Back to India!

Our journey started on a train to the airport. It was a good thing, because there was a huge traffic jam on the motorway that day and we might not have made our flight if we had driven!






























We were on a airbus A380. It's big.




















A monorail in Singapore.





















The kids looking out our window at our hotel in Calcutta.














Two days after we arrived back we were straight into teaching at a workshop! Not recommended.

If you're reading this ...

on your own computer. Then you're rich: see here.

Pro-choice is not real choice

A great, bipartisan article on abortion by, Lyn Bender, a woman who had one.

She says that she actually felt that she didn't have a real choice, that abortion was her only option - even in our society which overflows in choice.

Read more here.

Lausanne talks are up on iTunes

search for Lausanne 2010. Gold.

Abortion debate

My post on getup's website on their new pro-choice campaign:

I am pro-choice in the true sense. I believe that a woman has a choice to not fall pregnant. She has the choice to take take the pill, to use an IUD, to use a condom, to use a diaphragm. So many choices.

I only support the the right to have an abortion if those rights to choose have been forcibly taken away from the woman (eg. when she has been raped.)

I don't understand why people on the left of politics (like me), support our Government providing adequate safety nets for the underprivileged in our society, and support big action on climate change (partly because it is the poor of the world who will suffer most if our climate changes), but we don't respect the right of the most defenceless person in our society - the one inside another person - to continue their life outside the womb.

Doesn't this seem strange to anyone else?

I'm a big supporter of most of getup's campaigns - except this one. I think the abortion debate should be taken off getup's radar, because I think we are divided on this one.

Sabbath rest

I just read a great book on parenting, Confident Parenting by Jim Burns. In one chapter he talks about how to "do" sabbath with your family. I found his 4 different categories of sabbath rest helpful. (Note: I've changed their titles so I can remember them more easily).
Physical restoration: Taking care of your body. Sleeping in, taking Nana naps, lounging around with the family... and for those who need to get more exercise to restore their body: taking walks, jogs, going for a swim.
Emotional restoration: Doing what gives you emotional energy. For me this means hanging out with good friends. For others it might be doing something by yourself - like taking a candlelit bath.
Spiritual restoration: Doing things which restore your soul and give you spiritual strength. Reading the bible, taking a prayer walk or prayer hour, listening to and singing worship songs, listening to a talk, doing devotions with the family. These can be done individually and as a family.
Relational restoration: Spending time together playing as a family. Doing fun things together which create memories, encourage bonding, reduces tension, and affirms each member of the family. Playing board games, going on fun outings, sharing a special meal, doing whatever makes you laugh together and have fun.

I found these categories very helpful because I often tend to concentrate on one or two of these types of sabbath, when we all need them all in some measure. He also isn't legalistic about setting aside one whole day for sabbath, but he does encourage scheduling regular times in the week or month or year to do these activites so they are prioritised by the whole family.

Why shepherds?

Why did angels appear to shepherds in Luke 2?

Shepherds!???!

Isn't that a bit random?

Or is it some imagery to do with Jesus being the shepherd of Israel, so symbolically, shepherds coming to worship him first is appropriate?

Or was it that God's angels were just overflowing with joy and had to sing about it, and the shepherds happened to be there when they did?

Just wondering.

A solar powered India?

Here's an ambitious plan for solar power generation which the Indian government is contemplating. I hope they go for it. Power cuts happen every day over here.

Some natural wonders

The last post has prompted me to recall things which I have seen which have made me (metaphorically) breathless at the natural world we live in. Here's my top 10.

1. Accidentally seeing a total solar eclipse (see previous post).
2. Riding around country Denmark on the first warm spring day. I saw more green than I could remember, and the additions that humans have made to the environment there are delightful. I'm surprised that this innocuous day has made it onto this list, but it's my version of Wordsworth's daffodils.
3. Driving through a wintry Arizona, seeing only green firs heaped with white snow and then happening upon the orange tones of the Grand Canyon. Amazing.
4. Lying on my back at night just outside Canberra and watching shooting stars and satellites go by.
5. Seeing Kachenjunga (3rd tallest mountain in the world) from a few hundred kilometres away in Darjeeling.
6. Seeing the peak of Everest from a plane (it was the same height as our cruising altitude).
7. Seeing the rings of Saturn through a telescope.

And 8-10? I'm still waiting for those. I wonder what they'll be... any suggestions?

