godztuff

Friday, August 5, 2011

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

What's God Up To On Planet Earth?

Tomorrow night is the launch of my new book, What's God Up To On Planet Earth. A No-Strings Attached Explanation of the Christian Message. It is publised by Affirm/Castle. It is the culmination of years of work which began when I became a dedicated follower of Jesus at 24.

My first engagement with Christ was at 13 when I heard the Christian message and was convinced of its truth claims. I didn't carry through on this in a family that was pretty opposed to the faith. I remember crying out to God that it was too hard and that when I left home I would follow Jesus. When I left home in my early 20's I found myself working through many struggles and eventually realised God was calling me to honour what I had said. Eventually I relented and turned to Jesus and became a disciple. It was fantastic, I was liberated and my life took on meaning. My excitement at being a Christian and the wonder of Jesus grows everyday!

From early on I started sharing the gospel with anyone and everyone I could find. I wanted everyone to know about Jesus. I told the story of my conversion and set about learning the story of Jesus. I memorised verses, I read, I studied, I thought. I learnt a lot from debating. Over time I began to develop a method of arranging the gospel. I have preached this pattern a number of times and have found it very effective. It is not a new one, built on models I had been taught.

The book is the culmination of this. It arranges the Christians story around the 5 R's of the Gospel: Relationship, Rupture, Restoration, Return and Response. Each articulates an essential element of the Christian message. Each chapter answers a question within the framework of the big one, what is God up to. The first is 'why am I here?' Answer: relationship. The idea here is that God wants to hang out with us forever and that this is what moves him to create i.e. his relentless and overwhelming love. The second is 'what is the problem with the world?' The answer, evil and from a human perspective, sin i.e. the world is infected with a virus that must be resolved. As we do wrong we violate God and our humanity. We and our world needs healing. The third is 'what is the solution?' The answer, restoration. This is found in Jesus, through whom God has moved to resolve the problem of evil which corrupts his creation. The fourth is, 'how will it end?' It picks up the important notion of the return of Christ, the climax of history and the beginning of a new story. We cannot tell the story of Jesus and faith without getting and exciting vision of the culmination of the world when love and justice will prevail. The final question is 'what do I have to do?' The answer is 'believe in Jesus as saviour and Lord.' I unpack what that means; essentially, it means bowing the knee to King Jesus, sayng yes to his extraordinary offer of eternal life with God. There is a follow up chapter on 'where to from here' which tells the reader what they can do next.

It is designed to be a no-strings attached explanation of the Christian message. It is designed for those who have heard the story in some way or another, and don't quite get it, or need to understand it better. The idea is that they can read it, without someone pressuring them, and make a call on whether they want this Jesus. My hope is that Christians will read it and pray about who it is appropriate for, and give it to them. It is useful as an aid to Alpha and other evangelistic programs.

Several features of the book I think make it interesting. First, it is written with my story splashed through it at points to bring it alive. Secondly, it is written in a non-dogmatic way explaining to the reader various ways Christian resolve issues. For example, it briefly touches on different views of creation, and of hell. It prepares these new Christians for the variety of ideas they will encounter. I hope it appeals to the post-modern in this sense. Thirdly, it is written hopefully with a sense of humility and without the sort of pressure that can turn a non-believer off. The gospel itself is offensive without me adding to its offense! Fourthly, there are no bible verse references in the text or footnotes. Rather, there are endnotes with the appropriate texts for the reader to check out themselves when they have read the book. Finally, it presents a compelling vision of what God is up to. It hopefully will excite readers with their role in what I call Cosmission, God's mission to restore every inch of his glorious world and to see everyone live forever with him.

It is not an apologetic book full of answers to the tough questions like, 'is there a God?' 'Why do good people suffer?' Etc. That is one of my next books, or send them to one of the many other books that deal with these things.

So, I hope it is well received and I hope many come to faith through it. Indeed, that is what excites me most about it, that someone somewhere might become a Christian through it. I also dream of putting together a children's version, youth version, a video series and more around it. If there is anyone who wants to help sponsor those ideas, let me know!

There are a number of places you can buy them. You can email me at mkeown@laidlaw.ac.nz to arrange payments. It is also available through Castle Publishing

http://castlepublishing.wordpress.com/.

Shalom
Mark

Sunday, May 3, 2009

How Do I Become A Christian?

So, how does one become a Christian? The New Testament documents have a variety of ways of describing this. In some the Gospels Jesus calls people to follow him (e.g. Matt 4:19; 8:22, 9:9). Those that did gained entry into the Kingdom of God and salvation. To follow means to acknowledge Jesus as King or Lord and then to live by his teaching.

After Jesus died and rose through the books of Acts and the letters it is 'faith' that saves us. A great example of this is when the Philippian jailor asks Paul, 'what must I do to be saved?' Paul responds, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.' Faith or to believe is to accept Jesus, to believe in Jesus and all he is, has done and does. It is belief in him as saviour, that his death and resurrection saves us. It is acceptance of him as Lord, and so we seek to obey him and live his way for our lives.

What doesn't save us in the New Testament is our works. Eph 2:8-9 tells us, 'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.' This tells us that we are saved by God's gift (grace) and that all we do is believe. We can do nothing to save ourselves because we are corrupted by sin, even in our best moments. So God offers to save us, if we say 'yes' to his offer. We simply accept what Jesus has done. Faith is accepting Jesus that first time as saviour and Lord and then living every day out of trust in him. It involves that commitment to follow, and trust in him. It is really simply saying 'yes' to God's wonderful free offer of eternal relationship with him.

We don't become a Christian by obeying a religion, going to church, praying a certain way, following a particular church leader, doing good things. These all have value to grow in our faith. However, they do not save us. Jesus is the only one who can save us. He died on a cross in our place taking our sin on himself so that we would not have to face eternal destruction which all evil and sin will receive. He conquered evil and sin by rising from death. He offers to take us through to salvation with him if we accept him and what he has done.

So if you believe that Jesus is the way to salvation, all you have to do is tell God with a prayer and set out to live for Jesus. Pray something like this: 'God I acknowledge that Jesus came to save me. Thank you Jesus for dying for me in my place. I admit I am a sinful person and ask you to forgive me and to save me. Come into my life and help me to live for you. Thank you for dying for me. I commit to do my best to live for you from now on. In Jesus name. Amen.

Monday, March 19, 2007

What about evolution?

One of the great stumbling blocks for many who do not believe is the concept of evolution. That is, the idea that humans and all other life has evolved from an initial simple single cell life form which spontaneously came into being on earth millions of years ago. I will call this macro-evolution, it being agreed by most that minor adaptations due to environment are found in the world today (micro-evolution). There are a number of things to state which indicate that macro-evolution is of far less importance than some on both sides of the debate argue.

1. Macro-evolution is a faith not a fact. It is argued that macro-evolution is proven in many quarters. This is not the case. The lines of evolutionary descent drawn by proponents are unproven. While it looks coherent, at no point has evidence been given that proves the change. Hence when one considers the multiplicity of ‘supposed’ unproven changes required in macro-evolutionary theory it is a faith not a proven fact.

2. Macro-evolution is less believable than most religions. Most religions require one or so aspects to be true. So for Christianity to be true all that is required is for the Gospel account to be true and that Jesus rose from the dead. Macro-evolution requires an almost endless progression of minor unproven changes over many millennia. It is easier to believe in Christianity for many than macro-evolution in that it requires a smaller range of belief.

3. Macro-evolution still requires God. Were we to still maintain that macro-evolution has occurred still begs the ultimate questions. How did life form initially? Where did the earth come from? What caused the bang if indeed the big bang started off the universe? What caused life to evolve in its many forms and for the environment to be so perfect. Has there really been enough time for this complexity to form in such wonder? In addition, the order of the creation account coheres pretty well with the order in which macro-evolution adheres to. For me, it is possible then that God used an evolutionary process to create.

4. The process of creation is unclear. Christians are not all uniform in their understanding of creation. The creation accounts refer to pre-history and predate contemporary understandings of the world. It is feasible that they are more symbolic than some think and may not be literal. There are some aspects of the language that suggest this (e.g. the Hebrew for day can be a long period, the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day raising the question of the literal length of the days, and the language is full of symbolism). That being the case, we cannot be utterly certain of the process. This raises the possibility of macro-evolution. That being the case, the arguments concerning macro-evolution or no macro-evolution become a red herring. That is, either way we need God to make it work! So I suggest we should examine the life of Jesus to decide on Christianity or not.

5. A reasonable case can be made for a literal creation as per Gen 1-2. Creation scientists have and continue to demonstrate that there are real problems with macro-evolution theory. In addition they also argue and demonstrate the possibility that the accounts are to be taken seriously and that life as we know it was created in 6 days (or over 6 time periods).

