Thursday, January 6, 2011
Sunday, December 19, 2010
New blog
That's right, I caved. After spending quite a lot of time modifying this one, I've decided to move across to wordpress due to the enhanced features available. Check it out at http://lizziethinks.wordpress.com
I will still keep this one active though, to avoid breaking links!
I will still keep this one active though, to avoid breaking links!
Monday, December 13, 2010
NTE 2010 Round-Up
NTE stands for 'National Training Event', which I've blogged about previously here. This year it was bigger and better than ever, with approximately 1600 university students gathering in Canberra for 5 days of learning from the Bible.
This year, a big highlight for me was the Strand groups. I was in Strand 3 where we spent a week learning about the systematic theology of the resurrection. I was initially intrigued, then very excited, by the idea of studying the Bible according to themes. Building on exegesis and systematic theology tools learnt in Strands 1 and 2, I pondered questions not yet considered by me: is the resurrected Jesus divine or human? (answer: both). What does Jesus' resurrection mean for followers of God who died before Jesus walked on earth? (answer: they are raised too, see 1 Corinthians 15:17-18). Does Jesus' resurrection 'cancel out' the original plan for humans to rule the earth (cf. Genesis 1:28)? (answer: no- we rule under him, by submitting to his lordship).
The rich symbolism of the resurrection throughout the Bible, especially in the NT, was also explored; expressed in words such as 'rose' and 'risen'. E.g. Colossians 2:12. Instead of writing a talk at the end of the Strand, this year we got to write a tract. See mine and my partner's here. It's not great because we didn't get time to draw pictures but you get the idea.
Don Carson's talks on 2 Timothy were also great. I was most challenged by thinking about his point on 2 Tim 3:10-11: do I ask younger Christians to 'be imitators of me even as I am of Christ'? Scary stuff. Am I pursuing God to the extent that I would feel comfortable with others following me?
In his discussion of 2 Timothy 4, Carson's testimony of how the Christian community has supported him and his wife throughout the years was poignant. Their faithfulness was incredible, and it again highlighted that even that the most prominent preachers still need people to keep them accountable, pray for them, rebuke them, love them and tell them when they need to rest. He challenged us not to be bitter when the Christian community lets us down, like Paul isn't bitter in 2 Tim 4:16-18. There was definitely bitterness from which I needed to repent , and I left the talk feeling more affirmed in the hope that Christian community can and does work. I think the biggest 'must' is communicating when we need help, rather than trying to be independent.
All in all an enjoyable 5 days, where the food and accomodation were considerably improved on last year (food: more of it and better quality, and accomodation: camping this year was much closer to the main venue).
If you're a Christian uni student, I'd highly recommend going next year. Find out more info here.
This year, a big highlight for me was the Strand groups. I was in Strand 3 where we spent a week learning about the systematic theology of the resurrection. I was initially intrigued, then very excited, by the idea of studying the Bible according to themes. Building on exegesis and systematic theology tools learnt in Strands 1 and 2, I pondered questions not yet considered by me: is the resurrected Jesus divine or human? (answer: both). What does Jesus' resurrection mean for followers of God who died before Jesus walked on earth? (answer: they are raised too, see 1 Corinthians 15:17-18). Does Jesus' resurrection 'cancel out' the original plan for humans to rule the earth (cf. Genesis 1:28)? (answer: no- we rule under him, by submitting to his lordship).
The rich symbolism of the resurrection throughout the Bible, especially in the NT, was also explored; expressed in words such as 'rose' and 'risen'. E.g. Colossians 2:12. Instead of writing a talk at the end of the Strand, this year we got to write a tract. See mine and my partner's here. It's not great because we didn't get time to draw pictures but you get the idea.
Don Carson's talks on 2 Timothy were also great. I was most challenged by thinking about his point on 2 Tim 3:10-11: do I ask younger Christians to 'be imitators of me even as I am of Christ'? Scary stuff. Am I pursuing God to the extent that I would feel comfortable with others following me?
In his discussion of 2 Timothy 4, Carson's testimony of how the Christian community has supported him and his wife throughout the years was poignant. Their faithfulness was incredible, and it again highlighted that even that the most prominent preachers still need people to keep them accountable, pray for them, rebuke them, love them and tell them when they need to rest. He challenged us not to be bitter when the Christian community lets us down, like Paul isn't bitter in 2 Tim 4:16-18. There was definitely bitterness from which I needed to repent , and I left the talk feeling more affirmed in the hope that Christian community can and does work. I think the biggest 'must' is communicating when we need help, rather than trying to be independent.
