The full text of Kevin Rudd's Apology Speech today is available here:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/12/1202760291188.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
Praise God! I truly pray that this provides a platform that allows Australia to move forward on fixing the issues of infant mortality and differing levels of economic opportunity, and general life expectancy rates in our Indigenous communities. I pray that this will save lives.
All praise and glory to Jesus.
God bless,
Bec
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Subordinationism and King Arthur's Round Table
OK, I want to start by saying I am getting in WAY over my head by commenting on trinitarian theology, but here we go! I'm currently reading Kevin Giles' The Trinity & Subordinationism which discusses the concept of the subordination of the Son to the Father within the Godhead and whether this was a temporal state of affairs during the incarnation (i.e. because of Jesus's manhood) or whether this is an eternal state of affairs due to some dividing issue of role/substance etc within the Godhead. The relationship between the Father and Son is used by both sides of the Gender Debate to legitimise their stance on whether women are to be always subordinate to men.
I am finding it very interesting! I'm about 1/3 of the way through and so far he has been looking at what various theologians have believed throughout the last 2000 yrs on this issue of subordination. His goal is to show that orthodox Christianity interprets scripture in light of the doctrine that all members of the Trinity are equal and of the same substance, whilst in three persons. He wants to do this as he points out that you can make an argument from scripture for both positions and that quoting particular bits of scripture at the other side will not resolve the problem, and so he is more interested in the broad scope of scripture. There is a bit of a problem in what he says about the context of the reader being an input to the interpretation of scripture - that's a very postmodern view and as far as I can tell is an excellent definition of eisegesis.
However, so far I have been fascinated by his discussion of the various ways people have grappled with the three-but-one nature of God, it has shown me a number of areas where my own beliefs have been quite inconsitent, and in all truth heretical! Now if you were to ask me whether I believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equal within the Godhead, I would have said yes. But at the same time, I've realised that I do tend to think of them in a hierarchy with the Father as "Boss". Jesus and the Spirit as somewhat lesser, partly because they intercede between the Father and us (Heb 7:25, Rom 8:26-27), and so that sort of emotionally makes them feel a bit "closer" to me, or more "like" me, and thus less like the Father. But to say all persons in the Trinity are equal but yet some how in hierarchy is like Orwell's line in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Which is an oxymoron.
OK, so here is my highly untheological contribution to the discussion. Another reason I think that I've fallen into thinking about the Trinity in terms of hierarchy is that when we name the three persons we typically say "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in that order... Check out things like the Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed. Even in the great commission we are instructed to go, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). I've also noticed that a lot of songs have them in that same order, I say a lot, because I have noticed as a bit odd when this order isn't followed. Again this is a highly untheological reflection, but I'm wondering if just listing them consistently in that order gives the impression of hierarchy?
This is where King Arthur's Round Table comes in! Because language is two dimensional maybe in listing the persons of the Trinity thusly it creates a sense of them in "a line" or company organisation chart where the Father is CEO, Jesus is the COO and the Holy Spirit is the hardworking plebs! However the picture of tables occured to me this morning. If you are planning a wedding and doing the seating arrangements then you would list people and they would appear to be all sitting in a row, if you just use words (E.g. Bill, Sally, Esther). However, if you have diagrams of the floor layout, you might discover that they are actually going to be sitting at round tables. In which case if you start your list with Bill or with Esther or any of the others is inconsequential because there is NO position at the table that is higher than the others.
This was the point with King Arthur's Round Table. It was built round so the Knights wouldn't fight about position in the court, but recognise that they were all equal. What is significant in the round table configuration is who is sitting either side of each person. And when there are three around the table, each can be defined by their relationship to the other. Just as Bill can be defined as sitting to the left of Sally and the right of Esther, so Sally and Esther can likewise be defined in terms of the relationship to Bill and each other. This I think applies in the Trinity as well, the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son is the Son of the Father etc.
