God, through his prophet, unlike the neighbouring kings who had absolute authority. It appears that Saul did not have a personal relationship, as such, with God but heard from God through his prophet. One instance we see this clearly in is in 1 Samuel 13, where Saul takes the priestly office upon himself. This was Samuel, the prophet’s role, and God rebuked Saul severely, warning him that his kingship would be removed from him. This direct approach to God was taken as a serious offence, possibly because Saul did not have a personal relationship with God, and was acting according to his power as king. As he soon discovered this was not his power, but the prophet’s.

Samuel again had to bring Saul God’s word of judgement when Saul directly disobeyed God in Chapter 15. In this instance Saul is clearly acting out of pride in his position. To have a captive king is a great thing! God is not pleased with this, and the prophet comes into play reminding Saul that it is not him who in the ruler of this nation, but God. At the end of his life Saul consults Samuel, who is dead. He states that he has tried to enquire of the Lord himself in various ways, but he was not answered. So he went to his usual intermediator, Samuel. This model of Kingship worked, or could have worked with the Prophet standing alongside the King, channelling God’s voice so the king could rule as God directed. Saul failed to recognise this.

Meanwhile, God had used Samuel to anoint another king. This man, David had a personal relationship with God “a man after God’s own heart”. Samuel did indeed guide David in the ways of the Lord, with David escaping to Samuel after one of Saul’s assassination attempts, and God protected him. However the big difference between David and Saul is that David had a relationship with God, and even before becoming king, would consult God on important matters – see 1 Sam 22. God did not rebuke David for his familiarity with him, because I believe, it was based on mutuality. David knew God, and God knew David. This being said, God still wanted David to know that the power was his, even when he was King and well established. In the act of killing Uriah, and seducing Bathsheba, David had sinned against God willingly, so it took a prophet to break through to David’s hardened heart. Similarly, God used a prophet to break the news that he was not to build the temple that he desired. David replied then, directly to the Lord. The prophet was still important in David’s reign, showing that God is still the one in charge of Israel.

The prophet and King are kind of like a jigsaw puzzle. A king can reign, but his reign is unsuccessful with out a power source. That power source was God, through his prophet, his intermediator. I think God made them work together to keep them both humble and reliant on him.

Galatians 3:23-25

2005-11-04T00:26:00.000+10:30

What follows is my first attempt at an exegetical essay. I found the research to be far more exciting than the essay! Unfortunately I could not (or am not skilled yet) in conveying much of that information in a 800-1000 word essay)

Galatians 3:23 – 25

A reading of the Epistles in the New Testament will reveal one of the major issues that the early Christian church had to wrestle greatly with was the issue of freedom and the purpose of the law. The apostle Paul (1.1) addressed this issue with the Galatians throughout the whole of his letter, and in Galatians 3:32-25 explained what the purpose of the Mosaic Law is, and what part it plays in our salvation.

Paul writes this letter in the form of a rebuke-request. He uses the typical “I am astonished…”(1:6) to convey his dismay at the false teachings the Galatians are accepting, particularly in regard to the relationship  between the Law and faith in Christ (1:16). He  then requests them to “be like me”(4:12) in their understanding of this vital doctrine of freedom from the completely unnecessary tyranny of the Law. Up until Galatians 3:23, Paul offers an example from his own experience with the church leaders being tangled in this very issue (2:11) and argues from the example of Abraham that it is faith in God which justifies (3:1 – 22). In fact, he tells them, Abraham was justified “430 years” before the law arrived (3:17). Using legal argument, Paul proves that the promise given to Abraham is not nullified by the subsequent Law.(3:15 – 17) Paul then tackles the obvious question which follows such an argument. If justification is available outside of the law, “what is the purpose of the law?”(3:19)

The first idea Paul introduces here is that of “faith” (3:23), the same faith discussed earlier as being “faith in Jesus Christ” (3:22). Faith (Grk: pistis) has the implication of a firm conviction, based on trust (Vines, 1985) in Christ (3:22). Paul prefaces “this faith with “before”.  He tells us that before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law. Literally, we were “being kept” (Grk: phroureō), in the same way that a city is guarded by posting soldiers around it (Acts 9:24, 2 Cor 11:32) (Thayers, 1981), by the mosaic law (Grk: nomo), in it’s capacity as a commandment (Vines 1985). The law guarded us in the same way that God’s love guards our hearts (Phil 4:7). We were locked up (Grk: sugkleiō) completely subject to the law (Thayers, 1981), until such a time as faith is revealed to us.

Paul then changes the metaphor from a remand situation, to a 1st century school-type arrangement. He says that the law was like a guardian (Grk: paidogōgos), a concept familiar to his Galatian audience (1:2), where a slave would be appointed paidogōgos to an upper class boy, and direct his every action, teaching and guiding him in the largest to smallest matters this relationship differs strongly from a father type relationship, being more severe (Thayers, 1981), and for a specific time. Paul uses this metaphor in 1 Cor 4:15 to clarify his relationship with the Corinthians, that they may have many paidogōgos, but not many fathers. The English translations state that this guardian was put in charge of us to “lead us to Christ”. The Greek does not say “lead us”, but the implication is in the word  paidogōgos, that this law instructs us in a way which leads us to Christ. As a supervisor is the duty of the paidogōgos to show us the transition to faith in Christ. So by what means are we lead? Romans 3:20 explains that the law gives us awareness of sin. (Rom 5:20, 7:7 Gal 3:19) Being lead in such a way, we are justified (Grk: dikaioō) shown to be righteous (Vines 1985) . Notice this is not of our own doing that we make ourselves righteous, but an action applied to us. The Jewish people previously thought, the law could  render us as righteous to God by means of itself, but instead we now find that it leads us to Christ, who in our faith declares us righteous.(Rom 3:20a)

This revelation has far-reaching implications that Paul spells out in Gal 3:25. The direct result of this faith is that we are released from the law, we are no longer its ward. We are now the children of God, and as such heirs of his (3:29)! It is of vial importance that the law delivers us to Christ. If the law could make us righteous, which it can not (1:21, 3:21) then we would be forever bound to it. Paul’s first metaphor of the guarded enclosure is like this, an inescapable presence (3:23). As it is, since Christ came we can be free from the law, one of the great promises of Galatians, because having been brought to Christ we no longer have need for a guardian, we are now taken as sons of God (3:26) Paul elaborates on this theme further saying that as children heirs are no different to slaves(4:1), being under command and unable to access the full rights of sonship, but when the rights of an heir, in this case, the very Spirit of God (4:6) are transferred to him he is full grown and free from the trustees he was under (4:6)

This is an astounding truth which can and should stretch to the fatherest reaches of our lives! The law is designed to lead us to Christ, because without anything to compare ourselves to, we are incapable of seeing our sinfulness. So we should rejoice that the law brought us to a place where righteousness was possible, through a relationship with God, and then leave it behind. It is not the other way around. We need not keep the law in our lives! Who after graduating from school keeps their teacher with them in their new job? If still need the teacher, then we have not learned what we needed to in order to do our job sufficiently. On the contrary we are equipped to function apart from our teacher, and so it is with the law. Once we have been justified through faith in Christ, we are released from the supervision of the law, into freedom. “It is for freedom that we have been set free” (Gal 5:1), so to be weighed down again by a now obsolete law is ridiculous! More than that, it grieves the heart of Christ who freed us. To actively cut away ties from the law now that we are in Christ also helps us from tripping on the dangerous temptation to become self-righteous, deluding ourselves into thinking that we somehow through our own efforts attained this right standing with God. The law would have us believe so, if it is allowed to linger.

