Spiritual, but not Religious

Ever come across this remark when you've been seeking to discuss Christian faith?

When someone says it, the best response I can come up with is; "Oh, that's great...I think. Which spirit do you have? You, know, which one have you invited to dwell within you?"

Now, that can start a conversation!

Go woke and go broke - spiritually

Melissa Dougherty gives the run-down on five new age teachings in the church.

They are not really 'new age'. The New Age is over, we are now in a culture that is entirely pagan. The 'New Age' has gone mainstream.

But that said, here they are:

1. The Law of Attraction
2. Oneness
3. Religious Pluralism
4. Universalism
5. Mysticism

The 'law' of attraction: what you put your positive energy into wanting, the universe will send it to you: sort of like a pantheistic sugar daddy that includes you, because you are part of the divine, right?

Wrong! We are re-born, regenerated, to follow Christ, not the desires of the world, and its fake gods.

Although it does have an element of truth. If you keep an objective in mind you will work towards it, sort of a self-coaching. Just try it. Here're some sample objectives: read the Bible through in a year. Spend at least 30 minutes each day in thoughtful Bible study and  prayer. Visit one 'shut-in' or single dweller a month. Get goin'.

Oneness: everything in the universe is 'one'. Wrong Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Or, we all have to agree all the time. Don't disagree, don't challenge, question or 'judge'. Just misread the Bible how I do, and agree with me . No, just remember the Bereans. Acts 17:11.

Religious pluralism: we each have our own truth, and there are many ways to salvation. Au contraire John 14:6. Jesus makes exclusive claims. He alone is the Messiah. He alone is the creator who is outside the cosmos entered into his creation.

Universalism: all are saved irrespective of being in Christ or not. Disregards the sheep and goat distinctions in reality and who God is. Everone is a 'child' of God. But no, we start as a child of wrath, and are only adopted upon repentance.

Mysticism: getting hidden knowledge by 'contemplating' God as your special pet. Linked to 'oneness' above. Richard Rohr is the chief current peddler of this twaddle.

Her conclusion is correct. These pagan ideas come into the church because teaching, reading and living out the word of God is not the priority.

Do churches encourage with not only words, but with behaviour and programs, the reading of the Bible?

Do ministry leaders echo this teaching in their own ministries and demonstrate in their own practice?

Melissa goes more on this in another video.

Just forgive everyone!

I seem to recall a statement by Dick Dawkins (of The God Delusion fame) asking why didn't God just forgive everyone.

I expect he doesn't believe God exists, and is suggesting a flaw in Christian theology by his question.

It seems to me that Dawkins, like most people, including Christians, alas, have no clue about God's 'mission' in creation, who God is and what it means to sin, that is to be wholly turned against God and his gift of life.

Dawkins' question-challenge betrays a view of God being separate from his own nature, and that our need to be forgiven arises from our innocuous breaches of some third-party laws. Like asking a policeperson to overlook a parking breach in a local shopping centre carpark when yours is the only car there.

But not so. Our sin is that we have rejected God and in our own nature, do not want to be forgiven. We like being cut off from God and don't want to surrender life in the hell-hole of being enslaved by sin.

God doesn't just forgive us because we don't want to be forgive; and God has made us with our own self-determining ability to chose our relationships, so wouldn't seek to overturn that component in us of his image. In fact, having given the gift to us of his 'image-ness', he possibly cannot over turn it.

It's like a man asking a woman to marry him, but wants no part of her life. Doesn't even want to be intimate with  her, but just wants to live without her while calling her his wife: a relationship that denies itself and is without meaning in any sense.

There would be no point to God just forgiving us when the real forgiveness he extends works itself out in our regeneration and new life in his family...for ever.

To round out Easter

After a wonderful string of Easter devotions by Roger Chilton at St Swithun's, I spend this afternoon listening to Bach's St Matthew's Passion by Klemperer. Bliss.

St Matthew

Books - there are too many of them!

Soloman and I are one on this.

I was looking over some lists I'd filed of top 100 books: Australian, Novels, Non-fiction. Some great books in all lists and I was pleased to see that I'd read a number of them (and as far as I remember, I was pleased with the books that I had read.)