All in all an enjoyable 5 days, where the food and accomodation were considerably improved on last year (food: more of it and better quality, and accomodation: camping this year was much closer to the main venue).
If you're a Christian uni student, I'd highly recommend going next year. Find out more info here.
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Sacred Journey by Charles Foster
Charles Foster's contention is clear: God has a 'clear bias for the wanderer' and accordingly the Christian life should consist of real pilgrimages, or metaphorical ones for those for whom its not possible. Starting from Abraham's nomadic wanderings and ending with Jesus' journey, Foster attempts to demonstrate that all Christ-followers should have the mind of a nomad-disciple.
I was originally alienated by Foster's anti-institutional, anti-authoritarian approach. Whilst valid at times, he fails to acknowledge that God has and does work through institutional structures and even set them up! (cf. Titus 1:5) He mocks the "traditional" definition of the gospel offered by the conservative evangelicals at his dinner party, and instead proposes that the Gospels don't contain 'anything analogous to conversion', rather, people just follow Jesus, and gradually become transformed by doing so. But what about the woman in John 8 who has been accused of adultery? Jesus doesn't tell her to 'follow me', rather he commands that she 'leave her life of sin'.
As Foster moves from the theological underpinnings of pilgrimage to the practical benefits of going; 'getting rid of junk', 'thirst(ing) for an encounter', the fellowship on the road; he becomes more convincing. Visiting the places Jesus walked, living simply and freely away from modern 'necessities' help build faith and grow in intimacy with God and other travellers. For appreciating nature, noticing the 'small things', and remembering that our real home is heavenly, pilgrimages can be a life-changing experience.
I also appreciated Foster's rejection of gnosticism prevalent in many churches today. He contends that what happens to our bodies matters' and the corporal *is* spiritual. This means that flesh and blood experiences like pilgrimages do affect our faith, and that 'laughing, mourning, caring, walking along roads and making love are sacramental activities'.
In all, I began to appreciate Foster's lyrical, relaxed approach to writing as the book rolled on, the centrality of narrative and the power of stories (very postmodern!). I also became thankful of his measured approach, whilst not sharing his openness towards relics, I liked that he didn't immediately condemn the Catholic church, and how he acknowledged a variety of Christian experiences but still noted the need to a personal commitment to Christ.
"Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com http://BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
"Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com http://BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Monday, January 25, 2010
The danger of theological academia
Reading this on Gordon's blog gave me much food for thought:
Trueman's thesis in the article's entirety is that evangelical academics are becoming 'lowest-common-denominator' theologians, watering down their doctrinal beliefs in order to gain popularity and speaking gigs. But this quote made me stop dead in my (metaphorical) tracks: as someone who is attracted to working in this area, how does spending one's life reading, writing, and researching some abstract aspect of political theory, or, if I were to work in the 'non-secular' realm; how does publishing theories on the meaning of one verse in the NT, build up God's people? Sure, you may be contributing to 'the Academy's' (boy I hate that phrase) communal knowledge, but what difference are you making to bringing people into the Kingdom and strengthening their faith?
As someone who has never been practically minded at the best of times (the applied, 'real-life' nature of much of my 'Public Policy' subject last semester drove me to choose even more theory-based subjects for this year), these questions were a real challenge. Sure, I may gain great satisfaction from working in this area, but how would Ido it for these purposes? Here are some of my thoughts. Feel free to add yours.
1. As Trueman emphasises: stay firm to hope which you were called, and do not back down from the strength of your convictions. Our academics must strengthen God's truth for God's people by clearly explaining and teaching the Word, not watering it down to be popular amongst people.
2. Be a missionary academic. Many countries do not have the theological resources that we do - books, Bible Colleges, teachers. Forsake a nice salary and a comfortable lifestyle and teach somewhere that needs Bible teachers.
3. Commit to some form of 'practical ministry' throughout your Bible College years, even if you are hoping to enter academia. I have been told this several times and whilst I sometimes want to back down and commit surplus hours to, say, extra study; I can see how this trains your focus on serving the King and his people. Even better, keep being involved in practical ministry whilst working in academia.