Today as a disciple of Christ, not having been subject to the law in the same way as the Jewish Christians once more, it is disconcertingly simple to fall into the same traps the Galatians fell into, thinking that right standing with God comes through Christ, plus something else. Christ plus tithing, Christ plus the emerging church scene, Christ plus theological study, Christ plus a life of relative poverty. Worse still it is so easy to pull others down into those same conditions! When I practice these things, I’m not only hindering my own growth and journey on the path of holy living, but I put chains on others so that they can not move forward themselves. Paul’s teaching here plainly shows that nothing else is necessary for righteousness, that it is faith in Christ that fulfils God’s requirements. Christ has come so we have no need for a law that binds and snares us. It is true that Christ may call us to some of the mentioned actions or places in our act of obedience to him, but it is out of response to him, not that requirements of others that we take up Christ’s yoke, which is not heavy (Matt 11:30). The yoke of slavery (Gal 5:1) is not mine to pick-up again or to place on anyone else.

Paul ends Galatians with this charge to all who are now newly adopted as heirs of God. It is not the outward marks of a law that matter. It is an entirely “new creation” (6:15) that God is transforming us into, by faith in Christ. This is a most exciting prospect!
References
Thayer, J., H (1981) The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, Peabody; Hendrickson

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., White, W.,(1985) Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Nashville: Nelson

The Holy Bible, New International Version (1984) Zondervan Bible Publishers

Places I got my information on Cromwell

2005-10-24T20:20:00.000+09:30

Renwick, A.M & Harman A, M., (1985) The story of the Church (2nd Ed.) Leister: Inter Varstiy Press

Grun, B (1991) The Timetables of History (3rd Ed) New York:Touchstone

Plus these websites between 18/10/2005 and 24/10/2005

http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/exhibitions/Cromwell/cromwell.kiosk.htm "A brave bad man": Oliver Cromwell, 1599-1658

http://www.yourmapsonline.org.uk/SouthBritain1787.jpg SouthBritain1787

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/DIVRIGHT.HTM The Euorpean Enligntenment Glossary, Divine Right of Kings

http://www.bartleby.com/65/pu/puritani.htm Bartleby.com Great books Online

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0529_Bios-_Oliver_Cromwel.html Models for Reformation: Oliver Cromwell, Lord
Protector of England (1599-1658)

http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=cromwell EIPS Oliver Cromwell

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/11/08.html John Milton - Poet

http://www.olivercromwell.org/quotes1.htmQuotes of Oliver Cromwell

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/macauley-cromwell.html Modern History Sourcebook:

Thomas Macauley: On Oliver Cromwell

http://www.bigeastern.com/ludd/nl_cromw.htm Bootmarks on History Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of England

http://www.olivercromwell.org/time_line.htm Oliver Cromwell time-line

http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/cromwell.html Oliver Cromwell:

Constitutional Crisis in England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritanism Puritan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell Oliver Cromwell From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

What are puritans?

2005-10-24T20:19:00.000+09:30

The Puritans were a group of protestants who came out of the Reformation. In England they were born from a reaction against Anglicanism which they felt was too ‘Catholic’ in it’s service and traditions, and was such needed ‘purifying’. They opposed the church structure of bishops and priestcraft, and the control of the church by the state. Ministers were chosen from and by the local congregation of believers, with preaching an important part of the service, unlike the Anglican church of the time.

Puritans believed that nothing should be done in worship that was not detailed in the scriptures, this included most of the Anglican service. This lead to a massive separation between the Puritan and Anglicans when James I introduced the compulsory usage of the Book of Common Prayer. The puritans believed the book to be unscriptural and refused to use it. As a result many of their ministers were fined and thrown in jail for their refusal to bend to the King’s demand. This continued with the rule of Charles I also.

Puritanism was strongly influenced by the work of Calvin, having in common the ideas of predestination, that God was the supreme authority over human life, not the king, that salvation
is through a continual work of God’s grace, and the Christian’s fight against sin, and endeavour to please God. Bible study was the responsibility of the individual.

The puritans were against excesses of all types, feast days and holidays, sports (especially on the Lord’s Day) and some even despised music as sinful. Dancing and entertainment were out of the question.

There were several branches of Puritans, the Presbyterians who were quite militant in imposing their beliefs, the independents who believed that a church was any autonomous gathering of believers, and other differences.

The Puritans are commonly seen as bigoted fundamentals and extremists, which many were, but they begin simply as devoted and radical believers who wanted to see a return to biblical traditions in the church.

The Church in England in the 1500s-1600s

2005-10-24T20:18:00.000+09:30

In the past hundred or so years the church in England had switched between being protestant and Catholic, depending on who was ruler at the time. The Tudors, Henry VIII and his children were experts at working the people and effecting change as it suited them. Of course not everyone was happy though. The monarchs and their alliances were as follows.

King Henry VIII - Church of England - political reasons
King Edward VI - Church of England - devout, established Book of Common Prayer
Queen Mary - Catholic - Persecuted all protestants
Queen Elizabeth - Church of England - established a middle way
James I - Commissioned KJV of bible to quell heresy (such as the puritans)
Charles I - Church of England - Married a Catholic, encouraged traditions and “catholic type” service

The puritan faction had risen in in the time of Elisabeth, disappointed at her “middle road”. The puritans had faced persecution for a long time, and their church meetings were considered illegal, due to their refusal to use the Book of Common Prayer. Scotland at this time was fiercely Presbyterian, and when the Prayer book was enforced on them they weren’t happy! In fact, the first time a church leader got up to use the prayer book in a Presbyterianism church in Scotland, and old lady threw her chair at him! A revolt followed, and the Scots were given freedom to practice Presbyterianism.

Charles I grew up in Scotland in the midst of Puritan thought, however he proved to be an enemy of Puritanism declaring “Presbytery agreeth as well with a monarch as god and the devil” his main quarrel with puritanism was the idea that God was the authority of the individual person, not the monarch, whereas Charles believed as did in his predecessors, in the Divine Right of Kings.

For the record, Charles was not executed because Cromwell and his followers were being vindictive, rather they gave him the first option of relinquishing his claim to the throne, and letting one of his sons rule (with certain conditions), but his refusal to agree and let go of his Divine Right saw him condemned to death.