A Lucky Solar Eclipse

I got up early yesterday morning. I happened to be checking the news on smh.com.au and I saw that there was to be a total solar eclipse, and it happened to be in the part of the world I was in.

I read a bit further, yes, exactly where I would be...

I looked at what time it was supposed to be happening... I checked the time here... mmm that's about right.

I turned my head 90 degrees, and I could see, through the clouds, that the sun had almost disappeared. It was just a small sliver of sunlight that I could see on the underside. I wasn't sure if it was the sun or the moon, but then with a moment's reflection I realised that with a solar eclipse it's, of course, both! I'd always wanted to see a solar eclipse, so I was thankful that I had been woken early.

Then the sky went darker than I've seen even thunderous storm clouds darken the sky. It was eerie - we could see that there was bright sunlight still lighting the clouds on the horizon. Some people screamed as the sun disappeared. Some made their Hindu religious wailing noises. Then I could see the ring around the sun before it disappeared behind the clouds.

The darkness remained for about 3 minutes. It was a long time to be in that dark-but-daytime state. (Imagine the three hours of Matthew 27:45!)

Then, in the course of about 30 seconds we returned to what felt like full daytime (but of course the sun was still mostly hidden). It made us realise again how dark it had really been.

I asked my friend later what people thought about it, she said that people aren't scared, but they do think it's something unclean, and that after a solar eclipse they clean all of their plates and pots and pans to purify them.

Are our church planters forgetting something?

There's buzz going around these days about church planting. Al Stewart has been appointed as the Director of Evangelism ministries (in the Anglican church). He's going to focus on church planting.

 

Here's a quote from Al:

 

"I am absolutely committed to inspiring, recruiting, equipping and placing young men with a passion for church planting and reaching the lost."

 

Here's Michael Kellahan's take on Al's message from the recent Moore College Church Planting Conference:

 

"We have got to revitalise existing churches and plant more. The big middle chunk of our churches are not growing. The biggest factor is leadership. We need to support guys and get the right guys in the right places and the wrong guys out (Al Stewart soon to be ex bishop of Wollongong)"

 

My question is:

 

Where are the women in these discussions and conferences? Seems to me that half of our church is women, and that women also have gifts in leadership (even the most conservative amongst us hold that women are at least to lead and train other women.) Even for those who hold that a man should lead a church, couldn't his wife (if gifted and interested) also be actively included in the planning process?

 

I get a little worried that the inital planning is taking place from a very male perspective - and may lead to unbalanced, and therefore unsustainable churches.

 

What do you think? Does anyone else get this vibe?

Did mark think Jesus was God?

Here's something which I've learned recently about Jesus as shown to us in Mark.

 

I noticed a while ago that Jesus never calls himself God in Mark. Our doctrine of the trinity clearly tells us that Jesus IS God, but where is the evidence for that in Mark? You would think that if he was God, he would have told us in each gospel somehow….

 

I was going through Mark chapter 6, and I came to this verse which comes just after the disciples were struggling in the boat, when there is a storm, and Jesus walks on water towards them. When he gets into the boat with them the storm immediately stops, and Mark notes that "their hearts were hard, because they didn't understand the significance of the loaves". What? Is that a mistake, surely Mark meant that they didn't understand about Jesus having power over the storm… Assuming, as we must, that what is written is what Mark intended us to read, then I started thinking. "Well, what is the significance of the loaves?"

 

So I read over that whole section, and I saw some parallels to Old Testament passages which gave clues to the meaning, and what the significance of the loaves (and the whole section) may be.

 

Here's my paraphrase of chapter 6 verses 31-52, with Old Testament allusions in bold.

 

***

 Jesus said to his disciples, come to a desert place and rest a while, because there were so many people coming and going that they hadn't had anything to eat. And they went by themselves, to a desert place. Many people followed them there, and Jesus had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd, and he taught them many things.

 

After a while it became late and they were all hungry. His disciples tell Jesus to send them away, but instead, after commanding them to sit in orderly groups, Jesus miraculously provides bread for the people in the desert. And everyone had enough to eat.

 

Jesus then told his disciples to go ahead of him into the boat as he went up a mountain to pray. Then a storm came, and Jesus saw that the disciples were struggling in the boat. He goes out to them, and does he go straight to them? Not quite. He intends to pass by them. But when he sees that they are afraid of him, he says to them "Have courage. I am. Don't be afraid." And he goes to them, into the  boat and immediately the storm ceases.