4. Teach those who are entering ministry, as well as supervising your 'pet projects' (those interested in your area of study) and researching/reading/writing about your discipline. Teaching those who will teach others provides a more tangible link to building God's kingdom than merely publishing papers that 0.1% of the Christian population will read.
5. Write a book/books on the 'real-life' applicability of your research for the everyday Christian.
6. Dialogue with secular and/or liberal theologians, archaeologists etc. Be influential.
7. If in a 'secular' workplace, be a witness to Christ there. Academia is one of the hardest places to be a Christian. Be someone who serves others, who isn't just scrambling for the next promotion, who actively seeks and demonstrates a work/life balance. Pray with other Christians in your department.
8. Realise that studying God's word and teaching it faithfully is an enormous privilege and responsibility. Thank God that this is your work. Despite my earlier point, even strengthening that 0.1% of the Christian population's faith is contributing to the Kingdom, if not in the most effective way.
Finally, too few evangelical academics seem to have much ambition. Perhaps this sounds strange: the desire to hold a tenured university position, to publish with certain presses, to speak at certain scholarly conferences, to be in conversation with the movers and shakers of the guild—these seem like ambitions that are all too common. Yet true ambition, true Christian ambition, is surely based in and directed towards the upbuilding of the church, towards serving the people of God, and this is where evangelical academics often fail so signally. The impact evangelical scholars have had on the academy is, by and large, paltry, and often (as noted) confined to those areas where their contributions have been negligibly evangelical. Had the same time and energy been devoted to the building up of the saints, imagine how the church might have been transformed. - Carl Trueman, 'The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind'.
Trueman's thesis in the article's entirety is that evangelical academics are becoming 'lowest-common-denominator' theologians, watering down their doctrinal beliefs in order to gain popularity and speaking gigs. But this quote made me stop dead in my (metaphorical) tracks: as someone who is attracted to working in this area, how does spending one's life reading, writing, and researching some abstract aspect of political theory, or, if I were to work in the 'non-secular' realm; how does publishing theories on the meaning of one verse in the NT, build up God's people? Sure, you may be contributing to 'the Academy's' (boy I hate that phrase) communal knowledge, but what difference are you making to bringing people into the Kingdom and strengthening their faith?
As someone who has never been practically minded at the best of times (the applied, 'real-life' nature of much of my 'Public Policy' subject last semester drove me to choose even more theory-based subjects for this year), these questions were a real challenge. Sure, I may gain great satisfaction from working in this area, but how would Ido it for these purposes? Here are some of my thoughts. Feel free to add yours.
1. As Trueman emphasises: stay firm to hope which you were called, and do not back down from the strength of your convictions. Our academics must strengthen God's truth for God's people by clearly explaining and teaching the Word, not watering it down to be popular amongst people.
2. Be a missionary academic. Many countries do not have the theological resources that we do - books, Bible Colleges, teachers. Forsake a nice salary and a comfortable lifestyle and teach somewhere that needs Bible teachers.
3. Commit to some form of 'practical ministry' throughout your Bible College years, even if you are hoping to enter academia. I have been told this several times and whilst I sometimes want to back down and commit surplus hours to, say, extra study; I can see how this trains your focus on serving the King and his people. Even better, keep being involved in practical ministry whilst working in academia.
4. Teach those who are entering ministry, as well as supervising your 'pet projects' (those interested in your area of study) and researching/reading/writing about your discipline. Teaching those who will teach others provides a more tangible link to building God's kingdom than merely publishing papers that 0.1% of the Christian population will read.
5. Write a book/books on the 'real-life' applicability of your research for the everyday Christian.
6. Dialogue with secular and/or liberal theologians, archaeologists etc. Be influential.
7. If in a 'secular' workplace, be a witness to Christ there. Academia is one of the hardest places to be a Christian. Be someone who serves others, who isn't just scrambling for the next promotion, who actively seeks and demonstrates a work/life balance. Pray with other Christians in your department.
8. Realise that studying God's word and teaching it faithfully is an enormous privilege and responsibility. Thank God that this is your work. Despite my earlier point, even strengthening that 0.1% of the Christian population's faith is contributing to the Kingdom, if not in the most effective way.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Subordination within the Trinity.