Cromwell brought a strict rule to England for the 15 years of his power, but it could not be held by his son Richard. The parliament was tired of the tyrannical rule anyway, and asked Charles II, son of Charles I to come to the throne, and restore the “middle way”

A short biography

2005-10-24T20:15:00.000+09:30

Oliver Cromwell was born April 25th, 1599. His family were lower middle class, Cromwell describing himself as “a gentleman by birth, living neither in any considerable height, nor yet in obscurity”. He was educated at Cambridge, where it is reported that the spent more time and energy on playing sports than he did on any kind of study! 1620 He married Elizabeth Bourchier, with whom he had 9 children; ofthese seven reached adulthood. Cromwell’s main occupation was farming and managing his family’s property in Huntington - his place of birth.

At the age of 27 in 1626, Cromwell’s life changed, due to an encounter with God. He realised his fallen state and need for salvation. He is described as being henceforth a Christian man, not on Sunday only but in all days, and in all cases.” He worked hard, prayed much and sometimes he preached in the local Puritan congregation. Elected Justice of the Peace, Cromwell kept order, in his town, and even in thenext town, where students were causing disputes. He was highly thought of by the people who lived in the area. Reports conflict whether Cromwell was a quiet man, or a more sanguine personality, but all agree that he was for the most part a very thoughtful and serious individual.

He was elected to parliament at the request of his peers in 1628, mostly on grounds of his religious standing and convictions. This parliament was dissolved in 1629, because King Charles I could not control it. It was easier for the king to rule without the parliament questioning and blocking his moves. After this time, Cromwell and his family moved to Ely, where his Uncle lived at the time. He spent his time there praying, thinking, and aiding ministers who were being persecuted for their convictions.

Charles I reassembled parliament, for selfish motives in 1640, and Cromwell was elected as the member for Cambridge this time, and as before was a member of the Independent party - a branch of the Puritans. Disagreement between the king, and the opposition - the puritans escalated in this new parliament. The King believed in the “divine right of Kings” which gave him absolute authority. The new legislation the parliament wanted to pass interfered with that right, and Charles I did not like it. Charles I also had married a Catholic princess, and was persecuting Puritans who would not use the Anglican book of prayer, which contributed to the tension between the King and Parliament. So eventually a civil war broke out in England.

Cromwell was middle aged by this time - over 41 with no previous military experience. Perhaps it is because of this that he became such a successful military leader. He wasn’t the leader of the parliamentary army to begin with, just the leader of a small group. He remarked that he would “rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.” He brought together a thousand farmers; men who feared God, had good character, and fought with the courage of conviction, and discipline rarely seen before or since that time. Cromwell’s regiment was called the Ironsides, and won many victories, winning the war ultimately when more experienced leaders on both sides were failing. His army would be a strange sight marching out singing and reciting the Westminster Confession. One writer remarked that Cromwell’s army was “the only body of regular troops on either side who preached, prayed, paid fines for profanity and drunkenness”

To cut a long story short, the parliamentary army won the civil war, and Charles was eventually arrested, and tried for tyranny. The main charge laid against him was using an Irish Catholic army in the civil war. This had inflamed the Puritans immensely, and Charles I was executed, an action Cromwell called a “cruel necessity”. Cromwell, refusing the official title of King was appointed Lord Protector of England, a kind of military dictator of a “Commonwealth” of England. In this time he did many things what were positive for both England, and Protestantism. He won many military victories, and for the most part managed the army well. He promoted freedom of religion - for almost everyone, except of course the Catholics and to a lesser extent Anglicans, though they were tolerated. This included non-Christian religions too, so for the first time in hundreds of years, Jewish people came to live in England again. People were encouraged to have a “personal” relationship with God, and be personally responsible for their faith. Some of the not so positive things were that Cromwell raised taxes to a high level, because though he was successful in war, they were costly also - a problem the monarchy had also faced. He also had problems controlling the parliament which was now made up of radical independents, who tried to impose many impractical laws. Eventually Cromwell did the very thing that had angered him and so many puritans when Charles I tried it, he dissolved Parliament.

While the extremists were in power however, they imposed many restrictions that the people of England did not appreciate, like the banning of holidays and feast days, including Christmas, because of the excesses and lusts of the day. It may be because of this type of action that Cromwell himself said in response to a cheering crowd, “ the people would be just as noisy if they were going to see me hanged”. And indeed, after attending Cromwell’s lavish funeral when he died suddenly in 1658, John Evelyn wrote in his diary, “Saw the superb funeral of the Protector:...but it was the joyfullest funeral that I ever saw, for there were none that cried, but dogs, which the souldiers hooted away with a barbarous noise; drinking and taking tobacco in the streets as they went.”

When Charles II was crowned king after Cromwell’s death, he avenged the death of his own father Charles I, by exhuming Cromwell’s body. He then hanged the body for a day, decapitated it, then buried the body, while exhibiting the head at Westminster Hall for almost another 30 years.

Cromwell

2005-10-24T20:09:00.001+09:30

Oliver Cromwell and

Relevant Events in History

1543 Spanish Inquisition burns first 'Protestants' at the stake

1560 Geneva Bible published

1572 John Knox dies

1599 Oliver Cromwell is born

1603 James VI of Scotland becomes James I of England

1611 King James Version of the Bible published

1616 Copernicus theory outlawed

1616 Shakespeare dies

1620 Oliver Cromwell denounced by Puritans for playing the “disreputable game of cricket.”

1625 Charles I becomes King of England

1628 Cromwell elected to Parliament

1629 Charles I dissolves Parliament

1632 First coffee shop opens in London

1640 Isaac Newton born

1640 'Short' and 'Long' Parliaments in England

1641 Irish Rebellion, Catholics massacre Protestants

1642 Galileo died.

1642 English Civil war begins

1646 English Civil war ends

1647 Charles I Imprisoned

1649 Charles I beheaded

1649 England becomes a Commonwealth

1649 Cromwell defeats Ireland

1650 Cromwell defeats Scotland

1650 Rene Descartes died

1650 Tea first drunk in England

1653 Cromwell officially called “Lord Protector” of England

1655 Cromwell dissolves Parliament, dividing England into 11 districts.

1657 Cromwell rejects title of King

1657 Drinking Chocolate introduced in London

1658 Cromwell dies

1660 Charles II proclaimed King

1661 Cromwell posthumously executed

Image Bearers

2005-09-20T23:26:00.000+09:30

Part 1
A book that I recently read, A Matrix of Meaning expressed a desire to “look closer to examine where God may be lurking”. They “turn to pop-culture in … efforts to understand God and understand the 21st Century face of Jesus.” So why do the authors, Detweiler & Taylor feel that they can see God in the expressions of our collective culture? The basis of their assumption is that the image of God is displayed in each one of us, his created beings.

At the beginning, when God created humankind he purposely implanted us with a part of himself. The scriptures tell us that he said;
“ ‘Let us make humans in our own image, in our likeness’…
     So God created human beings in his own image,
In the image of God he created them;
Male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26, TNIV)
This poetic re-telling of the start of human existence leaves us assured that God placed his image in us. Since God is spirit, this image is not physical but is displayed clearly in the spirits of humankind.

Theologians tell us that the image of God is both universal and equal in measure, that is, no one has a greater portion of the image of God given to them, and no one misses out. The adult with an IQ of 53 has the same measure of God’s image as a teenager with an IQ of 193.