6. Nothing in contemporary science requires macro-evolution. Many scientists will claim that evolution alone explains existence and such things as genetics. However, that is not the case. The existence of a creator who ordered his creation according to his preset scientific principles explains every finding of contemporary science. The understanding of bio-sciences are in fact the discovery of the hand of the creator.

7. The closeness of some animal species to humanity does not require macro-evolution. The similarities between primates and humans does not necessarily suggest a relationship. They can equally reveal the creativity of God seen across the whole range of flora and fauna. Arguing for a relationship actually blurs the immense differences in intelligence and spirituality between the limited primates and humanity. We are clearly different, intellectually superior and capable of spirituality. We are made in God’s image and they are not.

8. The problem of the limits of macro-evolution. I often ponder why evolution has reached where it has uniformly. Why have some humans not developed wings; they would be extremely helpful? Similarly why did we dispense with gills? Why do some of us not still have gills? When one goes down this track there are a huge range of questions that are raised! Macro-evolution would lead to a far greater evolutionary diversity among humanity that we currently have. Creation and the non-existence of macro-evolution makes much more sense.

9. Macro-Evolution depends on chance. It remains inconceivable to me that all that we see is a result of nothing becoming something, the nothing exploding into the universe as we see it, by some freakish chance water emerged and in one primordial pool an amoeba spontaneously burst forth into life and then evolved spontaneously into a billion life forms! Such a view is an absurdity without the hand of a creator. This leaves two realistic options, theistic evolution (God creating by evolutionary processes) or macro-evolution as a myth!

10. Macro-evolution is western European’s creation myth. All societies have a creation story and the macro-evolution story is in fact just a myth created by western European atheistic scientists. It has no more warrant than any other creation story.

11. Macro-evolution fails to answer the ultimate questions. Macro-evolutionary theory does not answer the ultimate questions of why? How did it begin?

12. The mode of creation should be worked outward from Jesus. Jesus rose from the dead demonstrating his claim to be the Son of God. As such all postulations on original creation must work backwards from this event. He supported the biblical accounts literally. As such I hold by faith to the view that the world was created either as per Genesis either in a literal 6-day 24 hour period or in a 6 unspecified length periods. Both these views are consistent with the possibilities of Gen 1-2. Beyond that, who knows????

Friday, March 9, 2007

Isn't Christianity Sexist?

One of the problems some people have with Christianity is its apparent prejudice against women in its writings and history. Now where the latter is concerned, there is no doubt that Christianity as in many cases in its history, been oppressive to women. This sorrows me and on behalf of all Christians, I acknowledge this and seek forgiveness. As in the case of Christian involvement in violence and war, this is tragic and a distortion of the original intention of God concerning gender. Rather, I believe that the bible if understood correctly, promotes equality and complementarity while retaining gender distinctiveness.

This is seen in the clear patriarchal bias of the OT (see Gen 2:20; 3:16) and in certain key texts which appear to promote the leadership of the male in the marriage and home and in the church (see esp. 1 Cor 11:1-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:11-15; Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1-6). However to me, while it appears that Christianity is biased in this way in its writings, closer examination suggests no such bias. Here are some ideas in this direction:
1. The concept of woman as man’s helper in Gen 2:20 should not be understood as authoritative as God is also Israel’s helper in the OT implying that subordination is not necessarily in mind here (e.g. Exod 18:4; Ps 121:2). If subordination is read into the word, then God is subordinate to Israel which is out of the question.
2. The contention and dominance of men over women apparently referred to in Gen 3:16 is not God's ideal but the consequence of sin and caused by the Fall i.e. it is not God's intention. Both men and women are made in the image of God and on an equal footing before God (Gen 1:26-27). In the church this distortion caused by the fall of humanity is to be corrected.
3. The patriarchy of the OT law and life represents the patriarchy of the then world. It does not follow that such patriarchy should be universal for all of human history.
4. Jesus was highly positive toward women (Lk 8:1-2; 10:38-41; Jn 4:1-42; 8:1-12 etc.). He allowed them to be disciples as seen in the account of Mary and Martha (Lk 10:38-41). They formed part of his travelling team (Lk 8:1-2).
5. The first witnesses to the resurrection were women (Mt 28:1-5) which is actually remarkable in that their testimony was considered worthless in the age.
6. There is no gender limitation in the spiritual gift lists i.e. all can be gifted in such a way (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:1-31; Eph 4:11-12). Of particular note here is the gift of leadership in Rom 12:8 where Paul places no limitation of gender on this appeal to let those with the gift of leadership lead.
7. There is evidence of women involved in ministry in the early church (Acts 16:13-15; 18:26; Rom 16:1, 3-4, 6-7, 12; 1 Cor 1:11; 11:5; Phil 4:1-3; Col 4:15). These include Junia an apostle (the best reading of Rom 16:7), church hosts (e.g. Nympha in Col 4:15), teachers including Priscilla who taught alongside Aquila and is named ahead of him in many references indicating her priority (Acts 18:26), Euodia and Syntyche who were evangelistic co-workers of Paul in Philippi (Phil 4:1-3). These women worked in the service of God.
8. There is evidence that where the culture allowed women greater involvement, Paul adapted his approach to allow more involvement in the church (see the higher role of women in Macedonia cf. Acts 16:11-15; Phil 4:2-3). That is, Paul was flexible where culture is concerned in terms of the involvement and role of women (cf. 1 Cor 9:19-22).
9. Husbands are to love their wives with a sacrificial love involving giving up their lives in the manner of Christ (Eph 5:24). This suggests giving up power leading to mutual submission. The main imperative of the passage is ‘submit to one another’ (Eph 5:22). In addition the whole concept of headship does not necessarily imply authority but may indicate source in the sense of creation i.e. from man came woman, not implying authority.
10. There are clear indications of equality of all in the church in terms of race, gender and socio-economic class (Gal 3:28). This verse which tells us that in Christ there neither Jew nor Greek, male nore female, slave nor free; subverts the three great social divides in the ancient world. Paul is not wanting to remove cultural nor gender distinctives, he is speaking of a new order in which these old divides of oppression and dominance are now overthrown in the idea of community brought by God.
11. The injunctions in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 and 1 Timothy 2:9-11 probably should not be read a universal statements confinding the role of women but be read as injunctions to women in these particular situations who were causing contention. In the 1 Cor 14 context Paul has already allowed women to pray and prophesy in 1 Cor 11:5-7 and so here is probably seeking to quieten down those involved in the chaotic tongues and prophetic babbling of the Corinthian church. Similarly in 1 Tim 2, the women appear to be involved in the problem of false teaching which besets the Ephesian church and the injunction is targeting those who are involved. Hence, Gal 3:28 above sets the agenda for equality, but these injunctions are situational responses to problems.
12. Whether or not Paul held a patriarchal view, it is not stated whether these are to be applied in all cultures and in all times (see note 8 above). In fact indications in Paul are there that he advocated freedom where non-salvation matters are concerned. In 1 Cor 9:19-22 Paul speaks of adapting his lifestyle when among people of different ethnicities and persuasions in order to not put any obstacle in their way toward knowing Christ. Where gender then is concerned, I believe Paul today in our world, would advocate for mutual servanthood and submission and equality of opportunity in that this culture is framed in such a way.

I believe then that there is no real qualification on the involvement of women in church leadership. Indeed, where a culture is positive to the role of women as I suggest above, Paul and others would have argued for their involvement (cf. western European culture). On the other hand in cultures where women were subordinate he may have advocated a lesser role. That being said, Paul was not happy with the status quo as seen in Gal 3:28. In terms of practicalities, I believe in this complex age the church needs male and female leaders in equal measure to ensure effective pastoral care. In terms of life in the home I believe that a close reading of Eph 5:22f in particular suggests mutual submission rather than the headship of the husband in an authoritative sense. My own observation of good marriages suggests that in good marriages the husband and wife work as a team without any sense of domination, whatever view of marriage is taken. I conclude that on the basis of sexism, no one should write off the Christian faith. However, I admit we as a Christian people have a long way to go to truly reflect the freedom that is in Christ and for this we must continue to labour.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Who made God?

This is one of the great questions kids like to ask. It is also a favourite of Richard Dawkins, this question being the main argument he raises against God in the God-delusion.

Usually it is a response to Christian arguments for the existence of God i.e. everything that exists has a cause except the uncaused first cause; for you cannot have an endless regression of causes.

If so, then God must have a cause. What can be said in response?