 

They were amazed because they didn't understand the significance of the bread miracles, because their hearts were hard.

 

***

 

Who is the one who feeds hungry people in the desert? Who meets with a human on a mountain, and passes by him? Who is called "I am"…

 

The significance of the loaves is the identity of Jesus. Jesus is the one who fed Israel in the wilderness when they are hungry. Jesus is the one who is called the "I am".  Jesus is showing by his actions (in this section, and repeatedly through Mark) that he is God.

 

 

 

40 days

I've been living in India, and have returned to Australia for about 40 days before I head back to India. I realised something which I've never thought about before. The time that Jesus was on earth between his resurrection and ascencion was quite a long time!

He really did have quite a long time to be with his followers and to tell them whatever he needed to before he left them and sent them his Holy Spirit. I wonder what that time must have been like for them. Life changing, I bet.

I wonder if he got towards the end of his time (like I have my time in Australia) and realised that there are lots of things to be done and only a few days to do them in). Did he makes lists of all the things to do...?

Telling stories - Part 2

So I've been asked how the event in this post went.

 

Firstly can I say, that I'm a little surprised at the fact that every time we've this type of storying - in churches big and small, it has received a very positive response, people say that they love it. But I haven't seen it take off as a method of "word" focus in church services. I wonder whether our traditions are getting in the way of trying out new things which might be helpful for people who are not reached so well with the traditional sermon format. 

 

Anway, here's what happened. I was speaking to a group of about 35 high school age kids. I the story from chapters 2-6 of 1 Samuel. I memorised it beforehand (which was made alot easier by the fact that I've told this story a couple of times before). Incidentally, I think it's a great way to meditate on the text - by indwelling the text until you're able to retell all the details of the text in your own words.

 

The kids were good kids, but they did tend to talk among themselves occasionally. What was interesting was that, while the story was being told, none of them made a sound - they were very attentive... maybe they were just being polite, but I got the feeling that they were actually paying attention the whole way through (and the story took about 12 minutes, so it wasn't quick). I find that often while doing this method of "bible study" or "sermon" people really get into the story and absorb long portions of OT narrative which they often wouldn't if such long portions were simply read from the front.

 

I told the kids beforehand that they would be the ones giving the sermon, and I told them the five questions that they were going to be asked at the end. Asking the questions was quite sucessful too - people love being able to say what they think. I was told beforehand that this group might not be very talkative (I've been told that before, but I never pay attention because it never turns out to be true.) It wasn't true, they came up with lots of good responses, and a few dodgy ones as well, but I'd rather that people felt free to talk and think and say what they really think, than just sit there in the pews thinking these things but not saying them.

 

Since I was asking the questions generally, I was able to answer them also, and say some things which I'd noticed from the passage too. From the prayers afterwards it seems that at least some kids absorbed the application.

 

In the service following the one where I told the story, I ran into someone who had heard me tell a story at a service a year and a half ago and he still remembered it and said how helpful he thought it was especially for more working class people, for whom the "sermon" doesn't really reach into their hearts as much.

 

Here's my challenge for readers of my blog: do a bit of reading about Bible Storying (here's a great place to start - and click on "further reading"), and try it out at your church (in addition to, or as a substitute for, the sermon) or at a Bible study.

 

If you do, let me know how it goes.

 

A new blog on Gender roles in church

I've been thinking about women preaching to men (and related issues). Some people, I think rather unfairly, call that issue my "hobby horse". How rude! I prefer to call it my passion. I think it's important for us to interpret the bible well on this issue. 

 

However I will not cloud this blog with all my thoughts, so I've started another blog where I'll occasionally post my thoughts as I think about this, and investigate the key passages in Scripture. Some of my thoughts are well formed, others are more murky. If you're also interested I'd appreciate your comments (I always find that I learn best in a discussion with others).

 

Join me here, if you're interested.

 

 

Which is the best translation for a pew Bible?

I've heard that there is a bit of buzz going around regarding the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I've read a bit of it, and for a literal translation it seems pretty good to me. Certainly better than the ESV.

 

I'm not sure it's the best translation to have in church pews though.