So my highly untheological thought is this, we should wrap that 2D list around a 3D model of a roundtable. In this way, we can avoid the Arian heresy of thinking that Jesus and the Spirit are somehow lesser than the Father. They are all metaphorically sitting nicely around a roundtable next to each of the other persons, and each equally capable of passing the butter.
God (the whole three persons co-eternal, and co-equal) Bless,
Bec
I am finding it very interesting! I'm about 1/3 of the way through and so far he has been looking at what various theologians have believed throughout the last 2000 yrs on this issue of subordination. His goal is to show that orthodox Christianity interprets scripture in light of the doctrine that all members of the Trinity are equal and of the same substance, whilst in three persons. He wants to do this as he points out that you can make an argument from scripture for both positions and that quoting particular bits of scripture at the other side will not resolve the problem, and so he is more interested in the broad scope of scripture. There is a bit of a problem in what he says about the context of the reader being an input to the interpretation of scripture - that's a very postmodern view and as far as I can tell is an excellent definition of eisegesis.
However, so far I have been fascinated by his discussion of the various ways people have grappled with the three-but-one nature of God, it has shown me a number of areas where my own beliefs have been quite inconsitent, and in all truth heretical! Now if you were to ask me whether I believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equal within the Godhead, I would have said yes. But at the same time, I've realised that I do tend to think of them in a hierarchy with the Father as "Boss". Jesus and the Spirit as somewhat lesser, partly because they intercede between the Father and us (Heb 7:25, Rom 8:26-27), and so that sort of emotionally makes them feel a bit "closer" to me, or more "like" me, and thus less like the Father. But to say all persons in the Trinity are equal but yet some how in hierarchy is like Orwell's line in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Which is an oxymoron.
OK, so here is my highly untheological contribution to the discussion. Another reason I think that I've fallen into thinking about the Trinity in terms of hierarchy is that when we name the three persons we typically say "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in that order... Check out things like the Athanasian Creed, Nicene Creed, Apostles' Creed. Even in the great commission we are instructed to go, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). I've also noticed that a lot of songs have them in that same order, I say a lot, because I have noticed as a bit odd when this order isn't followed. Again this is a highly untheological reflection, but I'm wondering if just listing them consistently in that order gives the impression of hierarchy?
This is where King Arthur's Round Table comes in! Because language is two dimensional maybe in listing the persons of the Trinity thusly it creates a sense of them in "a line" or company organisation chart where the Father is CEO, Jesus is the COO and the Holy Spirit is the hardworking plebs! However the picture of tables occured to me this morning. If you are planning a wedding and doing the seating arrangements then you would list people and they would appear to be all sitting in a row, if you just use words (E.g. Bill, Sally, Esther). However, if you have diagrams of the floor layout, you might discover that they are actually going to be sitting at round tables. In which case if you start your list with Bill or with Esther or any of the others is inconsequential because there is NO position at the table that is higher than the others.
This was the point with King Arthur's Round Table. It was built round so the Knights wouldn't fight about position in the court, but recognise that they were all equal. What is significant in the round table configuration is who is sitting either side of each person. And when there are three around the table, each can be defined by their relationship to the other. Just as Bill can be defined as sitting to the left of Sally and the right of Esther, so Sally and Esther can likewise be defined in terms of the relationship to Bill and each other. This I think applies in the Trinity as well, the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son is the Son of the Father etc.
So my highly untheological thought is this, we should wrap that 2D list around a 3D model of a roundtable. In this way, we can avoid the Arian heresy of thinking that Jesus and the Spirit are somehow lesser than the Father. They are all metaphorically sitting nicely around a roundtable next to each of the other persons, and each equally capable of passing the butter.
God (the whole three persons co-eternal, and co-equal) Bless,
Bec
Friday, February 8, 2008
Judging, Correcting, Rebuking
I have been thinking recently about the whole issue of judging people, or saying things that can be construed as judgement. I rather wonder whether when we are corrected or rebuked we confuse it for judgement, and use that as an excuse to not hear something that we really really need to hear. Of course this could also have to do with the balance of “grace and truth” that is used. Too much truth without grace is hard to swallow.