1. Because anything exists, something must be uncaused. I would argue that the existence of anything at all presupposes the existence of an uncaused cause. Otherwise we are left with an endless regression of causes. Certainly both options are philosophically ridiculous and outside our experience. However, when combined with all the other evidences I have outlined above for the existence of God, the idea of a first uncaused cause is the better of the two options.

2. We cannot know the cause of God. Having suggested that an uncaused cause is a better explanation for our existence than an endless regression of cause, the truth is that we simply do not know the origins of God. I believe that the best explanation for the universe is some sovereign omnipotent being. However, if God had an origin then the creator of ‘god’ becomes God and we fall into the endless regression of causes again. That being the case God ceases to be God and God is in fact the creator of the god we know! So we are left with God as God. The combination of evidences for the existence of an all powerful, all knowledgeable and everywhere present God is the best explanation for existence, history and experience.

3. Jesus shows us who God is. The best way to know God is not through the creation however, it is found by working outward from the miracle of Jesus. Jesus was beyond any human who has lived or ever will live. He rose from the dead, did innumerable miracles and taught an ethic and belief that transcends all other philosophies and creeds. He was a Jew and as such promoted the God of Judaism as the true God. The search for God is not then found in philosophical thought and answering such questions but in searching the Scriptures, understanding his/her character and will and then living it. It is better to leave such philosophical wonderings to mystery and walk in faith with God.

I conclude that the best option of available options is that God is the uncreated creator of all that exists. I accept that this is beyond our reason but conclude it is the only way of making sense of creation and history.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Why would a loving God send people to hell?

One of the aspects of Christianity that puzzles some people is the thought that God sends some people to hell. While this seems distasteful and incongruous with a God of love, in fact it makes good sense when one considers the whole picture.

Before looking at some of the data it is important to state one thing from the start. That is this: the nature of hell is not clearly defined in Scripture. The most common image used for hell is of a lake of fire (Matt 25:45; Rev 21). Some believe that this should be taken literally and see hell as eternal ongoing punishment in a lake of fire. However, some reading the same data argue that hell is not in fact actually eternal suffering, but is being destroyed in a lake of fire for all time i.e. annihilation. That is, those who live forever with God are made immortal, those who reject God are destroyed (conditional immortality). Still others believe that the passages in question which refer to fire are to be taken symbolically. They would hold that all people are given immortality at their conception. Then, if they do not enter saving relationship with God, they will enter hell not necessarily a literal lake of fire but a place of eternal separation from God and all that is good. That being the case, hell is eternal existence in a place devoid of relationship, creation and light; some would say eternal solitary confinement in darkness and nothingness! Whichever is true, hell is a horrific concept. At its heart is separation from God and who wants that?

Now to some of the broader issues that call into question hell as unjust and unloving:

1. Hell is God’s yes to humanities no: Hell is only for those who have rejected God and his offer of salvation. That is, people who have said no to God’s offer of eternal relationship with him in his unblemished world to come. That being the case, hell is God's yes to humanities no to his offer of salvation. Some will respond 'what about those who haven't heard the message'. I have dealt with this objection earlier arguing that all will be judged on whether they responded to God in faith as he is revealed to them through creation and as revealed (cf. Rom 1:20; Abraham in Rom 4; Melchizedek in Heb 7; Heb 11).

2. Hell is essential for the destruction of evil: Justice and logic tells us that if a God exists who is pure, just, loving and good that for his justice to be demonstrated and his love to be complete, that at some point he must extinguish evil from the universe. Whether this is achieved by annihilating it or by confining it to a place for all eternity; the world to come will be free of evil and this is goo. Such confining or annihilation is a loving act to remove evil from the universe; setting free those who long for and pursue goodness and love.

3. Hell is God’s grace and love to lovers of good: Hell is God’s way of removing the tension and pain of living in a fallen world. For those who long to be with God, to enjoy freedom without evil and suffering, to experience life without pain and death, hell is the negative side of God’s yes to them. Heaven is the positive side, a world without suffering, pain, torment, grief and death! Hell then is the setting free of the universe from all that is not good including death, pain and more. I say it is then an act of love. In fact God's holding back from moving in this way is also an act of grace to give all created humanity a fair chance at responding. This cannot go on indefinitely; he will move before evil will triumph and this is right and good.

4. When one considers the extent and nature of evil, hell is totally justified: If Satan exists as the bible describes, he deserves eternal suffering! Jesus said unambiguously that hell is designed for him (see Mt 25:41). After all Satan has sought to destroy all that is good and which God has established and deserves such eternal torment. Similarly Hitler in WW2, Stahlin in communist Russia, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other meglomaniacal despots of history deserve nothing short of hell for the horrendous way they treated people. The tragedy is that all evil will be deal with in the same way and so many who are far less given over to evil will also suffer; however, God is consistent, he will destroy evil. Especially so when the whole Bible testifies that for God all sin is disgusting and an afront. As such, it must be dealt with because of God's nature, love, justice and purity.

5. Hell is easily avoidable: Those who baulk at hell need not do so for hell is not inevitable but can easily be avoided by accepting Jesus as Lord and saviour. All we need to do is accept God's offer of release from evil, from sin, from eternal destruction in whatever form. God offers us eternal friendship, joy, unblemished and unparalleled bliss by simply accepting his offer of salvation in Christ. That being the case, hell becomes a non-issue if we accept his offer.

I conclude that hell is a reasonable, just and loving concept. It is loving in that it is God’s yes to
humanities no and it sees the removal of evil from the cosmos, something that all reasonable people long for. It is just in that eternal destruction in whatever form is reasonable for Satan and utterly wicked humans. However, the nature of hell is not completely clear. While I consider that eternal separation from God would seem the most likely interpretation, other views of literal eternal burning and annihilation options are possible on the evidence given. The best response is to say yes to God and avoid hell, whatever form it takes.

Friday, February 9, 2007

Why is there so much suffering when God is supposedly so good?

A question that is very much related to the question of evil (see earlier blog) is... why is there suffering when God is supposedly so good?

As I suggested earlier in terms of the existence of God, suffering is a result of God allowing humanity freedom. That is, evil is horrendous but serves the function of enabling humanity to choose between good and evil. However, it exists not because God authored it, but because humanity since its inception, have consistently chosen it.

An examination of life of earth I think shows that a good degree of suffering on earth is caused byhuman error. I am sure most agree that it is unfair to blame God for a wars and other human induced problems. These happen because humans choose, in their freedom, to do the wrong thing.

By what do we do with so-called 'natural disasters' or 'acts of God'. These things appear to have nothing to do with human agency. I have to admit that for me this is one of the hardest questions to answer (another is as Dawkins points out in 'The God Delusion' is 'how did God come into existence [more on that in later blogs]).

My answer may not satisfy you but this is how I see it from my reflection on the Biblical witness. When humanity fell into sin firstly at the Fall (Gen 3), it was not merely that humanity was marred with sin and fallenness, but that all creation fell. That is, the Fall was a cataclysmic event that saw the whole of the created order ruptured and its original intent, goodness and beneficience marred. As Paul says in Rom 8:20-21, all creation is in bondage to suffering, death and decay. This extends to the whole created order whether it be the earth, the tectonic plates, volcanoe, the weather systems, the effect of sunspots on the earth, the sea etc.

As such, suffering is not a mere result of human failure in a direct sense, but a result of the cosmic fall of creation. Indeed, where there are 'natural disasters' there is often a complex interplay of direct human and indirect human 'natural factors'. So for example, an earthquake occurs and houses that are poorly built (direct human failure) fall and more lives are lost than should happen. I would say that earthquakes, droughts, eruptions, tsumamis and more are a result of human failure in the cosmic indirect sense in that the whole created order that we experience in this universe is marred. In addition, the effect of such events is often exacerbated by the problem of human sin in a more direct sense.

Paul tells us in Rom 8:22 that this creation will be set free from its bondage to decay, death, suffering and fallenness at the point of the culmination of human history at the return of Christ. Then, all things will be put in order including the restoration of creation. It is unclear how this will work; whether it will be restoration of the existing created order or a completely new order.

There are other things we can say about suffering. God is not distant from our suffering. Creation itself and the granting of freedom to humanity from robotic or coerced obedience led to God experiencing the grief and pain of seeing his beautiful world and beloved people reject him. He experienced the pain of seeing humanity inflict pain upon each other with the exertion of power and dominance. And he chose to participate in suffering to redeem his creation. Indeed, it is suffering saved us. It is through pain and the ignomony of our greatest enemy death that evil was defeated on the cross.

When Jesus as God made flesh died on the cross, he experienced the full brunt of evil and torture and death itself without falling into its snare. He could have fought back with the glorious power he had at his fingertips; rather, he chose not to use to fight evil. Instead, he allowed himself to be destroyed. In so doing and as a result of his flawless life, he was able to overcome death and make a way for us all to be saved. All we have to do is put our lives in his hands and his death becomes our judgement and we are saved, through his suffering.

