One thing that surprised me while I was listening to this series wasn’t the way the speaker would quote verses (as they say) “Left, right and centre” in support of his arguments, but the way that the collection of verses he used could well be counted on both hands. In 32 hours of speaking, he used countless verses, but the vast majority of these were simply a recall of his “favourites.”

I knew, as I was typing in the words from the cassette tape playing next to me, that not five minutes into the lecture, the pastor would use at least one of his favourite verses from Ephesians and another from Colossians. I remember mentally rolling my eyes and thinking, “Here we go again . . .” Before the hour was done, at least one of those verses would have made another two or three appearances in one form or another.

Fast forward a few years, and I find myself in a Bible study with a similar Bible teacher, well-studied, well-articulated, but once again choosing to use his repertoire of well-worn passages to repeatedly emphasise whatever point they were trying to make at the time.

I found the same thing when I was setting up a website a couple of years ago. Throughout the myriad of articles, the writer had liberally used his “top 10” Scripture verses in every possible context.

When I was going through the ordination process fresh out of Bible College, I thought I had all the right answers. I believe that I satisfied the criteria and said all the right things during the two sessions I had with the ordination committee. Then, towards the end of the last session, one of the pastors commented on one of the sermons I had preached, drawing my attention to the fact that I had never mentioned one particular catchphrase which was a hallmark of this particular Fellowship. It was his opinion that we must always bring people back to 2 Timothy 2:15, regardless of the context of the rest of the message.

I’m aware that these people possibly had no idea what they were doing. They all loved the Bible, believed sincerely in the fact that it is God’s inspired book, and paid special attention numerous times to the original languages and how the nuance of certain Greek or Hebrew words could add another amazing dimension to understanding the message of the text. But somehow, they all still reverted to a lazy habit of taking their favourite verses and juxtaposing them against whatever topic they were using in any number of varied ways.

Now I know people who would normally hear these preachers would do so for an hour a week. Like any normal church attendee, they would probably forget 99% of what was spoken. Thus, when the speaker started “expositing” the following week, they wouldn’t comprehend that he has quoted the same five verses every week for the past seven, or that, for some reason, he always seemed to weave in “My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness” into every sermon topic for the past quarter.

I use this as a lesson and perhaps a warning to all who claim to speak for God in any capacity: Don’t be lazy and give in to the temptation to fall back on the familiar. Likewise, don’t think you must always bring people’s attention to your favourite (aka “God’s favourite”) verses. Use fresh expressions—in this case verses that you may not know so well—to support and reinforce the truth you are telling. Never go into a group study, lecture, or pulpit expecting to “wing it” because this is the time when you will find yourself falling back on the familiar, the tried and tested.

Let’s face it: God can use anyone, even if they are ill-prepared. But more effective is the one who can stand up and articulate truth with passion, freshness and clarity. Make this your goal, otherwise the only response you may solicit from those hearing your voice may be: “Here we go again . . .”

(from Franklin Community Church’s Blog)

Speaker Ken Ham recently recorded a 52 minute session at Thomas Road Baptist Church, and sells the session as a DVD.  I was asked to look at it; here is my “take”.

The main point is this talk could be summed up in his words at the beginning: “When I look at the collapse of Christianity today, I believe a lot of it has to do with not believing in the literal six days”.  He claims that someone who does not believe in a creation in six solar days has “added to” the word of God.

The form of the argument seems to be this:

1. The view of Young Earth Creationism (that the earth is about six thousand years old, and that creation occurred in six solar days) is the only proper exegesis of Genesis one.
2. People have interpreted Genesis one in other ways only because they want to correct the bible with modern science.
3. If we correct the Bible with modern science, we are undermining biblical authority
4. If we undermine biblical authority, we distort our religion and lose our effectiveness in witness.

Now, it is clear that the first premise is the most important, since it is fundamental to all the others. As someone who loves the Word of God, I admit at this point I was looking forward to some good discussion of Genesis one.

Now, any good examination of the meaning of a passage, especially when alternate viewpoints are at issue, will take time to develop the following:

• The actual data of the text, that is, looking at the words and syntax involved, the structure of the passage, use of repetition and unusual words, and getting the sense of the whole.
• The historical context of the passage, including its setting in time and redemptive history, and the needs and problems of the original audience.
• The literary context, that is, a discussion of the type of genre the passage belongs too, and what that says about how to interpret it.
• The theological context, that is, how it fits into the overall teaching of the Bible.