Scripture is quite clear about not judging people. Jesus said, don’t judge or you’ll be judged (Mt 7:1, Lk 6:37). He also says we need to deal with our own “plank” before worrying about our brother’s “speck” (Mt 7:3-5, Lk 6:41-42) but it is interesting that He then says, “then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye” which means that He does intend for us to correct each other, as long as we’ve got our own house in order. Given that none of us are ever going to be perfect in every issue in this life, I’d hazard a guess that this means when we judge others for the same thing we ourselves fail at Jesus isn’t happy. For example, someone who puts in a dodgy tax return and judges someone for stealing their wallet. I think what Jesus is really objecting to here is hypocrisy. Given that we are all sinners, all fallen to some extent we are always hypocritical when we judge others for being sinners and fallen. This is picked up further in Romans 2:1-3, which says that we condemn ourselves when we pass judgement on others, because we do the same things. Hypocrisy is the issue, and we will not escape God’s judgement for doing this.
Sometimes the process of removing a speck from our own eye is hard-fought and painful, but the learning and value of that experience is inestimable in terms of its helpfulness for ourselves and others. I think it is also interesting that the next verse in Matthew (7:6) says to be careful about who we share these things with, to not “throw your pearls to pigs” and that if we do, “they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces”. How often does that happen! You tell someone something because you’ve learnt the hard way that living a certain way isn’t good and you just want to save them the pain of learning that the hard way, and yet they turn and bite you because you have “judged them”.
Within the church, Paul instructs that we SHOULD judge each other when someone is in gross sin. He is responding to the case of the man who was sleeping with his step-mother, and says not to associate with sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, slanderous, drunkard or swindling people within the church (1 Cor 5:9-11). He goes on to say “what business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."” (1 Cor 5:12-13). There clearly is a place for judging people within the church and taking action when they are not living according to their professed faith. The purpose of doing this is so that “the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” (1 Cor 5:5) So this is to be done for the GOOD of our Christian brothers and sisters, not out of hypocrisy and not because it makes us feel good. Paul says that we should be “filled with grief” (1 Cor 5:2), but yet take action.
In the Pastoral Epistles both Timothy and Titus are instructed to correct and rebuke people:
Scripture is quite clear about not judging people. Jesus said, don’t judge or you’ll be judged (Mt 7:1, Lk 6:37). He also says we need to deal with our own “plank” before worrying about our brother’s “speck” (Mt 7:3-5, Lk 6:41-42) but it is interesting that He then says, “then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye” which means that He does intend for us to correct each other, as long as we’ve got our own house in order. Given that none of us are ever going to be perfect in every issue in this life, I’d hazard a guess that this means when we judge others for the same thing we ourselves fail at Jesus isn’t happy. For example, someone who puts in a dodgy tax return and judges someone for stealing their wallet. I think what Jesus is really objecting to here is hypocrisy. Given that we are all sinners, all fallen to some extent we are always hypocritical when we judge others for being sinners and fallen. This is picked up further in Romans 2:1-3, which says that we condemn ourselves when we pass judgement on others, because we do the same things. Hypocrisy is the issue, and we will not escape God’s judgement for doing this.
Sometimes the process of removing a speck from our own eye is hard-fought and painful, but the learning and value of that experience is inestimable in terms of its helpfulness for ourselves and others. I think it is also interesting that the next verse in Matthew (7:6) says to be careful about who we share these things with, to not “throw your pearls to pigs” and that if we do, “they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces”. How often does that happen! You tell someone something because you’ve learnt the hard way that living a certain way isn’t good and you just want to save them the pain of learning that the hard way, and yet they turn and bite you because you have “judged them”.
Within the church, Paul instructs that we SHOULD judge each other when someone is in gross sin. He is responding to the case of the man who was sleeping with his step-mother, and says not to associate with sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, slanderous, drunkard or swindling people within the church (1 Cor 5:9-11). He goes on to say “what business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."” (1 Cor 5:12-13). There clearly is a place for judging people within the church and taking action when they are not living according to their professed faith. The purpose of doing this is so that “the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” (1 Cor 5:5) So this is to be done for the GOOD of our Christian brothers and sisters, not out of hypocrisy and not because it makes us feel good. Paul says that we should be “filled with grief” (1 Cor 5:2), but yet take action.