Until recently, I have never considered the issue of subordination within the Trinity; that is, Jesus being eternally (and therefore ontologically) subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to both of them. However, whilst one can offer an alternate reading to passages like 1 Corinthians 14:32-33 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 by a closer reading into both literary and historical context, the crux of the issue of submission and its relationship to women in ministry relates to Ephesians 5:21-33 (note how I include verse 21 in there, it is important!).
This is because he argument against women in ministry (in a preaching/teaching role to mixed audiences) can rest on an almost literal translation of 1 Tim 2. Even more prevalent is the view is that whilst women should not be silent, they should not be in a position of authority over a man, which includes teaching and so on, due to created order (Gen 1-3) and due to the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5), which sees 'man/husband as the head the church as Christ is the head of the Church', and accordingly the woman in submission.
The purpose of this post however is not to expound the complementarian view (the position that man and woman are equal yet have inherently differently roles), for a thorough exploration of it all one needs to examine is 'Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood'.
Onward and upward.
So, if Christ is only temporally subordinate, and thus temporally inferior to the Father, or eternally subordinate yet not ontologically inferior due to being of the same stuff or same substance of the Father*, then a seemingly water-tight argument on headship/submission as being the underpinnings of the argument against women's ordination becomes to become a bit more murky.
More fuel for the subordination position:
It appears that Christ is constantly in submission to the Father's headship. Examples include: 'Yet not my will, but yours be done' (Luke 22:42). Jesus is a servant of God (Isaiah 42:1, Matt 12:18). He is given authority by God to perform miracles (Matt 21:23-27), He honours His Father and seeks His glory (John 9:50).
John 5:17-27 may be used as evidence of Jesus' ontological subordination.
However, the Jews' anger in vs 18 is due to Jesus claiming equality with God (see also John 10:30). 'Jesus was not teaching men that God is the Father of all. The Jews would have accepted this. He was claiming that God was His father in a special sense...that He partook of the same nature of God. This involved equality' (Leon Morris The Gospel According to John).
v19- Jesus states that He cannot act in independence of the Father. This is consistent with the continual union of the Trinity. I don't think it necessary implies deference, although it can can and still hold true with my view; that Jesus is submitting to the will of the Father as a part of the incarnation. But if Jesus does all that the Father does - for the Son 'also does' whatever the Father does - is He somehow lowlier?
I think this passage's emphasis is on the unity of the Father and Son. Words such as 'granted' and 'entrusted' are meant to draw a link between the function/ability of God and that of Jesus (for the Jew's sake who probably didn't realise their equality). I don't think that this necessarily means that God "gave" Jesus this ability as a special privilege; rather the writer is affirming their equality.
Then again, even if God grants Jesus these privileges as a part of his fully human/fully God state, this state is short-term and may not be the eternal reality.
This view of Jesus as subordinate reflects that of Arianism, which believes that Jesus was created at some point by God, not "unbegotten" like God Himself, and that thus Jesus is inferior. 'The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God." 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 was cited as proof text:
Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God (Gk. theos - θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord (kyrios - κυριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (NRSV)" (Wikipedia).
This is the view I subscribe to. If there is eternal (as opposed to temporal) headship within the Trinity, the notion that all three persons being equally and simultaneously God is disrupted. It doesn't acknowledge Jesus' subservience as being for a functional purpose. Jesus gave up his equality in status with God for our sake (Philippians 2:5-11).
The implications:
If the Son is not eternally subordinated to the Father then this has huge implications for whether women are permanently subordinated to men, or, whether with the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven and the beginnings of the reversal of the effects of the fall, this subordination has began to be removed.
Or, if one is inclined towards the position that headship is endemic to created order (i.e. Genesis)...
Headship within the Trinity may not mean 'subordinate to' or 'under the authority of' God as 'the head of Christ means that the Son is 'eternally begotten of the Father', or 'of the same stuff as' and therefore equal to God. Likewise, headship within marriage/male & female relationships in general could mean 'of the same stuff as' and therefore equal (see Piggin pg 3).
An article that is relevant to this debate is a book review of Kevin Giles' 'The Father and the Son: modern evangelicals reinvent the doctrine of the Trinity' by Stuart Piggin. It covers the relevance of subordinationism in the quest for women's ordination in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, and is much more eloquent and humorous than I.