Unfortunately, Mr. Ham did not discuss any of these items, even though he had over fifty minutes to do so.

• He never placed the passage in its historical context at all. He never discussed how it fit into the needs and worldview of its first hearers.
• He never broached the subject of the genre of Genesis one, even though that is a key dispute in the debate about this issue.
• He never attempted to show how the interpretation he advocates made better or deeper sense of the overall message of salvation history.
• He never looked at any of the half-dozen or so words in Genesis one that have more than one meaning, and whose interpretation will influence the understanding of that chapter (for example: spirit, earth, heaven, likeness, made, good).
• He never talks about the structure of the passage, or how the days of creation relate to verse two (specifically how the “formless and empty” of verse two is correlated with the “forming” of days 1-3, and the “filling” of days 4-6) which is perhaps the most obvious feature of the passage to the careful reader.

Now, perhaps I am asking too much for Mr. Ham to have done all this, or at least done it well.  But he is setting himself up as a Bible teacher, so he should be able to do at least some of them.  At the very least, he could have actually read the chapter.  But he does not.  The only thing related to the text that he does is spend some time talking about whether the word “day” should be understood as a solar day or an extended period of time (as if those were the only two alternatives), but he does this without any sense of understanding either the meaning or context of the passage as a whole.

Let us then look at how he does deal with that issue of the “day”.  As I said, it is not related to the context at all.  Mr. Ham does the following: he concedes  that the word “day” (Hebrew: yom), has a variety of meanings.  He then argues that the way to determine the meanings is by certain rules. He gives four rules:

1. when the days are numbered it always means a solar day (“there are no exceptions”)
2. when day is accompanied by “evening and morning” it always means a solar day
3. when day is accompanied by “evening” or “morning” it always means a solar day
4. when day is accompanied by “night” it always means a solar day

In other words, the associated words used with “day” force us to interpret it as a 24 hour solar day.  This has always been the strongest arguments for this interpretation, and deserves some response.

First, even if we granted that these rules forced us to view “days” as solar days, this does not establish a young earth.  Solar days could certainly be used symbolically (which seemed to be Augustine’s view) or verses 3-31 could describe a re-creation of a defaced earth, or the forming specifically of either the promised land or the garden of Eden (a rabbinic interpretation recently revived by John Sailhammer).  The lack of discussion of chapter one as a whole means we are unable on the face of it to decide between these options.

Second, even if we granted all these rules, we would still have to decide if they outweighed the contextual evidence around them.  For example, Bible interpreters know that the best way to determine to meaning of a word is to see how it is used in the nearest context, by the same author.  The next occurrence of “day” is in 2:4, where it is used as an event: “the day that the Lord made heaven and earth”.  This, combined with the fact that verses 5 and 15 use “day” to describe daylight, tell us that the context suggests we should be cautious in saying what “day” has to mean.

Third, while I don’t have the time to go through every example of the rules involved here, I do see immediately that at least one of them is dead wrong.  Rule number one is incorrect and this has been known and pointed out to Mr. Ham.  We know that because of his response: “Well, people like Hugh Ross might point out one passage in Hosea…”  (notice his attempt to minimize the objection by not viewing it as the clear teaching of the passage in Hosea, but only the interpretation of “people like Hugh Ross”).  The passage alluded to (not quoted by Mr. Ham) is Hosea 6:1-3.

Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces, but He will heal us.  He has injured us, but he will bind up our wounds.  After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.

Now I know of no Bible scholar that does not take this to mean the days are used symbolically, not as solar day.  It is not as though God is going to literally wait until the sun rises on the second day before he decides to revive them, and then wait another 24 hours until he restores them.