 

It seems to me that the New Living Translation, my favorite translation (though for many years I used to make fun of the name - "What, are all the other translations dead??") is one of the best to read when you're reading long portions of the text. The strength of the NLT is that it makes at least the main meaning of each passage clearer than the literal translations do. The down side of that is that it does cloud a few of the ambiguities or nuances which are present in the original, but when you're a new Christian, or a seeker, you want to know what is the main point. What is the big story. And the NLT shows that most clearly I think. (See here for my thinking about the pros and cons of different Bible versions)

 

When thinking about pew bibles, don't we want to be thinking evangelistically? Let's face it, the keen Christians can bring their own bibles to church if they like another version better (as I do). But the person who is unfamiliar with church, and unfamiliar with the grand narrative in the bible, who is very unlikely to bring their own bible, needs to have a bible which is in as natural English as possible, in which they can grasp the big picture meaning easier.

 

When it comes to bible translation, for personal devotions, I think the more natural language, the better. I love using the NLT because it speaks to my heart, and is encouraing, in a way that more literal translations are not.

 

Does anyone out there use the NLT in their church? I think we should use it more.

 

Telling stories

I'm telling a story at church this evening.

 

It's a great way to do a bible study, or sermon (in this case). I'm retelling 5 chapters from the old testament from memory at a Youth Church, and then I'll get the congregation to give me the sermon.

 

The questions I'm going to ask are

 

What did you like about this story?

What didn't you like about the story?

What did you learn, from this story, about God?

What did you learn, from this story, about humans?

How can we apply what we've talked abou to our lives?

 

Lets see how it goes.

 

Better go practise my story.

The heavenly wedding - a song

Here's the lyrics of a song written by my gorgeous and talented husband. It has a great tune too, if you're interested in the music let me know.

 

A day has been appointed

A table has been laid

A heavenly celebration

The bride in glorious array

 

A day has been appointed

A feast has been prepared

When God himself will keep his word

To bring us to him there

 

It is a day of "Hallelujah!"

A new day dawns

The whole world steps into the light

Heaven sings out "Hallelujah!"

Our hope will be rewarded

Our faith will turn into sight

 

Her groom is waiting for her

He prepared her for this day

He made her robes of beauty

He washed her sins away

 

And now the night is ended

And evil is no more

Yes God himself has kept his word

And so forever more

 

It is a day of "Hallelujah!"

A new day dawns

The whole world steps into the light

Heaven sings out "Hallelujah!"

Our hope will be rewarded

Our faith will turn into sight

 

 

 

The purpose of suffering

I used to think that in heaven, all our suffering on earth would be forgotten like the labor pains of childbirth are forgotten. But I stumbled upon this CS Lewis quote the other day which has changed my mind.

 

"They say of some temporal suffering, 'No future bliss can make up for it', not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory."

 

The Great Divorce

Sometimes we see a reason for our suffering on earth, which occasionally makes that suffering seem more worthwhile. We don't always see the reason, because God's kingdom is not fully here.

 

In the New Earth I imagine we'll always be able to see the reason for our suffering, whatever it is. God won't simply wipe the memory of our suffering from our minds, but he'll actually turn all the things we've endured into something that makes us more beautiful and whole people, and something which will bring more glory to him.

 

What a wonderful God we have, hey?

Thoughts about Judges

I've long been intrigued by the book of Judges, with its hopeful start and disastrous end.

 

At SMBC preaching conference yesterday I heard a very encouraging talk by Bryan Chappell on the story of Gideon. His talk was both personally encouraging, and also started me thinking about the structure of Judges again.

 

I recently read Judges and I've been convinced again about a theory which I heard a couple of years ago in first year, that the entire book is structured as a chiasm, and the story of Gideon is the centre.

 

Apart from the chapters 1 and 2 which seem to summarise the chiasm (roughly speaking chapter 1 summarises the first half, and chapter 2 the second half). There seems to be three themes of the chiasm:

 

Worship

In chapters 3 to 7 the focus is on the judges worshipping God, not idols.

In chapters 8 to 21 the focus is on worshipping idols.

 

Obedience

In chapteres 3 to 7 the Israelites obey God and fight the foreigners whom God has instructed them to fight.

In chapters 8 to 21 the Israelites war among themselves.

 

Women

In chapters 3 to 7 the women are respected and treated well.

In chapters 8 to 21 the woman are disrespected and treated badly (culminating with the story of the concubine who is raped and murdered and her body sent to the 12 tribes of Israel).

 

That is not to say that the Judges in the first half of the chiasm are perfect. They all seem to be unusual in some way: a younger brother, left handed, a woman, or very afraid...

 

I wonder if this points to any intent of the author? Is he saying that when God is obeyed and worshipped, that women are treated well?

 

Does that agree with your observation of the world?