The image of God is expressed in us in many ways. One is the ability to have relationship with one another, and is shown when we love, think, meditate and use our free will. Our spirituality, dual nature, that we ourselves are supernatural beings is evidence of that image in us. It is unique to humans above all creatures. Screwtape, the principle character in C S Lewis’s journey to the dark side, Screwtape Letters talks about us human’s being made in God’s image in this way. Imagine if you will a voice filled with repulsion, “He [God] really does want to fill the world with a lot of loathsome little replicas of himself – creatures whose life will be qualitatively like his own.”

Screwtape would be disgusted I’m sure, at the display of the image of God in what Newsweek calls “a passion for immediate, transcendent experience of God”. The article speaks of how people can’t help themselves; they’re wired to search for God in his fullest form. I think that it’s his image in us, calling to be united with God himself.

A friend of mine, Digger, asked, ‘Why do people do good stuff?” He concludes that “when people seek to stand-up for those who in that moment may seem to be less fortunate that is a practical outworking of that God that is in all of us” – whether or not they follow or even believe in God. What Digger is talking about here can be seen overwhelmingly in the Australian response to the Asian Tsunami, late 2004. The Age reports of a 20 year old medical student who, moved by the suffering has spent her entire summer break serving the people in a camp in Sri Lanka. Interestingly, she reports her motivation as being a response to the kindness of the people of that region to her family when they had holidayed there a year previously. The image of God in her was responding to the image of God displayed in the people there on their last encounter.

While the outpouring of compassion in the form of money, care and volunteer effort was phenomenal in this situation, this is not a new thing. In Australia 701.1 million hours of volunteer work is done annually. 4.4 million people volunteer some of their time. The plethora of Aid organisations is testament to the fact that it’s not just Christians who care. In fact, “religious’ affiliated volunteerism accounts for only 17.6% of involvement! This want to give of our very selves, our most precious commodity, time, is further evidence of the image of God in us. It is reflective of his ultimate gift to human kind, his begotten son, Jesus.

Many things show the beauty of God’s image in us, one of those is art. A fellow blogger, Kitty of Peregrine Sojo, wrote, “the artist is a servant who is willing to be a life-giver.” She went on to explain that we are made in God’s image and as such, art and the act of creation is part of the core of us all. Creating is the first act of God, and as such by creating works of art, and inventions, we are honouring our maker.

Part 2
Though this image of God is so readily found in believers and non believers alike, the image of God has been tainted. This has damaged our relationship with God, as Romans tells us, “the wages of sin is death” and Romans 3:23 “All have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God.”

This fall does not mean that we no longer bear God’s image, the discussion in part one shows that we still do, and even God himself declares after the fall of man that “Whoever sheds human blood, by human beings shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made humankind.” Gen 9:6 According to God,  his image in us all still exists.

However humans have rejected this knowledge of God for much of time. Romans 1:18-32 explains how God made himself plain to humans, but we rejected that, choosing tangible, man-made images, rather that the incarnation of God in us. As a result God has allowed us to be taken over by the consequences of our rebellion. The image of God in us that loves truth, justice, mercy, is creative & beautiful, has given way to “every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.” So, while the image of God in us remains, it is at war with our sinful nature.

Erickson defines sin as “any lack of conformity active or passive, to the moral will of God… sin is a failure to live up to what God expects of us in act, thought and being.” It changes us, perverting the image of God in us. John writes that light and darkness cannot dwell together (1Jn 1:5-6) so sin and God’s image are incompatible. The more that we sin, the greater God’s image in us is warped.

Sin has distorted desires that once reflected God’s. His image gives us desire for things that he created as good, pleasure, authority over the earth, the desire to achieve, and they become lust, power, pride and false ambition. The things he which were good and given to us by God have become twisted and are unnatural imitations – just as in middle earth, the beautiful creations of God – the elves became orcs when evil twisted them into vile imitations which are the opposite of their intended form. When sin distorts God’s creation, the result is horrific.

Sin came from the free will that humankind was given. Our ancestors, Adam and Eve jointly chose to go against God’s instruction and therefore his desires. Thus sin with it’s already noted consequences of death and separation from God entered our world. Sin cuts us off, not only from God, but each other and creation. An example of this lost harmony is evident in a 5 minute search of today’s news, which yielded the story of a man who killed his ex lover, because she had aborted his unborn child, at the request of her husband. A mutual disregard for the sanctity of marriage a perversion of God- given desires lead to the killing of an unborn image bearer by the woman, resulting in herself an image of God being killed. A three fold tragedy. In another instance, a 19 year old man whose image as a result of the fall was marred by a combination of ADHD and Aspergers Syndrome, affected by drugs and alcohol tried to kill himself after realising that 2 of his friends were dead as a result of his driving.

Humankind’s capacity to create art and music can also be perverted in this state of fallen image bearer. A prime example is Marilyn Manson – self named after mass murderer Charles Manson. Manson commits violent acts in the performance of his music – vile acts against animals and himself. He cuts himself as a ritualistic part of his performance. As a singer revered by the Church of Satan, Manson’s fallen state take the image of God to places it was never created for. Sadly this gifted man not only affects himself but countless fans – whose God-image is also tarnished.

The image is tarnished irreversibly – as N Shyamalan’s  film The Village portrays so well. Even in the absence of influence of ‘evil’, in an environment created to foster love, simplicity and life, we are all still fallen image bearers. Death creeps into the picture as a fallen image bearer in a state of jealousy stabs another image bearer. In order to create this utopian society, image bearers have been forced to lie to their children. These examples show us that no matter how we try, human effort can not iron out this wrinkled image of God, it will snap back to it’s old state time and time again, we are powerless to stop it without the blood of Christ.

The responsibility we have to protect and honour the likeness of God in each other is a sobering thought. This is why the message of the Kingdom of God is so crucial to our world, because it brings hope! Romans 6:36 says that while sin’s consequence is indeed death, eternal life is a gift given through Jesus Christ, God’ perfect image bearer. 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 tells us that through Christ’s death comes freedom and transformation, the ever increasing image of God in us his children. Through Christ we are redeemed from our fallen state and we can grow to become true reflections of God.
References

(2005) Volunteering Australia retrieved 2005 August 25, from http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/research_stats.html

Adler, J. (2005 August 29) In Search of the Spiritual Newsweek Retrieved 2005, August 30 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9024914/site/newsweek/

Cheng. K (2005, August 08)Art and Christianity,  Posted to Peregrine Sojo http://kittycheng.blogspot.com/2005/08/art-and-christianity.html

Connolly, E (2005, February 07) Volunteer tries to ease the pain. The Age

Digger (2005, June 06) Why do people do good stuff?, Posted to No Diggity http://hotdiggityblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/why-do-people-do-good-stuff.html

Erickson, M. J., (1992) Introducing Christian Doctrine Grand Rapids: Baker Academic

Miletic, D (2005, August 25) How a drive went horribly wrong. The Age

Milne B, (1982)Know the Truth Leicester: Inter-varsity Press

Marilyn Manson (2005) History of the Band in Wikipedia Retrieved 25th August from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Manson

Shyamalan, N (Director) (2004) The Village [Motion Picture] United States: Touchstone Home Video

Unknown Author (2005, August 25) Man killed ex-lover ‘over abortion’. The Age

Monatisicm

2005-07-30T11:14:00.000+09:30

Preface: Monasticism was a very important movement in church history. It has, in my opinion many attractive facets which have challenged me while writting this assignment, discipline definatly being one of them. The other thing that challeneged me was the need to ballance my devotion to God, with interaction with the world at large. Social justice, which was practiced by monastics is another definate challenge that I wish to rise to.