Another paper is here, also a book review by Charles Sherlock, which offers a brief review of Giles' work.
*Yes, I am aware that I change the scope of my argument here slightly away from my original definition but if one can "prove" that Jesus is eternally subordinate, I think a case still stands to be made against the inference of His ontological subordination.
This is because he argument against women in ministry (in a preaching/teaching role to mixed audiences) can rest on an almost literal translation of 1 Tim 2. Even more prevalent is the view is that whilst women should not be silent, they should not be in a position of authority over a man, which includes teaching and so on, due to created order (Gen 1-3) and due to the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5), which sees 'man/husband as the head the church as Christ is the head of the Church', and accordingly the woman in submission.
The purpose of this post however is not to expound the complementarian view (the position that man and woman are equal yet have inherently differently roles), for a thorough exploration of it all one needs to examine is 'Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood'.
Onward and upward.
So, if Christ is only temporally subordinate, and thus temporally inferior to the Father, or eternally subordinate yet not ontologically inferior due to being of the same stuff or same substance of the Father*, then a seemingly water-tight argument on headship/submission as being the underpinnings of the argument against women's ordination becomes to become a bit more murky.
More fuel for the subordination position:
It appears that Christ is constantly in submission to the Father's headship. Examples include: 'Yet not my will, but yours be done' (Luke 22:42). Jesus is a servant of God (Isaiah 42:1, Matt 12:18). He is given authority by God to perform miracles (Matt 21:23-27), He honours His Father and seeks His glory (John 9:50).
John 5:17-27 may be used as evidence of Jesus' ontological subordination.
However, the Jews' anger in vs 18 is due to Jesus claiming equality with God (see also John 10:30). 'Jesus was not teaching men that God is the Father of all. The Jews would have accepted this. He was claiming that God was His father in a special sense...that He partook of the same nature of God. This involved equality' (Leon Morris The Gospel According to John).
v19- Jesus states that He cannot act in independence of the Father. This is consistent with the continual union of the Trinity. I don't think it necessary implies deference, although it can can and still hold true with my view; that Jesus is submitting to the will of the Father as a part of the incarnation. But if Jesus does all that the Father does - for the Son 'also does' whatever the Father does - is He somehow lowlier?
I think this passage's emphasis is on the unity of the Father and Son. Words such as 'granted' and 'entrusted' are meant to draw a link between the function/ability of God and that of Jesus (for the Jew's sake who probably didn't realise their equality). I don't think that this necessarily means that God "gave" Jesus this ability as a special privilege; rather the writer is affirming their equality.
Then again, even if God grants Jesus these privileges as a part of his fully human/fully God state, this state is short-term and may not be the eternal reality.
This view of Jesus as subordinate reflects that of Arianism, which believes that Jesus was created at some point by God, not "unbegotten" like God Himself, and that thus Jesus is inferior. 'The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God." 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 was cited as proof text:
Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God (Gk. theos - θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord (kyrios - κυριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (NRSV)" (Wikipedia).
Obviously I am not debating the eternity of Jesus in the Godhead (see John 9:58, John 1:1-3) but it is important in the premises of this discussion.
The non-existence of headship within the trinity:
'The function of one member of the Trinity may for a time be subordinate to one or both of the other members, but that does not mean he is in any way inferior in essence. Each of the three persons of the Trinity has had, for a period of time, a particular function unique to himself. This is to be understood as a temporary role for the purpose of accomplishing a given end, not a change in his status or essence'... in like fashion, the Son did not become less than the Father during his earthly incarnation, but he did subordinate himself functionally to the Father's will. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is now subordinated to the ministry of the Son (see John 14-16) as well as to the will of the Father, but this does not imply that he is less than they are' (Erickson - Christian Theology, emphasis mine).This is the view I subscribe to. If there is eternal (as opposed to temporal) headship within the Trinity, the notion that all three persons being equally and simultaneously God is disrupted. It doesn't acknowledge Jesus' subservience as being for a functional purpose. Jesus gave up his equality in status with God for our sake (Philippians 2:5-11).
The implications:
If the Son is not eternally subordinated to the Father then this has huge implications for whether women are permanently subordinated to men, or, whether with the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven and the beginnings of the reversal of the effects of the fall, this subordination has began to be removed.