Mr. Ham has the following response to this passage, and I will leave it to you to decide whether this makes any sense or not (he says it quickly and glibly and the audience apparently feels he has made some sort of point here): “But if he didn’t mean an ordinary day, then the prophecy doesn’t make any sense. It’s like when Jesus says, “I am the door”, if the word door doesn’t mean a literal door then that statement doesn’t make any sense.  You see what I’m saying?”  Ummm…no, actually.  Do you mean Jesus was saying he was a literal door, complete with hinges and a handle?  If not, then obviously he was using it symbolically, just as Hosea uses “day”.  (By the way, this last issue brings up an issue with Mr. Ham’s communication: he speaks in a quick, almost glib manner, frequently making jokes or asides at his opponent’s expense, so that most people don’t actually analyze his arguments.)

The way this is handled also makes me less inclined to believe what he tells me about the rest of his “rules”.

In fact, Mr. Ham spends only thee minutes talking about the meaning of “day” in this passage, before going on to some objections.  What are those objections?

Well, he quotes (in a whiney voice) those who cite II Peter 3, that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day.  Peter here quotes Psalm 90 to show that God’s time and man’s time are different, and that those who expect the second coming to have happened by now should keep this in mind. How does Mr. Ham handle this objection? In the following ways:

• “Well if a thousand years is like a day, then a day is like a thousand years; they cancel each other out”.  Again, the audience laughs, but this makes no sense at all.  Peter’s point is that God sometimes defines “day” or time different than we do.
• “Yeah, but a thousand years won’t help you if you need millions”.  Again, Peter’s point is the dissimilarity between God’s time and ours, not a simple equation (one day = one thousand years).
• “But that is the New Testament.  You can’t show what a Hebrew word means by the New Testament”.  On the face of this, this argument is plausible.  But look what he does.  He completely ignores Psalms 90, which not only contains the same idea as II Peter 3, but undoubtedly served as the text Peter was alluding to.

For a thousand years in your sight

Are like a day that has just gone by

Or like a watch in the night.

You sweep men away in the sleep of death;

They are like the new grass of the morning.

Though in the morning it springs up new,

By evening it is dry and withered

(by the way, most commentators view those last two lines as a symbolic use of morning  and evening).

Here, or course, we see why Mr. Ham chose to respond to II Peter instead of Psalm 90: the only real objection he has that makes any sense is that you can’t interpret a Hebrew word by the New Testament.  But Psalm 90, of course, is Hebrew, and uses the same word for day as Genesis 1.  Furthermore, the superscription tells us that this Psalm was written by Moses, the same author as Genesis 1.

Here, I am afraid we must charge Mr. Ham with either terrible ignorance of the Bible he is trying to teach, or a terrible willingness to distort and weaken the arguments of his opponents in order to further his own viewpoint (rather than trying to find the truth).  In either case, he fails to treasure the Word, and fails as a reliable interpreter of that word.

The only other objection he deals with is the fact that the sun was given on day four, but light was given on day one.  This is an important point, but he gives it less than two minutes, basically by saying, “I don’t know how this is, but that is okay”.  He speculates that God must have made some other source of light, which he extinguished on day four (and at this point we should remind him of his repeated warnings about “adding to God’s word” because you don’t get this from the Bible text itself).  He fails to deal at all with the question of how the days would be measured on those first three days, since solar days are measured by how long it takes the earth to rotate on it axis in relation to the sun.

Mr. Ham then looks at no further objections (like the difficulty of fitting all of chapter two into a portion of the last day, as 1:27 seems to require).  He does not deal at all with the  fact that if Genesis 1:2-31 is a scientific re-capitulation of 1:1 (the standard interpretation of Young Earth Creationists), then we lose the whole idea of creation ex-nihilo, since 1:2 starts with matter already existent in the state of the watery earth.

Instead, after spending three minutes talking about what “day” means, and another 6-7 minutes “answering” objections, he then shifts and starts talking about the motives for those who disagree with him.  That’s right: his entire teaching on Genesis 1 actually takes less than 10 minutes. The rest of the talk is basically an attack on those who have other opinions.

I won’t take time to deal with all this, because none of it is valid unless the first point is established, and, at least to me, it has not been.  I will just say that Mr. Ham is intellectually dishonest in the way he presents the material.  Repeatedly he says that the only reason Christian pastors or teachers questioned the interpretation he brings forth is that in the last few centuries they have seen the dating methods of science, and by embarrassment or lack of faith, have wanted to correct the word of God by science.  This is, of course, patently false.