So God has experienced suffering. He knows what it is like to be human. He knows pain, he knows grief, he knows the feeling of being rejected, whipped, beaten, nailed, punched and killed. He is not a distant God who is not connected to our reality.

Suffering also tells us we are alive. Sometimes it is easy to believe life is an illusion and then we pinch ourselves. Pain and suffering remind us that life is for real.

Suffering reveals good where suffering does not exist. Unless suffering existed, we would not know the concept of no suffering. It is the absence of suffering we yearn for because suffering exists.

Ironically and disturbingly, God uses suffering to make us better people. It is well known that it is in times of pain and suffering that we grow the most. In fact some would argue that suffering is essential for growth in a fallen world. It is a recurring theme in the NT that suffering leads to character development (Rom 5:3-5; James 1:2-4). In a fallen world, one of God’s main ways of developing us, is through suffering.

Christianity also points to a force of evil that seeks to enhance suffering, Satan. God is not the author of suffering. However, he has allowed evil to exist as his antithesis, humanity in its freedom chooses to rebel and sin, and so suffering has invaded and infected God's world. Suffering ultimately however, is engineered by the power of evil, the personal anti-God and his minions who seek to inflict pain and torment on us all.

Thankfully, Christianity is in the end, all about hope. We are assured that suffering will ultimately be destroyed and we will live forever in a pain-free zone (Matt 25:36; Rev 21:1-4). The hope of the Christian message is that God will bring this age to a conclusion and destroy all evil and suffering. At that point, suffering will cease to exist and those who have said yes to God will live forever with him in a place of bliss and joy.

For me, this is one of the most attractive aspects of Christianity. As I peruse my own frailties and the problem of evil which pervades our planet manifested most strongly in murder, war, violence, rape and oppression, I hold fast to the promise of the end of suffering, when every tear will be wiped away, every injustice dealt to and all things made right. The cross and the resurrection which points to God's victory over suffering and death, promises us this and I yearn for the day of Jesus' return. The resurrected Jesus is the first-fruits of the harvest of this victory which will come to complete consummation at his return.

So suffering exists and will continue to exist as long as humans are allowed the freedom to accept or reject God. God will end this when he is ready. In the meantime, I believe that this suffering has a redemptive and educative purpose and should not be written off as valueless. It tells us we are alive, it points to goodness, it has been defeated in the cross and resurrection. Ultimately, where God is accepted, at Christ's return, suffering will be removed from the experience of all in the world to come. Roll on that day I say!

Monday, February 5, 2007

Aren’t Christians responsible for so much war and suffering

Another of the great objections to people becoming Christians is the commonly stated view that Christians have been at the heart of great violence, war and suffering.

I really wish at this point I could simply say, 'it is not true! You are misreading history!' Rather, I admit this is the case and I apologise on behalf of such misguided so-called ‘Christians’.

One of the greatest tragedies of human history is the great truth that some ‘Christians’ have thought it best to fight wars and be violent. So we read of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Colonialism, WW1, Northern Ireland, Indonesia today and so on; situations where ‘Christians’ were at the heart of wars. I am sorry to all who read this for this tragedy. It is wrong and should not have happened.

Jesus repudiated all such violence. My reading of the essential teaching of Jesus is that he advocated non-violence and love of enemies. I would argue that Christians who are involved in war, violence and the use of the gun and sword have abrogated the essence of the teaching of Jesus in Mt 5. Some argue that Paul in Rom 13:1-4 supports the use of war. However, this is not the only way of interpreting this text. Rather, I would argue that he states that government hold the power to deal with wrongdoers. There is no indication of inter-nation or civil violence in this text. Indeed, in the previous verses Rom 12:19-21 he explicitly states Christians are not to take revenge but leave it to God. And even if Paul had supported Christians at war, a sound interpreter always goes first to the teaching of Jesus. Listen to what he says in Mt 5:38-47:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

To me, despite the difficulties that this view presents, Jesus' calls Christians not to take up arms and violence despite the existence of evil; rather, to love others, pray for them, broker for peace with non-violent means, be agents of reconciliation and resist evil in all ways except using evil means. Hence, while it is true that 'Christians' have been involved in a great many wars, this does not invalidate Christianity or Christ as Lord, Son of God and Messiah; it merely states that these 'Christians' have been doing the wrong thing. These 'Christians' will face God in judgement and it is not for me to judge them. However, I find it disgraceful and shameful that supposed 'Christians' take up arms or endorse the taking up of arms!

Other Christians hold different views such as the view of just war. This holds that if war is to occur it must be just. While I believe the notion of pacifism lies closer to the heart of Jesus teaching than war in any sense, I would accept that if war is ever to occur it must be just. Hence it must be the final resort, it must be self-defence, it must be minimalistic, utilitarian in that it benefits the most people possible and it must be followed up by restoration and so on.

Any use of violence to extend the Christian faith against other cultures, religions and creeds is abhorrent. Crusade wars are completely unchristian and woe to any 'Christian' who engages in them.

So I do not accept the view that Christianity is invalidated and to be rejected because of Christian involvement in war. I would argue that the failure of ‘Christians’ in this regard does not invalidate the faith but the ‘Christians’ involved. We must not make the mistake of arguing that a bad Christian or group of Christians invalidates all Christians. After all if we find a newsreader has been taking drugs this does not invalidate all newsreaders or the news itself. The newsreader in question is the problem. Neither does a rugby player who tramples his opponent, gouges his eye and smashes the ref over invalidate rugby; it is the rugby player who is at fault and will be banned.

So I do not seek to defend the charge that Christians have been guilty of being involved in war. I am are sorry for this and believe Christians should be peacemakers rather than soldiers. They should be the medics, chaplains who care for both sides of a conflict. They are to practice forgiveness and reconciliation, however difficult. They are to be at the head of efforts for peace, working at every level of society from the political world to the school playground and family to model and encourage a different way, a way of forgiveness and reconciliation.

A couple more thoughts. While I cannot deny the role of 'Christians' in violence and war; we must be careful to read history with balance and see the many Christians who have modeled non-violence, reconciliation, peace and forgiveness. History is littered with many such people and without them, perhaps the world would have completely destroyed itself. Finally, when considering Christianity have a look at the first 300 years. It was not until the faith was caught up in the politics of the Roman Empire that the 'Christian' way took on violent means. This calls into question how Christian it really was. This is not for me to judge; but I believe the fusion of faith and politics is a dangerous mix for it leads to such things! In that 300 years Christians with a few exceptions lived out faith in line with Jesus' teachings and the result was a sensational spread of the faith through love, mercy and grace. It is time for Christians to recapture this heart and renounce violence and war as a means to an end and stand firm for forgiveness, non-retaliation, reconciliation, love and peace.

Monday, January 29, 2007

What about those who have never heard about Jesus?

A question often asked is what happens to those who have never heard about Jesus. This is a fair question as Christians claim that salvation is through Christ alone. History tells us that Jesus came mid-history and to one geographical location. To claim then that all those who lived before Jesus' coming or before hearing about him are going to hell understandably seems rather harsh, salvation then is not an issue of personal response but to a large extent an accident of history and geography.

In my view the bible answers gives us some good leads to help us answer this question.

The New Testament refers to a number of people are have been saved and have gone to live with God for eternity, but who never heard specifically about Jesus!

These include Abraham and Sarah (Rom 4) and a whole long list of people in Hebrews 11 who are presented as examples of faith. These include the foreign prostitute Rahab. Hebrews also refers to the high priest Melchizedek of Gen 14 and Ps 110 who was a priest of the Most High God and whom Jesus followed as supreme priest (see Heb 7 in particular).

So this rules out the view that a person who has not heard specifically about Jesus or who lived before him is automatically separated from God for all eternity. So how was it that these people who lived before Christ are saved?

The first thing we can say for sure from the teaching of the NT is that they were not saved because of a perfect life. The Christian Gospel tells us that the reason humanity do not receive eternal life is because they have done wrong. This is universal. Sin separates us from God (Rom 3:23; 6:23). This makes sense, because there can exist no evil, sin or defilement in eternity or then evil will exist forever and contend against goodness.

In the named OT saints in Heb 11 and elsewhere, an examination of their lives indicates that even the very best of them failed to live the life that will gain them eternity by works i.e. none of these people lived a perfect life. Hence, they were not saved because of the things they did per se. They were flawed people who made mistakes. Some like Samson even rejected God for great periods of their life, coming back to him in the last minute (see Jdg 13-16).