Or, if one is inclined towards the position that headship is endemic to created order (i.e. Genesis)...
Headship within the Trinity may not mean 'subordinate to' or 'under the authority of' God as 'the head of Christ means that the Son is 'eternally begotten of the Father', or 'of the same stuff as' and therefore equal to God. Likewise, headship within marriage/male & female relationships in general could mean 'of the same stuff as' and therefore equal (see Piggin pg 3).
An article that is relevant to this debate is a book review of Kevin Giles' 'The Father and the Son: modern evangelicals reinvent the doctrine of the Trinity' by Stuart Piggin. It covers the relevance of subordinationism in the quest for women's ordination in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, and is much more eloquent and humorous than I.
Another paper is here, also a book review by Charles Sherlock, which offers a brief review of Giles' work.
*Yes, I am aware that I change the scope of my argument here slightly away from my original definition but if one can "prove" that Jesus is eternally subordinate, I think a case still stands to be made against the inference of His ontological subordination.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
SPRTE and mission
So I've recently come back from a great time at the South Pacific Region Training Event (SPRTE), hosted by AFES (the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students), held at ANU (Australian National University) in Canberra. That's a lot of acronyms! The conference was at full capacity with about 1200 students attending. It's usually known as NTE (National Training Event), but this year they decided to open the conference up to students from New Zealand, Fiji, PNG and Vanuatu. . This meant that the evening sessions each night saw a presentation from a selection of students and staff workers from these countries. We were treated to national dances and talks about what God has been doing in the IFES (International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) groups. It was so encouraging to hear how the groups were working within their cultures to bring students to Christ.
This meant that in addition to the presentations, in the evening we also had short (and very powerful) sermon (25mins) from Richard Chin and Nigel Pollock on Matthew 26-27, which encouraged us to, amongst other things, do sacrificial acts for Jesus that will look reckless in the eyes of the world like the woman with the perfume. We then had 20 minutes of fantastic stories from Lindsay Brown (former head of IFES) from each continents' student movements. My favourite story came from Poland, where the local Christian group was trying to reach students in the large college dormitories. Brown's emphasis for the conference was on content and creativity in evangelism, and this story demonstrated the point well. A student dressed up as 'death' (black sheet) knocked on an unsuspecting college student's door, and said ' This is death. You are now dead' and ran away. A few minutes later, an angel knocked.
-'Hello, has death visited here recently?'
-'Yes'.
-'Do you know what you need to do to escape the consequences of death?'
- 'No'.
- 'To find out, come along to a meeting tomorrow night in room ....'
A little while later, Satan taps on the door.
- 'Has an angel been here recently?... well, you should not listen to him. It's all lies. Do not go to that meeting tomorrow night'.
A couple of hundred students were to turn up to the evangelistic meeting. Apparently teenagers and uni students will always do the opposite of what they're told not to do.
I've been told that the major benefit of this different evening format was that we were spared a 50min+ sermon from Phillip Jensen.
Despite this, I was actually surprised to find myself really enjoying Jensen's talks on sin and God's wrath in the morning sessions. I must admit I entered the conference with some trepidation, after hearing that in previous years it has not been uncommon for some students to walk out during his talks. Without knowing the depth of human depravity, its helplessness to save itself from sin, the Gospel doesn't make sense. Jensen thoroughly derided the New Perspective on Paul (one of its major proponents being N.T. Wright) and I've been won over to PJ's side NR will be pleased to know. The NPP emphasises the reconciliatory function of Jesus' death at the expense its payment for God's wrath at human sinfulness. This is not just acts committed, but God's anger at humanity itself which is corrupted by sin. This idea of collective sin is often absent in popular definitions of sin.
This is also reflected in the argument over the use of 'expiate' vs. 'propitiate' in Romans 3:25. The use of 'expiate' in a c.1970s version of the RSV still makes Jensen livid to this day, as expiate means to 'turn make amends for wrong; to satisfy the Law's demands' whereas propitiate is the 'turning aside somebody's anger or wrath'. Jesus' death does make amends for wrong, but this view neglects God's anger.
PJ argues that liberal theologians can no longer deny propitiation, it is fully supported by the Bible, so they instead point to other 'models' of atonement as 'options' to explain the Gospel. These are the
Leon Morris (Ridley College) in his book The Apostolic Teaching of the Cross (1955) receives due accolades from the speaker for being the first to argue the important of propitiation over expiation.