In the Pastoral Epistles both Timothy and Titus are instructed to correct and rebuke people:
- “Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” (2 Tim 4:2)
- “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 3:16-17)
- “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” (1 Tim 5:20)
- “… Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13)
- “These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.” (Titus 2:15)
In terms of eternal judgement, that clearly is only for Jesus to do:
- “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” (John 12:48)
- “For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)
So this is something we do need to do, but with humility. Some key passages to think about when looking at how to do the grace bit of “grace and truth”:
- “Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.” (Col 3:12-13)
- “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom... But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” (James 3:13, 17-18)
God bless,
Bec
P.S. I love being rebuked - that's how I got saved ;)
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The bubble suit
If only such an apparatus could deal with the sinful desires of the heart eh!? :)
(Swiped from the funny folks at Mars Hill Church)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Apologies, Repentance & Forgiveness
I am really pleased to see that one of the first things Kevin Rudd is making as PM is to make that apology to Australia’s Indigenous Community for the stolen generation debacle. It is a really good first step towards reconciliation and I hope that it really does provide us with better opportunities to address some of the problems in our Indigenous Communities such as the life expectancy gap.
Apologies are a funny thing aren’t they? I read The Five Languages of Apology a couple of years ago. I read it in an attempt to find the words or actions that I could use to clearly communicate to someone I loved how sorry I was. The book was based on the premise that just as people communicate love in different ways (ala The Five Love Languages); they also use different methods to apologise. We each have preferred languages and unless others use that particular language we don’t really ‘hear’ that they are sorry.
The five languages were:
1. Expressing Regret – a heartfelt expression of how you feel because you’ve hurt them
2. Accept Responsibility – accept that you’ve done something wrong, and don't deflect blame
3. Make Restitution – make efforts to make amends, make the person feel loved
4. Genuinely Repent – understand that the behaviour was wrong and commit to change
5. Request Forgiveness – ask for grace, understand that forgiveness isn’t a certainty, and that it is that person’s choice to forgive or not
I think that last point is the hardest; recognising that it is actually up to the other person whether they accept the apology and forgive or not. That can be really, really hard; to do everything that you can because you truly desire reconciliation and healing in the relationship, but knowing that that forgiveness bit is out of your hands.
The funny thing is that when we refuse to forgive it really only hurts ourselves in the long run. I see this in my life, I hold on to offence, and don’t forgive because I think in doing that I’m protecting myself from being hurt again. This doesn’t only impact my relationship with the person who’s hurt me, but with others as well. The tape plays in my head, “they’ll only hurt you too/again”, “how long will it take before they reject you / leave you too?” And all that achieves is that I keep myself distant and don’t open up to allow myself to experience real relationships with people, which creates a sense of rejection by itself as the tape plays, “why don’t you have better/deeper relationships with people”.
You know more than half the time I don’t think people hurt me out of malice, I think it’s thoughtlessness. I know most of the time when I hurt people it isn’t intentional, it’s just that I have SO much space in my mouth that both feet fit in there quite comfortably, sometimes things just come out of my mouth and I instantly think, “where the hell did that come from???” but the damage is done. The other source of hurt in my life is when my assumptions and expectations are not met, which is hardly anyone else’s fault. I think other conflict comes out of miscommunication, someone says one thing quite amicably, but by the time that is filtered through my life experience I hear something quite hostile.