It is widely considered that monasticism began around the 4^th century in reaction to the state of the church at that time. At the beginning of the 4^th century the Roman Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, resulting in it’s becoming a state sanctioned religion (Gonzalez, 1984). This in turn produced a lower standard of Christian living because it was safe be a Christian, meaning churches were filled with “a mixed multitude of half converted pagans” (Shelley, 1995, p.118) which lead to church leadership becoming a bloody power struggle (Shelley, 1995). The marriage of church and state meant there was no longer any place for martyrdom; so there were those who looked for a new expression of their sincerity and devotion to Christ. Many felt as Gonzalez sates “the narrow gate… had become so wide that countless hundreds were hurrying past it… after prestige and position” (p136). Initially the life of a hermit [white martyrdom – the daily death to self and ‘normal’ life (SharkeyLemire, 2004)] was the pattern to follow, producing those labelled the “Desert Fathers”. Those who embrace the hermit’s life of austerity, giving up basic rights of shelter and regular food are also called ‘anchorites’, a word meaning withdrawn (Gonzalez, 1984). The purpose of such withdrawal from the ‘world’ was to mimic Jesus in denial of the flesh (Moynahan, 2002) and to live a life in communion with God(Dowley, 1990), which was considered to be unachievable in the world and church situation.

While the political climate in the 4^th century was fertile soil for the Desert Fathers to grow in, it was certainly not the first time that the ascetic life, or monasticism was practiced. The older religion of Buddhism practiced monasticism (soChurch), as did other pagan traditions in the Mediterranean area (Gonzalez, 1984). Ascetic practices in Judaism predate Christianity too, as seen in the Nazarites, which took vows of abstention for a time (Dowley, 1990), and in John the Baptist, the forerunner to Christ, who with his disciples practised fasting (Shelley, 1995). Many early Christians embraced ascetic practices, as individuals like the desert fathers, not as a group like the later monasteries (lion). In his letters to churches Paul encourages singleness among young believers, because it helps them to serve God wholeheartedly, (1 Cor 7) the later apocryphal letter “Shepherd of Hermas” encourages the practices of asceticism (Shelley, 1995). Origen is a notable example of a early church father who taught these principles, and incorporated them into his life to the extent that he literally castrated himself (Gonzalez, 1984), and also the lesser forms or refusing wine, fine foods and sleeping on the bare floor (Harman, & Renwick, 1985). These ascetics, in particular the hermits considered themselves to be not leaving the world, but leaving the “world in the church” (Shelley, 1995) which sickened them.

One such ascetic and the traditional desert father, was Anthony. Born near the Nile in Egypt, Anthony had wealthy parents who died leaving him an inheritance at a relatively young age (Gonzalez, 1984). However, as a man in his 20’s, he was compelled by the story of the rich young ruler in Matt 19:21 to give away his possessions and live the life of an anchorite. Anthony lived in a tomb (Shelley, 1995) ate less than once a day, and wore a shirt made of animal skin – with the hair facing inward. These things he did in because he believed that physical suffering would strengthen his soul, bringing eternal reward (Moynahan, 2002). His lifestyle brought many onlookers, those who wanted to learn from him, and those that wanted him to perform some miracle, and the simply curious (Gonzalez, 1984). Anthony tried to run from the crowds, but persistent people kept finding him, so he eventually began to organise them in a loose community of hermits. These were non-communal groups who lived in relative silence and solitude, leaving Anthony free to pursue his hermitage away from the group (Moynahan, 2002).

Shortly after this time, a pagan convert to Christianity, Pachomius begun the first known coenobitic monastery, meaning that the people shared ‘common life’(Shelley, 1995) Pachomius was a Roman soldier who became a Christian after experiencing love and kindness from Christians. When he left the army, he became a hermit for a while, but decided that the disciplines of prayer and self denial could be better served in community, then alone (Moynahan, 2002). Pachomius’ community was characterised by moderation, at least in relation to the extreme and eccentric practices of hermits of his time (Shelley, 1995). He focused on regulation of prayer, meal and work times, dress and possessions (Moynahan, 2002). Pachomius’ community was immensely popular, each monastery housing up to 1000 men according to visitors accounts, by his death there were 9 monasteries for men, and 2 for women (Moynahan, 2002). Despite this, is was not easy to join. A prospective member of the community was required to stand outside for several days, to show seriousness of intent in joining (Gonzalez, 1984) during this time they would be assisted to learn prayers and psalms, especially those who were recently converted to Christianity (Gonzalez, 1984) such people were eagerly welcomed. Interestingly, those who had office in the church were not permitted to join, because Pachomius feared they would bring jealousy, rivalry and worldly thinking into the monastery (Moynahan, 2002). Pachomius’ work provided a framework which was to be followed by monastics of centuries to come. (Dowley, 1990)

Women were not neglected in this new movement, Pachomius’ sister Mary assisted him in founding women’s’ versions of monastic community (Moynahan, 2002). In fact it seems that women were not only included in the monastic movement from the beginning, but they may have preceded the men’s movement. Anthony is recorded to have left his sister in the care of a Parthenon, that is a community of devout women (Christianity in Egypt, 2005), when he embarked on his hermitage. (Gonzalez, 1984)

Following on from Pachomius, still in the 4^th century, Basil the Great, made a significant statement in being a Bishop, but also being committed to a ascetic lifestyle.(Dowley, 1990) His monasteries developed even more Pachomius’ ideals of moderation,(Harry Nelson, 2005) and brought a new direction to the existence of monasteries, social justice. While Pachomius’ communities were instructed to receive those who came for help, because “to despise a leper is to dishonour Christ” ( Moynahan, 2002, p. 133), Basil’s monasteries provided for the sick, poor, and uneducated (Dowley, 1990). Being a Bishop of the church, Basil believed that the church should have control over monastic communities. He also wrote out guidelines for the monasteries to run by, known as a monastic rule.

All this had happened within the 4^th century, and so less than 100 years after it began, monastic communities took root in the western world. Monasticism had been Eastern, but was brought to the West by Athanasius. Being exiled from Rome while fighting against arianism (Athanasius, 2005), he spent time with monastics which lead him to write Life of Saint Anthony. This work proved to be popular amongst people of the western church including Augustus who lived a monastic lifestyle (Gonzalez, 1984), merging a monastic community with the official church. As a cleric, Augustine lived in a committed community with like minded ascetic clerics and friends (Dowley, 1990).This brought together the monastery and church in the west.