But what about theology, Christian books?

A quick look took me to Frank Viola's lists. Like him, I don't agree with everything on them, but they are not bad as far as lists go. Again, I've read some of the books on each list.

The only limit is they are all recent books. Nothing from before the 20th Century, yet there is some great, important and stimulating theology back then.

If I would remove any book from Frank's list of theology, I'd knock out Barth. Waste of time, space, and bookshelf, in my view.

Top 100 general Christian -- too much Watchman Nee, too little Francis Schaeffer. In fact, I'd swap the two in the list.

Top 100 theology.

Two books not mentioned on either list, but very important.

1. Tactics, by Greg Koukl, and 
2. The Story of Reality by the same feller. Its also related in his Credo talk.

Greg's Credo talk presents a great summary of reality: God...man...Christ...crucifixion...resurrection.

I like this a little better than the 7 Cs: creation, crisis, confusion, covenant, Christ, cross, consummation, mainly because it can be run on the five fingers (of either hand). One is a bit stuck with 7, although 7 is the number of perfection in the Bible, so its good on that count.

No experience necessary

One of Craig's 5 reasons from https://www.reasonablefaith.org

One of a series following this post.

God can be immediately known and experienced.

This isn't really an argument for God's existence; rather it's the claim that you can know God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing him. This was the way people in the Bible knew God, as professor John Hick explains:

God was known to them as a dynamic will interacting with their own wills, a sheer given reality, as inescapably to be reckoned with as destructive storm and life-giving sunshine . . . They did not think of God as an inferred entity but as an experienced reality. To them God was not . . . an idea adopted by the mind, but an experiential reality which gave significance to their lives. [16]

Philosophers call beliefs like this "properly basic beliefs." They aren't based on some other beliefs; rather they are part of the foundation of a person's system of beliefs.

Other properly basic beliefs would be the belief in the reality of the past, the existence of the external world, and the presence of other minds like your own.

When you think about it, none of these beliefs can be proved. How could you prove that the world was not created five minutes ago with built-in appearances of age like food in our stomachs from the breakfasts we never really ate and memory traces in our brains of events we never really experienced?

How could you prove that you are not a brain in a vat of chemicals being stimulated with electrodes by some mad scientist to believe that you are here listening to this lecture? How could you prove that other people are not really androids who exhibit all the external behavior of persons with minds, when in reality they are soulless, robot-like entities?

Although these sorts of beliefs are basic for us, that doesn't mean that they're arbitrary. Rather they are grounded in the sense that they're formed in the context of certain experiences. In the experiential context of seeing and feeling and hearing things, I naturally form the belief that there are certain physical objects which I am sensing.

Thus, my basic beliefs are not arbitrary, but appropriately grounded in experience. There may be no way to prove such beliefs, and yet it is perfectly rational to hold them. You'd have to be crazy to think that the world was created five minutes ago or to believe that you are a brain in a vat! Such beliefs are thus not merely basic, but properly basic.

In the same way, belief in God is for those who seek Him a properly basic belief grounded in our experience of God.

We can summarize this consideration as follows:

1. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded on argument.
2. Belief that the biblical God exists is appropriately grounded.
3. Therefore, belief that the biblical God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded on argument.

Why did God make a world where there could be 'evil'?

The first step in this question is the misunderstanding of 'evil' as a 'thing' with its existence independent of actors.

It is not, it is a quality of acts that are not loving: acts reflective of 'not-god'.

There is no such thing as 'evil', as a source of acts against others, these come from the human heart! (Matthew 15:19). Rather, it is a description of acts not for others, but against their interests. Acts not loving, acts of  'not-god'ness.

But why did God make us such that we could be 'non-god' in our thoughts and behaviour...and ultimately, in our relationships, our love?

Because God made us for relationship with him ('in his image'). For there to be a relationship, there has to be the possibility of no relationship, otherwise it is not a relationship (of love), but an inherent unavoidable 'given'.