Rather, they were saved because of their faithful relationship with God as they knew him as revealed to them (Rom 4:3; Heb 11:1, 39-40). These people were all saved because despite their faith-ups-and-downs, they walked through to their death in a living trusting relationship with God in terms of the way he had been revealed to them.

Abraham for example lived for many years trusting God and doing what he said (read Genesis 12-25). He made mistakes but hung in there. He knew God as ‘El, the God of his ancestors who he worshiped at shrines and as a nomad. He knew nothing about him as Yahweh or as the God of Israel, for Israel did not exist at this point. He knew nothing about Jesus or crucifixion or resurrection. Yet he was saved.

Similarly Moses initially knew God as 'El but after a sensational revelation of his being in which God made himself known as Yahweh followed him (the burning bush account in Exod 3). We are told that he disobeyed God on several situations (e.g. Exod 4:10-26; Numb 20:1-11). Yet he was saved on the basis of his lifelong faithful relationship in this God (read Exodus; Numbers; Deuteronomy).

This suggests to me that in other cultures where Christ has not been preached there are others like Abraham and Moses who knew God and walked in faithful relationship with him. Indeed I am of the view that God is knowable through creation and if we reach out to the creator seeking him to reveal himself to us, he will.

Some will think I am suggesting that people can be saved by other religions or that all are saved. However, I am not saying this at all. These people were not saved by religious ritual or doing the right religious thing like going to a shrine, making the right sacrifice, praying the right way, giving money to the poor, pilgrimmages or doing the right religious thing. No religion can save whether it be Islam, Hinduism, Judiasm, Buddhism or even the systems of the Christian church. These are all flawed and to varying degrees, inaccurate expressions of faith.

Rather, they were saved through their relationship of faith in God as revealed to them through creation and through his own special personal revelation.

Neither does this mean all are saved. The NT is clear, more people will not be saved than saved. Jesus made this clear when asked whether only a few will be saved (Lk 13:22-30). What I am saying, is that of the multitude of humanity who existed before Christ and never heard his name, there will be some whose faith in the God of creation will see their faith credited to them as righteousness as did Abraham. Though they did not see the apex of God's revelation Jesus, they honoured God with their lives believing in him and worshiping him (as per Melchizedek).

This means to me that where Christ has not yet been made known, or where he has been made known inaccurately, it is possible that people within these religious systems may be saved through their faithful relationship with him. They are not saved by the system, but by their faith in Christ.

Having said this, no matter who they are, they are saved through Jesus and God's grace, their faith in God being credited to them as faith in Jesus. People who lived before Christ are still saved retroactively by and through Jesus whose death saves them. This means that while they did not believe in Jesus in the contemporary Christian sense, they are still saved by his death and resurrection because of their living faithful relationship with God.

The type of faith that saves is a faith that lasts until their death; that is, they died in that relationship. The NT makes clear that is those who endure in their faith to the end that are saved. Hence it is not enough to say yes to God, get baptised and then expect to be saved. One must remain in that faithful relationship to the point of death to receive salvation (see Mt 20:1-16; 21:28-32; 24:13; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 15:2; Heb 6:1-8; Rev 2:26 etc.)

For me then, those who have not heard about Christ still have opportunity to be saved. However, they are not saved through any religious system or through perfect righteousness, but through an active living faith in God as they know him.

What is equally clear in the NT is that while this may be true, once a person has heard the gospel of concerning Christ clearly explained to them then it is on the basis of their response to Christ that they are saved. Interestingly it is only such people who ask this question! Jesus is God's final and dynamic revelation of his person. He came to end such questions; he came as God's final word. When we have heard the glorious story of his death and resurrection and appeal for us to come to him and experience eternal life, it is on this basis that we are saved. So what will you do? Will you say yes to Jesus? I hope you say yes, because there is nothing I would like more than to hang out forever with you. And God wants that even more than I do!

Friday, December 29, 2006

Aren't Christians Hypocrites?

One of the objections to people becoming Christians is that Christians are all hypocrites. That is, they make great claims of being morally wonderful and then in reality, prove to be far from perfect. They are then seen as self-righteous, party poopers who try to impose their morality on everyone else but are far from perfect themselves.

Well I agree with this criticism to a degree. Christians are not perfect or better than anyone. Christians who claim the moral high ground make a crucial mistake from my reading of the Bible which forbids hypocrisy and self-righteousness. This is the thrust of Jesus' parable telling us to take the log out of own eye rather than look for the speck in others eyes (Mt 7:1-5).

An honest Christian will admit that they are not better than anyone else. What stands them apart is not their superiority in ethical behaviour (although they should be trying to live righteously), but that know they are no better than anyone else; they know they are not perfect; they know that they are sinful and full of weakness. What they have realised is not that they are superior, but that they need God’s forgiveness and salvation! Christians are not better than others, they are just forgiven!

If a Christian sets themselves up as superior they better watch out, they have showing the cardinal sin of pride and need taking down a peg or two.

Christians all let the team down at some point or other. All Christians make mistakes and are flawed. We are far from perfect. We all say one thing and do another because we are sinful.

Unfortunately a lot of Christians after a few years or so, can start to think they are better than others. They look down on society and have high expectations of others. They bemoan the sins of the world, while a huge log is often hanging out of their eyes. I have been guilty of this myself and am seeking to stop doing this, it is wrong.

So on behalf of all those Christians (myself included), let me apologise; sorry! I apologise to you personally for any Christian who has been a hypocrite and put you off Jesus.

I want to suggest to you that the existence of Christian hypocrites does not actually invalidate the essence of the message and the faith itself. What it does do is invalidate the honesty of the person involved. Jesus remains the same whether a follower of Jesus is a hypocrite or not. Jesus himself is what we believe in, not people who follow him.

I encourage you to look beyond human representations of Jesus to Jesus himself. He was no hypocrite but a wonderful man worthy of your allegiance. There is no evidence of hypocrisy in him; in fact, the people he challenged the most were those who claimed to be righteous in God's eyes, saw themselves above humanity and even shut out those who were supposedly less holy. Jesus himself hung out with sinners. He despised the self-righteous pharisee and declared righteous the sinful repentent humble tax-collector (read Lk 18:13-18 and Mt 23).

I accept that it is true that some Christians are hypocrites and that no Christian should be. Rather all us Christians should be humble in their lives and in the reality of our weaknesses, of which, if we are honest, there are many.

However I also believe that the existence of many hypocritical Christians does nothing to invalidate the faith or Christ and should not be used as an excuse to reject Christianity. If you are doing so, I challenge you to look beyond the hypocrisy of Christians to Jesus who was no hypocrite. Remember too that all of society is full of hypocrites who say one thing and do the other. What my hypocrisy does is reinforce the need for all of us to come to Christ as the only way to salvation. Will you do it?

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Why did Jesus die on a Cross in such a way?

One of the great questions worthy of consideration is why Jesus had to die in such a manner. Now assuming that the problem of the world is the existence of evil, I suggest that this is the best alternative to save the world from the scourge of evil. I can think of three others possible ways God could have saved the world, none of which are realistic and all which violate his character or purposes.

1. Overthrow evil (annihilation): One way to remove evil from the human realm is for God to simply step in and exterminate it in an instant. People often ask why God does not do this! After all this would solve the problem of the existence of beings that are completely and utterly evil (e.g. Satan and demons) and would remove the problem.

However removing evil in this way would be a problem where people who are partially evil are concerned. And the truth is that we humans are all corrupted, all fallen to a greater or lesser degree (Rom 3:23). If God was to destroy evil in this way, he would have to destroy us all in an instant, and any possibility of relationship with God would be destroyed eternally. God, because of his character and desire to save, is not prepared to do this at this point. Ultimately, when time is complete according to God’s agenda, he will destroy all evil. However, he wishes to give humanity time to repent.

2. Overpower evil (robotism): Another way for God to overthrow evil is to simply force humanity and all creation to acquiesce to his power. As God with all power (omnipotence), he could if he chose to simply force all that opposes him to obey him.

The problem with this is that human freedom would be abrogated. This would defeat the purpose of God in creating people with choice and freedom. God’s character of love demands that he gives us freedom to respond, it is those who freely accept him that will live forever with him.

3. Overlook evil (universalism): Another way for God to solve the problem of evil is to simply not worry about it and let it exist eternally.

The problem with this is that despots like Hitler and Satan himself would then live forever with the whole creative power of heaven and God at their fingertips. This would make heaven an eternal cosmic hell! This would also violate God’s character which involves justice, he cannot allow evil to rule.

Hence God chose a fourth alternative. He chose to overcome evil through sinless perfection, crucifixion and resurrection.