Martin of Tours was the main father of monasticism in the west. Martin was devoted to the ascetic life, which attracted many to him (Dowley, 1990). He was active in evangelising, and showed the character of Christ to the extent that he was elected to be Bishop of Tours, against his will. (Harry Nelson, 2005) He lived next to his church building in a small cell, but withdrew again to a more distant place, where he began a monastery, training many of the next generation of bishops (Dowley, 1990). The people of the church were so impressed by Martin’s life, that it was decided that future bishops should live the monastic life. It is ironic that now monasticism was regarded so highly by the church leadership, the very institution that monasticism began in reaction to (Gonzalez, 1984)!

About 100 years on from Martin of Tours, in the late 5^th century lived Benedict of Nursia. (Harry Nelson, 2005) Benedict was an anchorite, who was asked by a group of monks to be their Abbot. The monks soon regretted this choice, because of the severity of his discipline, and tried to poison him (Shelley, 1995)! Having grown in wisdom, Benedict later founded his own monastery based on the monastic rule he developed. (Harry Nelson, 2005) This rule is significant, because it defined the life of the community, as did Pachomius and Basil’s work. At this time Benedict believed that discipline was needed to ensure the integrity of the community (Shelley, 1995). He realised that discipline must be balanced, so that it is not an overwhelming burden to men. His rule gives clear guidelines on all matters of life, from the manner and times of worship, to how kitchen duties should be arranged (Whalley, H, CH1-B Cornerstone Community. Broken Hill). Benedict designed monasteries so they could be completely self sufficient. The reason for this he said is that “there will be no need for the monks to roam about outside, because that is not at all good for their souls” (Whalley 2005) Benedictine monasteries become sanctuaries of learning, especially in the later ‘dark ages’ (Dowley, 1990). This is largely thanks to the provision Benedict made regarding work, that in the summer more time should be given to work of the hands, but in the winter, more to work of the mind (Shelley, 1995)

The other part of the world influenced by monasticism from this time was the Celtic people of Ireland, and later Scotland. The first significant missionary to Ireland, Patrick spent time training at a community on Lerin’s France (Harry Nelson, 2005) before following God’s call for him to return to Ireland, where he has previously been prisoner in his teens (Dowley, 1990). A blend of Roman, and eastern monastic styles, along with the Celtic culture merged to bring out a new fresh expression of Christian faith, and a new form of monastic life and focus. (Whalley, H, CH1-B Cornerstone Community. Broken Hill) Celtic Christianity was characterised by passionate living, and acknowledging God in every facet of life (Whalley 2005). This prompted Irish monks to be fervent evangelists. Men like Columba who because of exile - (not for pious reasons, but involvement in clan warfare (Moynahan, 2002)!) founded the community of Iona, evangelised the Scots and Pics, making the most of every opportunity to spread the gospel. Another notable Irish monk was Columbanus, who went to Europe, to evangelise the pagans there was typical of the fearlessness which celtic monastic communities breed. Irish monks in contrast to Benedictines did not fear that by leaving the monastery, the world would infect them (Dowley, 1990). Instead they gladly went out, intent on infecting the world!

The withdrawal from the world by the monastics is criticised by many, as being unChristlike. Indeed, the reasons for celibacy and other abstentions were misguided, the ascetics giving reasons for avoiding marriage as it “entangled the spiritual soul with the evil world” (Dowley, 1990). Nevertheless, the monastic life brought many positive things to the church as a whole.

It did to be sure, also bring the strange and weird, both which seemed to be especially common in Syria – ascetics sitting atop poles for a lifetime with little food or drink, denying community and fellowship (Moynahan, 2002). Organised communities helped soften the extremism that exhibited it’s self in the hermits, and on the other hand also combated the idleness, both of hermits and the average Christian of the still young church which was just as dangerous. Monastic communities were centres of learning, focus on worship and prayer, discipline, and the imitation of Christ. Shelly reminds us that it brought to the church, discipline that was lacking at the time when it was beginning to be come rich and powerful (1995). It was for this reason that the church eventually saw the need for the disciplines of monasticism, and aligned the church and monastics. Just as monasticism for all its faults was important 1500 years ago, a return to community, and a life of “prayer, study, service and rest . . . . a new form of monasticism” whose prayer is "to be as Christ to those we meet, to find Christ within them." (Fitz-Gibbon &Fitz-Gibbon 2003) could be just what the Kingdom of God needs in this age, where once again the church seems to be corrupted by power struggles, political alliances and an

apathetic mass.
References

A History of Christianity in Egypt. Retrived 25 July, 2005 from http:// www .touregypt.net/chiste3.htm

Athanasius Retrieved 25 July, 2005, from http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainta15.htm

Dowley T. (1990) The History of Christianity (Rev. ed) Oxford: Lion Publishing

Fitz-Gibbon, A, & Fitz- Gibbon, J., (2003) The Lindisfarne Community Retrieved 25 July, 2005, fromhttp://www.icmi.org/

Gonzalez, J.L., (1984) The Story of Christianity Vol 1. New York: HarperCollins Publishers

Harman, A.M, & Renwick, A.M (1985) The Story of The Church (2^nd ed.) Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press

Harry Nelson, L (2005) The Rise of Monasticism Retrieved 25 July, 2005 from http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/monasticism.html

Moynahan, B (2002) The Faith. London: Aurum Press Limited

SharkeyLemire P.A. (2004) Culture to Theology to Politics.Retrieved 25 July, 2005 from http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=980

Shelley, B.L. (1995) Church History in Plain Language (2^nd ed) Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers

Whalley, H (2005, June). Celtic Christianity. CH1-B Cornerstone Community, Broken Hill

Guided Reflection – Post Modernity

2005-06-16T20:46:00.000+09:30

CE1-A

It is said that ‘post-modernity holds to no absolute truth – except the truth, that there is no absolute truth’. This statement is often the sole extent of understanding of post modernity, held by the average church-cultured Christian in 2005. Post-modernity is far more than this. Part of the conundrum that is post-modernity is that it’s very essence defies definition. As Anna Aven writes, “pinning down postmodernism is like trying to stick Jello to a wall” (2005)

Post-modernity finds some definition in it’s traits of secularization, relativism (and pluralism), individualism, and complexity. Secularization refers to “the diminishing influence of the church on both people and institutions” (Stott, 1999. p.53). A society which in times past was controlled by the Church has now slipped out of its control and the church has little or no sway in public matters (S. Harrison, CE1-A Lecture, April 2005)

Post-modernity is the product too of relativism, a philosophy that all things are subjective to their particular viewpoint, and that no view point is superior to all others. (Westacott, 2005) This is the source of the oft-spoken criticism, that post-modernity has no absolute truth. While truth is still valid in post modernity, it is seen as being true only in relation to a particular set of beliefs, or narrative, however, that narrative can not be superior to any other set of beliefs or narrative, therefore that truth is subjective to the individual or social group (Swoyer, 2003). No one truth is applicable to all humankind. It is from this thinking that pluralism emerges. Pluralism in post-modernity is the paradox where more than one belief system can be right, because of relativism, “a system which recognises more than one ultimate principle” (Oxford Dictionary). There is a reasoning in this which defies logic, however, logic is not the main concern, seeing even that is relative, and can be seen from different viewpoints (S. Harrison, CE1-A Lecture, April 2005)

Individualism, in the context of post-modernity, states that people’s ideas and their beliefs are no longer conditional on public belief, but are a personal and subjective property (Benton, Jan 2004). Each individual defines his or her own set of beliefs, values and ethics. This is the logical extension of relativism. If no one viewpoint is superior, then I am at liberty to define my own viewpoint – for which no one can judge me, because no one outlook is superior to all others. As such, I define my own unique truth.