Other than talks, and singing, and hanging out with friends, my nostalgic view of college life was quickly shattered. The poky rooms, awful bathrooms and even more terrible food was enough to put me off it for life. Probably compounding the bad experience was the fact that in our dorm block the eating/dining/hang-out area was in a separate building to where we were sleeping; creating a somewhat disjointed aspect to social interactions. I have also decided that despite the spread-out beauty of ANU, it really it too spread out - each morning it took us 15 mins just to get to the main session; let alone some others for whom it took 40! (they landed up driving).
Between main sessions we spent time in Strand Groups (from 1-5, with '1' being the one you were in at your first year at SRPTE/NTE, 2 your 2nd and so on). I was in Strand 1 where we studied Romans 3:21-26 for 5 days (yes, that does work out to 1 verse a day!) and learnt the principles of exegesis. At the end of each strand, each person writes a talk on the Bible passage covered and presents it in front of the rest of the group. I must admit writing my first sermonette/talk was really challenging, but I absolutely loved it. My talk was aimed at mostly Christian uni-students and was basically an exegesis of the passage with some age-relevant application. I focused on the righteousness that can be found through Christ; how this righteousness is available apart from the Law, Righteousness is only given through faith in Jesus, and how God's righteousness is found in the way he passes over the former sins. My friend Emily's talk was aimed at youth and she used a problem/solution model: how our sin produces a huge problem and how Jesus' death is the only solution to this problem.
After SPRTE each attendee embarks on four solid days of mission with a group from their uni. After waiting around Canberra airport for 3.5 hours playing half-lucid games of 500, we finally arrived in Melbourne after a short flight. I was on the 'Greensborough' mission team in Melbourne's Northern suburbs. Over the next four days, the 18 of us bonded and lead a CRE celebration at two primary schools, Sunday School, youth group, women's event, men's breakfast, children's carnival, young adults' dinner, 3 church services (with preaching, prayers, testimonies, service leading etc all done by members of our team), gospel roaming i.e. telling people about Jesus in the local shopping centre and so on. each of these events had an evangelistic focus with testimonies and talks from people from our team or one of the ministers from our host church.
I was surprised at how much fun it was; I found myself loving
This meant that in addition to the presentations, in the evening we also had short (and very powerful) sermon (25mins) from Richard Chin and Nigel Pollock on Matthew 26-27, which encouraged us to, amongst other things, do sacrificial acts for Jesus that will look reckless in the eyes of the world like the woman with the perfume. We then had 20 minutes of fantastic stories from Lindsay Brown (former head of IFES) from each continents' student movements. My favourite story came from Poland, where the local Christian group was trying to reach students in the large college dormitories. Brown's emphasis for the conference was on content and creativity in evangelism, and this story demonstrated the point well. A student dressed up as 'death' (black sheet) knocked on an unsuspecting college student's door, and said ' This is death. You are now dead' and ran away. A few minutes later, an angel knocked.
-'Hello, has death visited here recently?'
-'Yes'.
-'Do you know what you need to do to escape the consequences of death?'
- 'No'.
- 'To find out, come along to a meeting tomorrow night in room ....'
A little while later, Satan taps on the door.
- 'Has an angel been here recently?... well, you should not listen to him. It's all lies. Do not go to that meeting tomorrow night'.
A couple of hundred students were to turn up to the evangelistic meeting. Apparently teenagers and uni students will always do the opposite of what they're told not to do.
I've been told that the major benefit of this different evening format was that we were spared a 50min+ sermon from Phillip Jensen.
Despite this, I was actually surprised to find myself really enjoying Jensen's talks on sin and God's wrath in the morning sessions. I must admit I entered the conference with some trepidation, after hearing that in previous years it has not been uncommon for some students to walk out during his talks. Without knowing the depth of human depravity, its helplessness to save itself from sin, the Gospel doesn't make sense. Jensen thoroughly derided the New Perspective on Paul (one of its major proponents being N.T. Wright) and I've been won over to PJ's side NR will be pleased to know. The NPP emphasises the reconciliatory function of Jesus' death at the expense its payment for God's wrath at human sinfulness. This is not just acts committed, but God's anger at humanity itself which is corrupted by sin. This idea of collective sin is often absent in popular definitions of sin.