But why did God make us for 'relationship' when this entails the possibility of no relationship? Was it for his pleasure, for a game he was playing with us?

No, it was for our pleasure. He made us for relationship with him because we would enjoy it...more than it is possible to enjoy anything else. That's what love is. It is for the other.

See also my post We're all basically good...aren't we?

Give me that Old Time Religion

On YouTube I came across some items by A W Tozer including an audio book of his great "The Pursuit of God" and a sermon "In Everything by Prayer".

Check them out.

Prove it!

Sometime paid Christians (I'm talking clergy-persons here) make it hard to understand their commitment to the gospel. Those that are very and conspicuously wealthy on their church's dime are a case in point.

But I'm happy to say I know two very influential very able and caring ministers who have proved the gospel.

1. An older minister, highly esteemed by large numbers of people decided to take the assistant minister role and ask his assistant minister to become the senior minister. He swapped jobs for the less conspicuous role as he was slowing with the inevitable depredations of age, and wanted to support the next generation.

2. A mature minister in the adjoining parish found all his children had left home to start their own households here and abroad. The rectory was now too large, with a number of unoccupied rooms that the parish had provided in an enlargement some years prior (at a significant cost to the parish).

I was hugely impressed when I heard that the minister had relinquished the rectory as it was too big, allowing the parish to let it while he moved into a smaller cottage in a nearby suburb. Wonderful example.

The meaning of life the universe and everything

42.

Speaking of Revelation, let's not forget the place of 42 in Revelation.

Revelation 11:2

Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.

Revelation 13:5

There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him.

Yes, 42 is the meaning of LUE absent the salvation of Christ. Douglas Adams was right, but wrong.

Sashes and pews

Michael Giffin wrote in Quadrant "The Future of Christianity" (2017)

A few years ago, there was a disinformation campaign about Cardinal Pell allegedly refusing to give homosexuals communion. This wasn’t true. What actually happened was a group of homosexuals, their parents, and their friends, went up to the altar wearing rainbow sashes, to make a political statement, and Pell refused to give the sash-wearers communion (even the heterosexual ones). His point was necessary. God’s altar is for sacraments. It isn’t the place to make politically correct statements about identity politics. Leave your sashes in the pews. You can receive communion without the sashes.

I draw your attention to "God’s altar is for sacraments. It isn’t the place to make politically correct statements about identity politics".

The entire conduct of congregation assemblies, for whatever reason is not to make 'politically correct' statements, any other political statements, or couple up the worship of our Lord with any human supremacist disposition. Thus my ire against the farcical and anachronistic 'acknowledgement of/welcome to country' being introduced into our congregational meeting.

Nothing that would divide the body of Christ into special interest groups, give or imply priority to one group over another, one historical or cultural leaning over any other divides Christ. Paul was angry enough about this within the church ( 1 Corinthians 3;4), let alone bringing it into the church from alien, if not animist domains.

Hey, I've got spirituality too!

It's like everyone is 'spiritual'. It even gets a mention in the media these days. Spirituality.

But the spirituality of the world, of navel gazers, crystal huggers, tree claspers and pretend Buddhists (and real ones, for that matter) has nothing to do with the creator Spirit of God.

Modern Western 'spirituality' is a sham because it is:

• Disembodied
• Individualistic
• Withdrawn, and
• Cerebral

None of these are Christian!

Christian (real) spritiuality, life engaged with and regenerated by the in-dwelling Spirit of God is:

• Bodied: how we act and what motivates us is part of us
• Loving: in and of community, not the individual
• Involved: with, by and for others
• Enacted: with our Lord, his people and his Word.

 If follows our Lord: as he 'did' in the world, with real people, so do we.

The world's spirituality-sham is merely a deluded, solipsistic, 19th century-romantic manifestation of The Religion of Me, with its rite of gazing solipsistically at a pretty scene.

The spirituality is divorced from the real world; not as in the 'nasty real world' to escape from, but how the real really is: community, love and being in and with. If spirituality is not this, then it is not real.

Praise! Why bother?

Throughout the scriptures there is a close relationship between God's being creator, and our praise of him.