Compounding post-modernity is complexity, the term describing the problems and questions our society faces in this age. These issues have existed always, but are made more complex by the information revolution in which we exist, and by the technology which increases the proportion of these issues – especially compared with times past (Stott, 1999) This is not so much a facet of post-modernity, as a pre-existing human condition, complicated by post-modernity.

Post-modernity provides a new framework for ethical decision making, which our society increasingly reflects as we embrace the theory. This of course has implications which are both positive and negative on society. Secularization has a myriad of implications. Because of the marginalisation of the church, society no longer hears it as a voice in ethical matters, or if it does, it usually is as an irritating whine or feeble, irrelevant murmur. Consider the role of church today, and the function that it has in Australian society. Such is it’s separation for relevant life, that the only impact it has is on people’s consciences, if they were perhaps a member of a church, or had a religious education. More often the church has left a bitter taste in people’s minds – for one reason or another, so the separation between church and state is continually widened.

Relativism and the resulting philosophy of pluralism has undeniable implications on ethical decision making, because through it is impossible to even say one ethical pathway is absolutely correct. As objectivity is dissolved, a constant approach to ethics cannot be achieved, as no standard exists. Australian society is clearly pluralistic with many faiths and beliefs existing together side by side. This has given rise to legislation, such as the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of Victoria, which says that not only is it permissible for our society to be pluralistic, but it is illegal to disagree. This has gone so far as two Christian men being convicted for reading what the Koran said about women, and teaching that Islam is wrong, because Jesus is the only way to salvation. Not only this, but several Christian churches supported the Islamic prosecutors, in a spirit of interfaith unity.

Individualisation reduces ethical decision making to ‘what is right for me at the given time’. It does not take into account the effect on other people, as it is impossible to predict if a decision infringes on another’s beliefs and standards, if those are so individualised that they are only understood and measured by the individual. Ethical decisions are effected by this, as there is no universal standard to judge by. Actions such as lying, can be then justified because it was best for me at the time, or my moral standards allowed it, and you have no right to disagree.

Complexity has two common and opposite responses. One is to ignore the issues and leave them to ‘the experts’ as the road to grapple with them seems too daunting, or the other to offer a dogmatic, unreasoned response. The second approach is usually the one taken by those who see post-modernity as the enemy and refuse to acknowledge complexity as a reality of our situation. People are unsure what to believe in the present time about many things, so they don’t make a decision at all. (S. Harrison, CE1-A Lecture, April 2005) For example, the people of the church in general either just give up, saying “this is too complicated for me” or they jump in headfirst with a dogmatic answer which is not thought through, or reasoned from love. This is affecting our society, because Christians are not speaking God’s love and truth into a world which needs to hear it so badly.

So, given that this is the society which I exist in and engage with, how has it affected me? This question is difficult to answer, as unlike society, my adult life has been immersed in post-modernity – so little comparison can be made from within my personal experiences to modernity. In this sense then it is true to say that I have been extremely impacted by living in post-modern society. Complexity has marked the ethical choices and decisions that I have made, without a doubt! On issues such as war and compassionate killing (euthanasia) where I have not had to be involved in a decision, but merely an opinion the tension between the written word of God, and the prevailing post-modern reasoning has confused me. It is a facet of individualization that compelled me to look into these issues and mould a belief – rather than mutely accept the “truth” as given by a person in authority – for example my pastor. This encouragement to seek my ‘own truth’ has lead me to confirm the Truth of God, and accept a meta-narrative; that there is a story bigger than my own that I am a part of. This deviation is not back to modernity, rather to another whole reality, where all truth and objectivity, decision making and reason is in light of a universal God who is intimately involved with human life. Pluralism has not significantly affected my ethical decision making, however I have noticed its effect in many churches which I have been a part of – with more ‘inclusive’ and ‘tolerant’ doctrines being expressed, in an attempt to be ‘relevant’.

Post-modernity with all it’s contradictions has influenced me in helping me discover more of the one who is beyond philosophy and theories. That however is possibly more due to the miracle that God can use everything to lead to him, than post-modernity being the path to God. This deeper discovery of God has not made the issues less complex; however I now have a firm reference point from which to gauge reason and truth, which assists greatly in clarifying the issues, and sorting the complexity, and protecting me from individualization.

As a Christian, is possible to walk the tightrope of cultural relevance, and obedience to the Moral will of God. It is not easy, and is definitely dangerous, as you will no doubt be criticised by both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, dogmatic Christians will slam you for being to “liberal” and post-modernists may accuse you of not being free thinking enough. The dangerous road, the one that Christ himself walked responds to secularization by reclaiming the secular, back to the sacred. Instead of bemoaning the loss of sacredness in our present society, as followers of Jesus, we need to show our world a faith which is active, within ourselves, and that speaks to issues current in society.

One of today’s great challenges to our faith is relativism. It is not possible for us to hold the position that no one viewpoint is superior to others. Our belief in a supreme, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy God does not leave room for this belief. We do have a choice though, how we respond. We can have an attitude of smug superiority – that we have the answer, or we can have an attitude of condemnation for those whose belief is relative. Neither of these reflects the attitude of Jesus. The challenge here is to have a firm belief, an opinion based on the Word of God, and formed by the Spirit of God. We can stand firmly, not offensively and be a persuasion that there is a right answer for society. Humility is the key in this approach.

In answer to individualism, like relativism, we need to begin with humility. This humility like Christ’s can bring his light and love into thinking which is dominated by self, and transform a situation. We can act as Jesus did, speaking the truth of community, that we need to act for the good of the whole, not the individual. Emphasising the worth of each individual, as a part of a community bound by love, we can respond to issues in an inclusive manner, remembering that Christ gave up his individual rights, for the good of the whole world, and that we need to act in the same spirit for our world today.

Similar to secularism, the Christian response to complexity is a balancing act, not of compromise, but seeking to have the mind of Christ, incarnating God’s truth to our current situation. John Stott (1999) encourages us to develop a Christian mind – one which is in tune with God, and knows his character. As Christians we are called to be salt and light (Matthew 5) to the world. Jesus explains that this is to be an active thing, and will be in contrast to the darkness around us. With courage we need to be prepared to be in contrast to the philosophies around us, making ethical decisions based on scripture, God’s spirit, a ‘Christian mind’, reclaiming the secular as holy.

This message that our faith should bring to these issues of post modernity – like in all situations of life - is one of hope, respect, strength and love.