God had to choose a way to solve the problem of evil whilst still allowing humanity to remain free to choose. This ruled out the above possibilities. Hence he conceived of the idea of allowing himself in his eternal form to become human whilst retaining his divinity. This he achieved in the person of Jesus born of Mary. He then lived in the human realm refusing to fall prey to temptation whilst demonstrating the loving, healing, just character of God. In so doing he fulfilled the prophetic expectations of the chosen community, to be the anointed king in the line of David sent from God to save his people (cf. Is 9; 11).

He then allowed humanity to reject him and kill him. He allowed this death to be culturally understandable as a sacrifice (hence the cross, the blood and his death cf. Lev 17:11). He allowed this death to be horrendous and excruciating, symbolically absorbing the worst humanity could throw at him. He then died in a physical sense, but due to his sinlessness, passed through death and was raised from the dead by God. He then invited all humanity to simply place their faith in him and they would be saved.

They would be saved not on the basis of their own perfection but on the basis of Christ’s perfection. At the moment of accepting Christ, the believer’s sinful existence would be replaced by Christ’s sinlessness. Hence at the point of the death the believer, on the basis of Christ, would pass through death to life. God would then replace their inner being with complete purity, extinguishing their evil in the cross. Then as they stand before God in judgement they are seen as faultless, the judgement of the cross being their judgement, and they need have no fear of hell. Those who reject Christ stand before God in judgement day with their evil and sin before them and they will join all evil in eternal separation from God.

I am amazed at how creative and clever this is. The cross is a gruesome disgusting way for a man to die on the one hand; however, on the other hand it is a brilliant, culturally relevant way for God to save the world without violating human freedom and his character whilst destroying evil! To me the only way to respond to such brilliance is to accept Jesus as saviour and Lord.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

My story Part 3

So I became a Christian in 1984. I gave up the booze, the weed and my girlfriend who also became a Christian went home to live at her Mum and Dads until we got married later that year. I found that I had the power within me to overcome the things in my life that I did not like. It was slow change, but habits of a lifetime take time to overcome even with the power of God.

I went back to teaching and started telling all and sundry how God had changed my life. It caused a bit of a stir; the drunken larriken now trying to be a saint. I carried on my sport but slowly my heart went more and more into the Christian world. I joined some others who were out preaching the message on the street, in prisons, schools and wherever the opportunity came. I told the story of how God had changed my life.

I started reading the bible like a sponge, pouring over it, memorising it. I found in its pages the truth I was looking for. After a year my wife and I were working fulltime for our church out in the community, setting up children's clubs, preaching and singing with our band wherever the opportunity came.

Eventually we realised we needed to train to be ministers and were to bible college and studied for four years both getting degrees. Then it was off to work in another church for a year, then off to the Presbyterian training institution to get ordained. At that time I started a Doctorate; a bit of a joke for a university drop out.

We came out of college and settled in Auckland and went to work as ministers, preaching, singing, doing children's work and anything we could do to encourage others to grow in their faith and to help others become Christians.

Now I am a Bible College lecturer having completed my doctorate and I spend my life teaching others what the bible is all about.

I have to tell you that God is good. He has never let us down. Even when we students and out family was struggling for money, he always came through. All the bad times in my life have been good times looking back. He works in and through our struggles. He is for real. He answers prayers. He leads when we get lost. He gives us freedom to make choices, he is there for us when we muck up. He is grace!

Give him a try!

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

My Story Part 2

So I ended up a school teacher. The God-stuff began when I arrived at work horribly hung over. Teaching was going to be impossible so I suggested the kids all do a project. Now, one girl chose to do Buddhism. This intrigued me and I asked her why. She said she was a Christian and that she wanted to know what other people believed. When she said she was a Christian something went off inside. I realised she was a great kid. I asked who else was a Christian in my class and all my best kids put their hands up. Now I know that not all Christian kids are like this, but these ones were.

This set the ball rolling. I started to see beautiful views. I started to remember back to what I had learnt in my early teens. I felt God drawing me, honouring my prayer I had made as a teenager. I asked my de facto girl friend to buy me a bible for Christmas; she did, but it freaked her out.

We went away that Christmas for the usual time of decadence and self-destruction with the booze and the drugs. For me this trip was different. I knew it was my last fling. I have never drunk as much or smoked as much weed; but it had no effect. God was calling me.

On New Years Day I announced to all my mates that I was giving away the life of debauchery to follow Christ. They were devastated and tried desperately to talk me out of it. I was immovable and when we got home I went church hunting. I visited one or two and then found a Presbyterian church. I knew the moment I walked in the door that God was in the house. I took my girlfriend reluctantly the next week and she too was hooked. It was modern, relevant and the people really believed.

Within a few weeks I gave my life to Christ, giving up running away from his voice. My girl friend followed suit. Pretty soon we felt uncomfortable about cohabitating in sin and so she went home to mum and dad and I stayed in our flat alone.

It was a great decision. Overnight the world looked different. I gave up the booze and the weed. I started taking teaching seriously. I went to church and read my bible, soaking it up like a sponge. I loved being alive. I realised that I was born for a reason and the reason was Jesus. He saved me from disaster. And then the journey really just began.

Monday, December 18, 2006

My story Part 1

It is time I shared a bit of my story. How is it that a boy who grew up in a non-Christian family came to be a Christian, a minister of the gospel and a bible teacher?

Beginnings
I did grow up in a non-believing family, although that may be being a bit unfair to my Mum who has always had some degree of faith; we certainly were not a church going family.

I remember during my time living in Niue Island in the Pacific aged 6 or 7 going to Sunday School. I recall nothing about why or what we did there, it had no effect that I recall in faith terms. I have no God-consciousness or awareness of personal faith.

We shifted to Rarotonga when I was 8 and I attended primary school and onto High School. Again, I have no recollection of any God-stuff.

It all began for me when I was 13 and a friend invited me to an after-school Christian group. I heard the teacher (Brian) telling us about Jesus and the phenomenal way in which he fulfilled many OT predictions about his coming. This impressed me as I realised that such a tie-up was impossible without the power of God over history, so I accepted Jesus as my Lord.

The experience after that is rather blurry but I recall that life got rather messy. My parents were very anti the whole thing. I am told I tried to convert them and this didn't go well; particularly suggestions of excess alcohol and smoking etc. I recall after some period of time weeping on my bed and saying to God that I couldn't follow him yet, but that when I got away from home I might. Looking back, I believe God heard the prayer of a 13 year old lonely boy and took me at my word.

From that point on I gave God the big sidestep and took to sport with a vengeance. I returned to NZ and played cricket and rugby for school and club and into the Auckland premier leagues. I was not bad at both and had high hopes. I also developed a taste for beer and parties, had a girlfriend or two and dabbled with recreational drugs. I was a lost soul though, deep down disillusioned with life knowing that there was more. I went to university and did not complete my BA; went off and became a school teacher.

I left home and went teaching and then the God-fun began. I was a real boozer and really should not have been in a classroom; I suppose the NZ education system was pretty desperate. I was living at this stage with Emma (who I have since married) and we lived a life of teaching, sport and partying. Little did I know that deep down, I was lost, very lost indeed.

More tomorrow...

Friday, December 15, 2006

Is Jesus God

Christians make strong claims about Jesus. Some who are radically monotheistic like Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah and Muslims find this distasteful. Some pseudo-christian groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and the ancient Arians relegate Jesus below the divine to the level of a super human or an archangel in their determination not to violate the principle of monotheism. But does the bible teach that Jesus is really God?

As I look into the Scriptures there are a number of reasons that we can be sure that Jesus is God.

1. The OT predicted that the Messiah, (the Christ = anointed king) would also be divine ('Almighty God' in Is 9:6).

2. The early Christians assigned Jesus the names 'Son of God' and 'Lord' both of which suggest his divinity. In the story Jesus is fathered by the Spirit of God and is called the Son of God. The name 'Lord' can mean master, but is more often used in the sense of 'God'. So for example Phil 2:11 he is the 'Lord' of Is 45:23-24 who is God himself, Yahweh. He is Lord above all Greco-Roman gods and the emperor. He is Lord in the Jewish sense, adonai = God.

3. Jesus in Jn 8:58 stated his preexistence and assumed the name of God ('I am') from Exod 3:14. Some dispute this but Jesus enemies recognised this and wanted to kill him for suggesting he was God (Jn 8:58).

4. His radically monotheistic Jewish disciples over time came to believe that he was God despite their opposition to such a thought. While they believed in one true God (Deut 6:5), they accepted that he was God and this is recorded in a number of texts: Jn 1:1-14, 18; 20:28; Rom 9:6; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1:3-8). Some tinker with these verses to diminish the divine attribution, but on deep engagement with these texts, this perspective does not hold up.