A great example is Isaiah 42:5, 8.

Why does God seek, indeed, require, our praise, to the excusion of idols?

Is it because he is needy, lacking in affirmation, has an ego problem?

No, nah, nada!

He does it because it is good for US!

Praise connects us to the one praised, and there is nothing better than being connected to our creator, lover and redeemer. He says so himself!

It connects us to who we are (made in his image: his image-bearers, Gen 1:27), and is encouraging, gives us pleasure; its part of worship, and worship expressed rightly (in prayer, song, acts of service, Roms 12:1) it is moving,  profoundly exciting, and allows a step, for just a moment, a tiny step, into heaven!

In similar vein, the praise of your spouse deepens the connection between the two. Praise of your pre-spouse friend is good, but not as good, because you are not yet 'one-flesh' (Gen 2:24), praise in a 'one-flesh' state encourages both deeply, builds up both and grows both: it is a form of giving of self: to spouse, and how much better, to our creator God?

Lack of praise, or mis-directed praise damages the relationship, cuts us off from the source of our being (God, and in this life, spouse if we have one). Lack of praise is selfish.

One sarx (just to show off)

One of the things that I think was missed in the same-sex marriage 'debate' (there was no debate, just invective from the pro side) was Gen 2:24. The two become one flesh.

I recal some talk of the complementarity of the sexes, and that the relationship of marriage resulting from the dynamic between the sexes, between man and woman (who together are in the image of God...that wasn't ever in the media, of course).

The complimentarity runs deep: men and women are just different, different in ways that make each important to the other, and that 'interlock'. The physical union expresses and demonstrates this.

By comparison two women or two men do not 'interlock', they stand side by side. The 'interlock' metaphor runs through the BCP/AAPB marriage service and is demonstrated in society: one's relationship with one's spouse is more important than any other. The two share their lives as one: thus sexual loyalty is imperative. This is the building block of civilisation (or the tribe, in generations past).

There are deeper things here too both psychologically and socialogically for the couple, their children, their wider families and communities. It would take a good length book to explore them! The spiritual dimension would be another book.

None of this surfaced in the debate...because there was no debate, mere ranting from the side-by-siders.

You don't look for God 'low enough'

Fabulous speech by Jordan Peterson, that has the Pauline dilemma (Rom 7:15) woven through it.

The spiritual has become utilitarian!

No question about the motive for this, but oh, what a down-grade for the spiritual life!

Scanned from a recent edition of Australian Men's Health magazine. I read it in a hospital waiting room...good exercises and recipies in it!

The woman from nowhere

I'm sick.

Between hospital sessions I was in a cafe and after I'd poured by tea, an elderly woman walked in. Saw the bandage on my arm and asked in a completely confident, outspoken and genuine way what happened to me. I told her that it was a PICC line for a serious illness.

She asked to pray for me. I consented.

She prayed. She left. Didn't buy anything.

As I was driven back to the hospital she was crossing the street and looked at me; I waved.

I went goosebumps.

Is this how angels operate?

Billy Graham's best quote

Probably all over everywhere, but used at church today:

Someday you will read or hear that Billy Graham is dead. Don’t you believe a word of it. I shall be more alive than I am now. I will just have changed my address. I will have gone into the presence of God.

The average person

Comment related to me:

...the average person complains about 'evil' and uses it to excuse their rejection of God, but are themselves unrepentant bulls**t artists when it comes to their own evil conduct.

Reading

Over the Christmas-January break I like to dip into some old favourite books.

A passage from one such book, N. T. Wright's Simply Christian, took my eye recently:

Reading scripture in worship is, first and foremost, the central way of celebrating who God is and what he's done.

So, please, no more little snippets from one book; let's plunge in: call to worship, celebratory or reflective psalm, substantial (but not excessively so) readings from the first and last testaments, reflective passage after the sermon, then benediction.

At my church you are lucky to get one small snippet of scripture in the service; its barely noticable in our, to my view, misguided 'seeker-sensitive' times. Of course, there are rarely any seekers there, and if there were, they would expect us to be thrilled about having the very word of God!