References

Aven, A. 2005) Resources for understanding postmodernism in Reflections From a Beachcomber Retrieved 14 June, 2005 from http://mysite.verizon.net/res1gf7s/ id13.html

Benton, J (2004) The Privitisation of Religious Belief Retrieved 14 June, 2005 from http://www.e-n.org.uk/2004-01/2411-The-privatisation-of-religious-belief.htm

Stott, J. (1999) New Issues facing Christians Today (3rd Ed) London:Harper-Collins

Swoyer, C, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ spr2003/entries /relativism/>.

Westacott, E, “Relitivism” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2005 ) http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/relativi.htm

CT1-B (Christian Theology)

2005-06-11T13:01:00.000+09:30

Outline the Essence and Attributes of God (moral and non-moral) and describe the implications these have on our lives.

`I am who I am' (Exodus 3:14), this is how the God we worship as Christians describes himself. Yet as humans we have need to collectively define God, based on what he has revealed of himself to us. There are fundamental - that is unchangeable, beliefs that we hold true regarding God, which form the basis of our faith.

The first of these fundamental beliefs, is that the essence of God is found in his unique triune nature - triune meaning that God is one being, there is only one God, however he exists in three separate persons.(Little, 2003). While the word `Trinity' that we use to describe God is not used in the bible, there is much compelling evidence for his being so. Beginning in the Old Testament, God speaks of himself in plural terms (Mime, 1998) - at the creation of the universe (Genesis 1: l, 26). In the New Testament it is possible to know God more fully, because of his revelation through Jesus, (John 14:7, 9-11 ) and it is for this reason that there is a greater revelation of God's essence,to mankind. Matthew 28:19 contains the first written description of God's three persons (Hammond, 1968). A greater discussion of God's essence is recorded in John 14 and 16.

The difficult doctrine of the trinity is that God is three separate parts which are all the same substance, and which can not act apart from or in opposition to one another. God is one, yet he is three. These statements seem incompatible; a physical substance can not be wholly one, yet individually three simultaneously, nonetheless God has revealed to us that this is so. It must be remembered that God is not bound by the laws that govern us, he is spirit (Hammond, 1968) so

what is not possible for us, is possible for him. The Trinity is viewed as an example of perfect unity. (Mime, 1998) one coming out of the other, as illustrated in I Peter 1:2, where the persons are attributed differing actions in relation to each other, but still all working together; from God [the father], through the Spirit and for Jesus Christ [the son]. Romans 11:36 also exemplifies this, "from him [Father] and through him [Son] and to him [Spirit]" (Mime, 1998, p.76). God, the trinity can never work against himself, he is in complete unity with himself.. A beautiful depiction of this can be found in the Celtic triquetra, an interlocking knot of three parts (About, para. 1) inseparable yet distinct, symbolising the unending unity of the essence of God.

The attributes of God are infinite. It is impossible to fully describe God. This in itself is one of God's `natural' attributes (Little, 2000). The infinity of God is something which human minds, being finite (with beginning and end) can not begin to understand (Hammond, 1968). This lack of parameters does not mean that God will be forever changing, as he said "I the Lord do not change" (Mal 3:6). His constant, unchanging nature - immutability (Hammond, 1968), is celebrated through-out scripture. Just a few examples are Hebrews 1:12, 13:8, James 1:17. His character remains the same, always. This is reinforced by a third aspect of his nature, God is eternal (Little 2000). Both Old and New Testaments proclaim this, Deuteronomy 32:40 "I live forever" and Revelation 1:8 "the Lord God `who is, and who was, and who is to come"'. Simply put, God is. He always will be and always has been.

In addition, God is omniscient- he knows all, omnipotent- all powerful, and transcendent- above all. (Little, 2000) It is my belief that if he were a man-made creation, his attributes would end here. God's reality is shown in his immanence. Not only is he above all in power, knowledge, the

creator of time and matter, but he is near to it all. (Little, 2000) This puzzle can be termed omnipresence, God is everywhere (Hammond, 1968). This ever present God has a personhood. He has emotion and passion, though not in the same sense that we do with our imperfect passions and reasoning (Hammond, 1968). It is this person, this feeling spirit which has relationship, through Jesus Christ with our spirits. This personhood is the source of his immanence, his being with us, instead of far away.

God's `moral' attributes are learned and experienced by progressing from knowing about him, to knowing him. God's righteousness and holiness are the embodiment of his perfection (Hammond, 1968). Like his omniscience and omnipresence, God is above all in every sense. He is perfection itself. Holiness is what separates humankind from God. In contrast, God is good (Hammond, 1968), this goodness is expressed to us as perfect love (Little, 2000). Jesus reminded us that goodness is God's alone when said "there is only One who is Good" this goes hand in hand with John's writing that God is love (I John 4:8b). It is not an action that he takes, but something that he is. "This is love... [that he] sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10).

The revelation of the nature and being of God has a profound effect on the life of one who has submitted to the rule of God. Without this revelation and belief in God's triune essence and his specific attributes, we lack basis for conviction, and become like "a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind." James 1:6b. Faith without a platform for trust is weak and will not stand in a test. An understanding of the nature of God assures us that what he says is true. It gives us a basis for testing his will - because he never changes. It gives an assurance that he is never going to leave us because he is eternal. We can believe whatever he says, no matter how far from our

scope of understanding, because he is infinite. God's omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience give us safety, security, and the knowledge that he cannot fail. He is above all. Furthermore, we also know that through Jesus our spirit has community with God's.

JL Packer says that our study of God brings us to God himself (1983) This must be our aim. The mystery of God, his perfect harmony, how justice - stemming from God's righteousness, holiness and love, produced from his goodness come together and are at peace in God, as opposed to at war in our understanding, is revealed to us. In the Old Testament, God gives a clue to this understanding of himself. He commands us to "act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God". In human terms and understanding, it is difficult to reconcile justice and mercy, and impossible for man to walk with God. In the New Testament, this command is made possible to fulfil, given the divine revelation of God in human form, Jesus Christ. God shows us that this is possible, because his holiness and love are not opposing forces, but are the sum of who he is. In God where these attributes combine; justice and mercy are one and the same. Having this worldview radically affects the way we relate to other people, and will infect the world in which we live with a practical expression of God's Kingdom.

Moreover, we can embrace with peace and joy, the mystery of God in all his glory, and praise him for whom he is. He can be worshiped precisely for this great mystery; contained in the fact that he is in harmony, being all these things, because `he is'. His infinity, immutability, eternity, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipresence, his righteousness, holiness, goodness and love are all held in tension, and expressed so adequately in the simple statement, YHWH, "I am who I am".

References

About-Alternative Religion. Retrieved 25 May, 2005 from http://altreligion. about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefstriquetra.htm

Hammond, T. C.,(1968) In Understanding Be Men (61" ed.) Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press International Bible Society(2005) The Holy Bible, Today's New International Version.

Little, M (2000)Know What You Believe (Little, P. E.) Colarado Springs: Victor (Original work published 1970)

Milne, B.(1998) Know the Truth(2°d ed.) Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press

Packer, J. I., (1975) Knowing God (2"d ed.) Kent: Hodder and Stoughton

Tozer, A. W., (1961) The Pursuit of God. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott Ltd

Grand Rapids: Zondervan