5. The acts of God are attributed to him including creation (Jn 1:3-4; Col 1:16) and forgiveness of sins (for which the Jews again wanted to kill him cf. Mk 2:1-12.

6. His miracles suggests that he was more than a mere mortal. Some argue that there have been others who do miracles and they point to his prophetic or angelic power; however, no one in history has raised the dead on three occasions, walked on water, calmed a storm, fed crowds of about 10, 000 with a few fish and loaves, healed countless sick people, cast demons out of huge numbers and then has risen from the dead to ascend to heaven! This is not bad!

7. His resurrection suggests that he was more than a mere mortal. This is the crunch event whereby Jesus was vindicated and demonstrated to be God!

8. His ascension into the heavens suggests that he is more than a mere mortal (Acts 1:11). His ascension was not just him disappearing into the clouds, but it was him rising up to be at the right hand of God.

9. Other biblical pointers can be found. Take a read of Revelation and you will see that God is on the throne but Jesus is also seated in the middle of the throne of God with God himself, the lamb seated on the throne. He is one with God (read ch 4-7 esp. Rev 7:17). Take a read through 1 Corinthians and see the interplay of Father, Son and Spirit e.g. 1 Cor 1:1-7; 12:4-6 where God in all three persons gives the gifts. 1 Corinthians also shows us that while there is a trinity, for the purposes of God's work in this world there are different functions for the three members of the trinity (cf. 1 Cor 3:22-23; 11:3; 15:23-28). Then there are the trinitarian texts where they are mentioned together e.g. Mt 28:20; 2 Cor 13:13.

10. Then there are those statements by the early church by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian in the second century; Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others in the second century. They all unambiguously stated that Jesus was not only fully human, but God.

11. The experience of millions of believers since his earthly life who have come to know him also suggests he is God.

12. Examples of NT people worshiping him e.g. Thomas who cried out 'my Lord and God' (Jn 20:28) and through Revelation where the community of God's people and angels worship the lamb who was slain!

For me the evidence is overwhelming. Jesus is God who created the world, was the God who walked with Jesus in the OT (cf. 1 Cor 10:4), came from the Father to save the world, died on a cross, rose from the dead, is exalted to the right hand of his Father (his original rightful place) and I will worship him as my Lord and God; will you?

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Can we believe in the resurrection?

Christianity is built of a belief not in the spiritual or metaphorical resurrection of Christ but in his bodily resurrection. That is, on a Friday sometime between 29-33A.D., Jesus who was truly dead through crucifixion, was buried in a sealed, secured and protected tomb and on the following Sunday, was found to be resurrected. That it was a bodily resurrection is clear from accounts of his eating with the disciples (Lk 24:42) and in Paul's defence of the bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15.

While there are no witnesses to the moment of resurrection, there are a number of indicators that the resurrection really happened. That is, Jesus the crucified man was raised from the dead to be Jesus the resurrected man.

In his resurrected state he was like a man in that he had the same essential body shape, had scars from his pre-death experience, remembered his pre-death life, ate, drank, walked, talked and interacted with those he knew. However, he was also able to go beyond normal human physicality able to translate from one context to another, to go through walls and doors and seemingly disappeared for long periods of time. Finally he defied gravity in his ascension.

1. The Empty Tomb: The problem of the empty tomb has never been resolved. Where was Jesus body on the morning of the resurrection? While this is not conclusive, this points to the question of what happened to his body?

2. The improbability of other alternatives? There are essentially only two other alternatives. Firstly, that Jesus was not dead, came to in the tomb, got out and when they came to the tomb he was gone. Secondly, that Jesus was dead and his disciples entered the tomb and took his body and then made up the story that Jesus was raised. The first idea that Jesus got out can be ruled out emphatically for these reasons.
a. The notion that the experiences were merely hallucinations can be ruled out due to the number of experiences across such a wide variety of appearances.
b. If Jesus was not dead, then he needed to have the strength to get out of the linen cloths soaked in spices which swathed his body (this would have suffocated him), pushed aside the large sealed rock from the inside in the dark and snuck or forced his way past the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb.
c. That Jesus was thoroughly dead is evidenced by the soldiers not needing to break his legs to hasten death and the separated blood which flowed from his side when he was speared.

The second idea that the disciples stole his body can also be ruled out because the disciples would have had to sneak past the soldiers, roll away the stone, unwrap Jesus and get away without being seen! Then they would have had hide the body from the authorities and others.

3. The problem of the missing body: While it is theoretically possible, even if highly unlikely that the body was taken, it is still theoretical at best as no body has been found which fits the description.

4. Appearances: In the bible five documents (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 21, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8)give specific and detailed accounts of appearances of the risen Jesus to his disciples. The best explanation of these accounts is that the risen Jesus was seen as recorded.

5. Inconsistencies in the accounts: Some would argue that the inconsistencies in the accounts suggest a lack of reliability and perhaps collusion. However, I would argue that the inconsistencies point to genuineness in the eye-witness recollections and honesty in recording the accounts. That is, the differences point away from any collusion and suggest honesty in seeking to record what happened. They read like eye-witness accounts much in the same way one might gather data from a crime scene.

6. The martyrdom of the witnesses and subsequent generations: The subsequent history of the church suggests that most if not all the disciples, and thousands of subsequent generations, died at the hands of the Jews and Romans for their claim that Jesus died. Would these people be prepared to die for a lie? Now people are prepared to face potential death for a lie if it gains them money, power etc. However, these disciples in the early days of the church gained nothing except social ostracism, suffering and death. It was not until the 4th century that it was highly profitable to be a Christian!

7. The monotheistic nature of the people involved: We also have to remember who these people were. They were radical monotheists who believed in one God, and not unlike contemporary extreme Muslims, rejected the notion of God becoming flesh, suffering and dying on a cross. For a Jew, one was cursed if they were crucified (Deut 21:23). It was inconceivable that the Messiah from God would be killed by Gentiles! Yet, these people, including one who set out to systematically destroy Christianity (Paul in Acts 9), turned to faith in a crucified-resurrected Messiah. This suggests that the resurrection is to be seen as a reality.

8. The testimony of the women: One of the most amazing features of the resurrection accounts is the retention of Mary Magdalene as the first witness in John, Luke's and the longer ending of Mark's accounts. It was commonly held that a woman's testimony was worthless and it would have been of no value. Yet, they retained this in the accounts. It would have been to their advantage in terms of evangelisation of the Greeks, for the early Christians to remove this. However, they did not do so. Again this points to the authenticity of the accounts.

9. Greco-Roman disbelief in bodily resurrection: N.T. Wright's book 'The resurrection of the Son of God' has gone through carefully the Greco-Roman view of life after death and has concluded that there was no belief in the resurrection of the dead in bodily terms in the Greco-Roman world. Hence it cannot be argued that the notion of bodily resurrection was placed back into the accounts to make them more palatable to the Greco-Roman world or that the accounts are reworked Greco-Roman myths. Rather, it points again to a determined attempt to hold onto to their experience of the bodily-resurrected Christ corpse at the centre of the faith. This speaks strongly to a bodily resurrection.

10. Other historical accounts: Negatively and positively the resurrection is supported historically. Negatively there is no counter historical account contemporaneous with the biblical accounts that provide evidence that the resurrection did not occur, or that there is a suitable alternative explanation. Positively, there is the intriguing statement of the Jewish historian Josephus that Jesus rose from the dead (see Josephus, Antiquities xviii. 33). While some dispute this as a later interpolation, no extant document exists without this reference, meaning there is no real textual evidence that it is a fraud.

11. The incredible impact of Christ: When one examines the amazing expansion of the Christian faith in the first three centuries it must be concluded something amazing happened. This is especially so when one considers that Christians did not take up arms to achieve this. The use of military force again came later, when the Christian faith became tied up with Roman military and political might. In the first few years the faith spread as the Christians were persecuted terribly and showed love to those in need, shared the message of Christ and showed love to those who persecuted them. The manner in which Christianity became the religious belief of the Roman empire is utterly incredible and suggests the reality of the resurrection!

12. The testimony of million: The personal stories of millions of Christians who give personal accounts of the way in which Jesus changed their lives indicates that he lives.

13. The ethic of honesty: People do plead honesty but lie. However, it would be rather surprising for those first Christians to build their testimony on a lie while preaching honesty for no gain. If they had made a lot of money or gained great social or political power through such infidelity one might think that they were charlatans. However, they did not gain much for many years. That being the case, those who preached 'do not lie' to me were unlikely to lie and die for the lie.