The "narrow way" seems to be to keep opening yourself up and loving people despite it all, and leaving the possible consequence of being hurt again in God’s hands. That is not to say He gets the blame, or it’s His fault, but just trusting that in forgiving as He forgave us, and loving our neighbours as ourselves that yes it does open us up to pain, but that He is more than willing, more than capable of healing that hurt and helping us move on. He certainly demonstrated this Himself when on the cross Jesus cried, “Father forgive them” and this is the one of whom Isaiah wrote, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isa 53:3). I love that He identified Himself with us in that way, that He chose to share our suffering. I think it is a huge temptation to not forgive, but Jesus went through that temptation to not forgive and overcame it. Hebrews 4:15-16 comes to mind, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
God bless,
Bec
Apologies are a funny thing aren’t they? I read The Five Languages of Apology a couple of years ago. I read it in an attempt to find the words or actions that I could use to clearly communicate to someone I loved how sorry I was. The book was based on the premise that just as people communicate love in different ways (ala The Five Love Languages); they also use different methods to apologise. We each have preferred languages and unless others use that particular language we don’t really ‘hear’ that they are sorry.
The five languages were:
1. Expressing Regret – a heartfelt expression of how you feel because you’ve hurt them
2. Accept Responsibility – accept that you’ve done something wrong, and don't deflect blame
3. Make Restitution – make efforts to make amends, make the person feel loved
4. Genuinely Repent – understand that the behaviour was wrong and commit to change
5. Request Forgiveness – ask for grace, understand that forgiveness isn’t a certainty, and that it is that person’s choice to forgive or not
I think that last point is the hardest; recognising that it is actually up to the other person whether they accept the apology and forgive or not. That can be really, really hard; to do everything that you can because you truly desire reconciliation and healing in the relationship, but knowing that that forgiveness bit is out of your hands.
The funny thing is that when we refuse to forgive it really only hurts ourselves in the long run. I see this in my life, I hold on to offence, and don’t forgive because I think in doing that I’m protecting myself from being hurt again. This doesn’t only impact my relationship with the person who’s hurt me, but with others as well. The tape plays in my head, “they’ll only hurt you too/again”, “how long will it take before they reject you / leave you too?” And all that achieves is that I keep myself distant and don’t open up to allow myself to experience real relationships with people, which creates a sense of rejection by itself as the tape plays, “why don’t you have better/deeper relationships with people”.
You know more than half the time I don’t think people hurt me out of malice, I think it’s thoughtlessness. I know most of the time when I hurt people it isn’t intentional, it’s just that I have SO much space in my mouth that both feet fit in there quite comfortably, sometimes things just come out of my mouth and I instantly think, “where the hell did that come from???” but the damage is done. The other source of hurt in my life is when my assumptions and expectations are not met, which is hardly anyone else’s fault. I think other conflict comes out of miscommunication, someone says one thing quite amicably, but by the time that is filtered through my life experience I hear something quite hostile.
The "narrow way" seems to be to keep opening yourself up and loving people despite it all, and leaving the possible consequence of being hurt again in God’s hands. That is not to say He gets the blame, or it’s His fault, but just trusting that in forgiving as He forgave us, and loving our neighbours as ourselves that yes it does open us up to pain, but that He is more than willing, more than capable of healing that hurt and helping us move on. He certainly demonstrated this Himself when on the cross Jesus cried, “Father forgive them” and this is the one of whom Isaiah wrote, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isa 53:3). I love that He identified Himself with us in that way, that He chose to share our suffering. I think it is a huge temptation to not forgive, but Jesus went through that temptation to not forgive and overcame it. Hebrews 4:15-16 comes to mind, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
God bless,
Bec
Sunday, February 3, 2008
God & Dogs
I'm not much of an animal person myself, but I did enjoy this article in The Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/faith-god-and-dogs/2008/02/02/1201801097274.html
Particularly the last paragraph:
God bless,
Bec
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/faith-god-and-dogs/2008/02/02/1201801097274.html
Particularly the last paragraph:
As I've reflected on the relationship between Rusty and myself, it has helped me understand the relationship I have with God. This longing we have for something or someone who is ignorant of our faults is a longing for love in its deepest form. The only times I have found that in life are through relationships; with my family, my wife and my God. However many times I escape his presence to climb fences and chase metaphorical cars, God's love for me is unchanging, and no matter what I do, his love remains an everlasting love
(Jeremiah 31:3).
God bless,
Bec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)