This is also reflected in the argument over the use of 'expiate' vs. 'propitiate' in Romans 3:25. The use of 'expiate' in a c.1970s version of the RSV still makes Jensen livid to this day, as expiate means to 'turn make amends for wrong; to satisfy the Law's demands' whereas propitiate is the 'turning aside somebody's anger or wrath'. Jesus' death does make amends for wrong, but this view neglects God's anger.
PJ argues that liberal theologians can no longer deny propitiation, it is fully supported by the Bible, so they instead point to other 'models' of atonement as 'options' to explain the Gospel. These are the
- 'exemplar' (1 Peter 2:11) : how we too should put other's lives before our own
- 'Victorious' (Colossians 2:13-15) : Jesus' triumph, once and for all, over sin.
- Reconciliation (Colossians 1:20) : This view is extremely pervasive today; we are reconciled to God, God makes peace with men, through Jesus' blood.
- Revelation (1 John 4:9) : God shows his love for us by sending his Son to die.
Leon Morris (Ridley College) in his book The Apostolic Teaching of the Cross (1955) receives due accolades from the speaker for being the first to argue the important of propitiation over expiation.
Other than talks, and singing, and hanging out with friends, my nostalgic view of college life was quickly shattered. The poky rooms, awful bathrooms and even more terrible food was enough to put me off it for life. Probably compounding the bad experience was the fact that in our dorm block the eating/dining/hang-out area was in a separate building to where we were sleeping; creating a somewhat disjointed aspect to social interactions. I have also decided that despite the spread-out beauty of ANU, it really it too spread out - each morning it took us 15 mins just to get to the main session; let alone some others for whom it took 40! (they landed up driving).
Between main sessions we spent time in Strand Groups (from 1-5, with '1' being the one you were in at your first year at SRPTE/NTE, 2 your 2nd and so on). I was in Strand 1 where we studied Romans 3:21-26 for 5 days (yes, that does work out to 1 verse a day!) and learnt the principles of exegesis. At the end of each strand, each person writes a talk on the Bible passage covered and presents it in front of the rest of the group. I must admit writing my first sermonette/talk was really challenging, but I absolutely loved it. My talk was aimed at mostly Christian uni-students and was basically an exegesis of the passage with some age-relevant application. I focused on the righteousness that can be found through Christ; how this righteousness is available apart from the Law, Righteousness is only given through faith in Jesus, and how God's righteousness is found in the way he passes over the former sins. My friend Emily's talk was aimed at youth and she used a problem/solution model: how our sin produces a huge problem and how Jesus' death is the only solution to this problem.
After SPRTE each attendee embarks on four solid days of mission with a group from their uni. After waiting around Canberra airport for 3.5 hours playing half-lucid games of 500, we finally arrived in Melbourne after a short flight. I was on the 'Greensborough' mission team in Melbourne's Northern suburbs. Over the next four days, the 18 of us bonded and lead a CRE celebration at two primary schools, Sunday School, youth group, women's event, men's breakfast, children's carnival, young adults' dinner, 3 church services (with preaching, prayers, testimonies, service leading etc all done by members of our team), gospel roaming i.e. telling people about Jesus in the local shopping centre and so on. each of these events had an evangelistic focus with testimonies and talks from people from our team or one of the ministers from our host church.
I was surprised at how much fun it was; I found myself loving
- teaching gr 3s+4s about how to talk to their friends about the real meaning of Christmas. Highlight: 8 y.o. Tom who pipes up with "I don't have the spirit of evangelism. I find it really hard to talk to my friends about Jesus".
- chatting to two young women who worked as strippers for over 2 hours. One was 6 months pregnant, the other was her best friend. They were so smart, both could be studying law at university. They could also quote the Bible better than I could. It was fun to dialogue with them about Christianity and religion/faith.
- and playing silly games with the youth: highlight was when we got the kids to be the 'arms' for us leaders (us putting our arms behind our backs and putting their arms through the gap) and being 'interviewed' by another leader. In the course of the interview, Michaela's arms applied lipstick (previously used on a male leader), brushed my teeth with a toothbrush (also previously used on another male leader), gave me a banana to eat and gave me a glass of water to drink. So I landed up with toothpaste, lipstick, banana and water all over me. Fun times :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)