I conclude than that the best explanation of the evidence that exists is that Jesus did rise from the dead in a bodily and real form. If Jesus rose from the dead he is unique and worthy of the claims made about him. He is God, the risen Saviour and Lord of the universe. We should believe in him because it is a totally unique event in human history and points us to Jesus as the one we should follow.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

What about those who have never heard about Jesus?

If Jesus is so great and the path to salvation, what about those who have never heard or him? Are they cut out because of an accident of history i.e. they were born before his coming or lived in a place where his salvation message was unknown? That hardly sounds fair does it? Some hardline Christians take this view; however I disagree.

For me the bible, while not fully answering the question, gives us some good pointers in terms of answering this question.

The main lead is the way in which the New Testament refers to a number of people are have been saved and have gone to live with God for eternity, but they never heard about Jesus! People like Abraham (Rom 4) and a whole long list of people in Hebrews 11. It is worth examining why they were saved.

We can say for certain that they were not saved because of a perfect life; that is ruled out in the NT totally. In fact, examination shows that none of these people lived a perfect life. Hence, they were not saved because of the things they did per se. They were flawed people who made mistakes. Some like Samson even rejected God for great periods of their life (see Jdg 13-16).

Rather, they were saved because of their faithful relationship with God as they knew him (Rom 4:3; Heb 11:1, 39-40). These people were all saved because they walked through to their death in a living trusting relationship with God in terms of the way he had been revealed to them.

Abraham for example lived for many years trusting God and doing what he said. He made mistakes but hung in there. He knew God as ‘El', the God of his ancestors who he worshiped at shrines and as a nomad. He knew nothing about him as Yahweh or as the God of Israel, for Israel did not exist at this point. He knew nothing about Jesus or crucifixion or resurrection. Yet he was saved.

Similarly Moses knew God as Yahweh, who he met supernaturally in a burning bush, who he met on a mountain, who he disobeyed on occasion. Yet he was saved on the basis of his lifelong faithful relationship.

Hence we can conclude that in other cultures where Christ has not been preached there are others like Abraham and Moses who know God and walk in faithful relationship with him.

However, they were not saved by their religions! Rather they were saved by a living faith in God. Consequently, one can be saved necessarily through Islam, through Hinduism, through Judiasm or Buddhism. These are all flawed and inaccurate expressions of faith. However, where Christ has not yet been made known, or where he has been made known inaccurately, it is possible that people within these religious systems may be saved through their faithful relationship with the God they meet through creation and personal revelation.

Neither are these people saved through their view of God, they were saved retroactively by Jesus. This means that while they did not believe in Jesus in the contemporary Christian sense, they are still saved by his death and resurrection because of their faithful relationship with God.
The cross works across all of time for those who had a faith-relationship with God until their death.

The NT makes clear that is those who endure in their faith to the end that are saved. Hence it is not enough to say yes to God, get baptised and then expect to be saved. One must remain in that faithful relationship to the point of death to receive salvation (see Mt 20:1-16; 21:28-32; 24:13; 25:1-13; 1 Cor 15:2; Heb 6:1-8; Rev 2:26 etc.)

I conclude that those who have not heard about Christ still have/had opportunity to be saved. However, they are not saved through any religious system but through an active living faith in God as they know him through creation, personal experience and history. Once a person has heard the message concerning Christ clearly explained then it is on the basis of their faith in Christ as heard in the message that they are saved.

Monday, December 4, 2006

Why does evil exist?

One of the great questions asked by people in response to Christian claims is ‘why does evil exist if God is all good?’ This is the problem of theodicy.

I believe that the best explanation for the existence of evil, of pain and of suffering is found in the purposes of God and human freedom.

Evil exists for humanity to know and choose between good or evil. Central to God’s purposes is his desire for humanity to freely choose to accept him. Because of his love for humanity, he does not impose himself upon humanity, but wants humanity to freely come to him in relationship.

This desire for freedom and choice requires the existence of both good and evil. That being the case, God allowed evil to exist to ensure that humanity throughout its history, had a clear and ongoing choice to make between good and evil. Hence we see evil’s first appearance in the garden in the form of a snake (Gen 3:1). The snake offered Adam and Eve and alternative to the command of God (Gen 3:2-5).

The event of Adam and Eve's rejection of God is the Fall when humanity fell from their place of privilege and relationship with God. The event did not merely affect humanity but saw all of creation broken and fallen; this is the reason for natural disasters which are a distortion of the good order of creation. It also saw human relationships broken, our relationship with creation violated and our own psychological make-up marred.

Throughout the history of humanity the great adversary of God is Satan and he is the anti-god and anti-good God allows to exist, so that good is understood and revealed. Just as white is only recognisable in the presence of other colours, good is only visible where evil exists in whatever shade. Freedom, good and choice can exist without the existence of evil, but require the existence of evil to become evident.

Evil exists because humanity choose it. Since the days of Adam and Eve and their choice to do evil and not good, evil continues to exist because humanity continue to choose to do evil. In fact, human history, observation and the bible’s teaching all agree that the problem with the world is evil and in particular human evil. Indeed this is the problem of the world = sin. As it says in both Old and New Testaments, all sin and fall short of God’s glory (1 Kgs 8:46; Rom 3:23).

Evil exists but will be exterminated in its time (Mt 25:41; Rev 20). When evil was accepted by humanity God allowed death and mortality to take over humanity. Wherever a human chose to do evil God could not allow them to live forever otherwise evil would live forever. Hence we all die (Rom 5:12; 6:23). Where a person could live an unblemished life, continually and without compromise choosing good over evil, they would defeat death and evil (Heb 4:15). This is what Jesus did and so he rose from the dead, vindicated by God for his perfect life.

The bible teaches that the time will come when all evil will be exterminated. This means that all beings who have chosen evil will be destroyed. The wonder of the crucifixion of Jesus is that his perfect life meant that he defeated death. The way we can defeat death and evil is not through a perfect life which is impossible for us, but through faith in Jesus. His death then becomes our death and the evil we have committed is destroyed in his death retrospectively (Rom 6:1-4; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:4-7). We then pass through death to life free of evil not because we have never committed evil but because we have expressed deep remorse and accepted his death and resurrection as our own. All who reject God and Christ will not be saved but will suffer eternally!
I conclude then that evil has been allowed its existence in the short term to assist in giving God’s created volitional beings on earth the opportunity to make their decision to accept or reject God. Evil then is very much subordinate to God and only exists to allow people choice. All evil will ultimately be separated from God eternally. Those who prefer evil will experience that ultimate separation.

Saturday, December 2, 2006

Why did God create our world?

Greetings again pilgrim. If you are an evolutionist, don't write off this stuff immediately. What is written here is working with the premise that God created the world and does not presume at this point to state how he did it. I will look at this another day. So, why did God create this world; this universe? And why did he create us?

The first reason is that he created to express his character. As a creative being, creating is something which flows from God in the same way as painting flows from an artist or a song flows from a composer. God is the ultimate artist, scientist, architect and builder. As such creation is inevitable where God is concerned. This makes it probable to me that there is more to God’s creation than that which we can observe and experience. Concepts like other planets with life, aliens, the multiverse and other unimaginable creations are natural to my view of God. There is nothing in the bible to rule out such an idea despite what some Christians claim. Were we to discover intelligent life forms on other planets or dimensions, for me, this would cohere with the biblical concept of God.

Secondy, he decided to create a world for his created people. The whole point of the creation of the world was to create an ideal environment for humanity to exist in. The picture of the garden of Eden and the wonderful flora and fauna of the earth is for humanity to live in a wonderful free loving relationship with God, free of suffering and evil (read Genesis 2).

Thirdly, he created to create free volitional free creatures with whom he could live in eternal volitional relationship. Put another way, the whole point of creation is love. God is love, meaning that he is relational, wanting to love and to be loved. We humans are created to live with God forever and ever in a relationship of love. He wanted us to do this by choice not by coercion i.e. he wants to spend eternity with those who want to be with him.

Fourthly, he created because it was worth the risk. God knew at the point of creation that it was possible that he would be rejected and evil would rule. In fact, in terms of his omniscience (all-knowledge), he knew that humanity would rebel against him. However he still wanted to create knowing that some would accept him and live eternally with him in a relationship of love.

So he created you to be his companion and friend, to exist with him forever and ever. He wants to bless you and he wants to know you. Will you let him?

Friday, August 5, 2011

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Monday, March 19, 2007

Friday, March 9, 2007

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Friday, February 9, 2007

Monday, February 5, 2007

Monday, January 29, 2007

Friday, December 29, 2006

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Monday, December 18, 2006

Friday, December 15, 2006

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Monday, December 4, 2006

Saturday, December 2, 2006

Blog Archive

About Me

Bare Theology