• In the first place, it would not be possible for Mr. Ham to know the motives of all who disagreed with him. Merely trotting out a few quotes from writers who apparently attempt to let science influence their exegesis in no way establishes that this is the motive for all his opponents (or even most of them).
• In the second place, even if every Christian believer in the old earth was influenced by science, this would not by itself invalidate their opinion. Someone can hold a belief for a wrong reason, but it may still be a true belief (to argue otherwise is to commit what is known as “the genetic fallacy”).
• Third, a list of church fathers who lived many centuries before modern science, and yet did not hold to Mr. Ham’s interpretation reads like a who’s who of the ancient church: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, and, of course, Augustine.  Martin Luther is one theologian that does agree with Mr. Ham, and, indeed, Mr. Ham quotes him.  Notice what else Luther says: “The days of creation were ordinary days in length.  We must understand them as ordinary solar days, contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers.”

This information is not hard to find in the advent of the internet, and Mr. Ham is not telling the truth when he claims that Christian thinkers only looked to other interpretations than his own because of a desire to correct the word of God with modern science.

All this is not to say that I totally disagree with all the points Mr. Ham makes, or that advocates of Old Earth creationism or other viewpoints do not have their own potential issue or problems.  I have been focusing on the arguments and tactics of one man, Mr. Ken Ham.  In my opinion, and based on the analysis above, I do not find him to be a capable interpreter of the Word of God.

Note: Some may excuse Mr. Ham on the ground that he has no theological or biblical training (he has a bachelor’s degree in applied science).  I am not so inclined for one reason: by assuming the pulpit of churches and declaring he intends to interpret the Bible, he de facto sets himself up as a Bible teacher, and should be held accountable to know not only the relevant facts, but the proper way to exegete and teach a passage of scripture.  If he does not want to give up seven years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars to get training in the Bible, theology, and the ancient languages (the standard degree program for clergy) then that is perfectly understandable.  What is not so understandable is his desire to set himself up as a Bible teacher without getting Bible training.

I have had two issues with CMI for many years, even when I actively supported them and believed Genesis according to their literal interpretation.

The issues are these:

Firstly, in all their literature (magazines, tracts, web and books) they seemed to me to belittle people who dared to believe differently than they. Cartoons in their tracts poked fun at evolutionists and mocked their beliefs. Articles in the magazines seemed to capitalise on making those who didn’t believe in a literal beginnings narrative appear foolish and uninformed/unintelligent.

Secondly, they never allowed for a creation narrative that may include elements of evolution, or a long-day theory. It is always black and white: either you believe in a Creator God OR you believe in atheistic evolution. There was no middle ground–no possibility that a Creator God would endorse anything other than a literal interpretation of the first book in the Bible.

While I have watched Ken Ham videos, subscribed to Creation magazine (from when it was still called ‘Ex Nihilo’) and consumed numerous CMI-distributed books, I can no longer remain silent on this. I suppose it has to do with my changing view on the inerrancy of Scripture (the Bible as a community library rather than a constitution, as one writer frames it). And I don’t think CMI should assume all their readers are of their same persuasion in this regard.

I remember going door-to-door with my dad in the 80s ‘winning souls’ (even though to my recollection not one soul was ‘won’ this way). He always would ask two questions: (1) If you were to die today, do you know for sure that you would go to heaven? and (2) If I could show you from the Bible how you could know this for sure, would you be willing to take the time to listen?

The assumed truth here was that everyone respected the authority of Scripture enough to care what it said, or to believe that what it said held some credence in their life.

Very few gave us the time of day.

And CMI doesn’t seem to realise that we live in a world that does not accept foundationalistic understanding of the Bible. Sure, they may respect it as a sacred book of Christianity, but one among a number of such books of many religions. And very few would agree that it was to be taken literally (since they don’t see God endorsing the execution of adulterers, LGBT folk, or masses of non-believing ‘heathen’ living in the holy land).

In this article, Gary Bates (CEO of CMI in the US) believes that questions such as ‘Why doesn’t God love homosexuals?’ are ‘diversions from the core issue.’ And the core issue, in his opinion, is, ‘If God is Creator, He has the perfect right to say what happens with His Creation. He made it, He owns it, He sets the rules!’ This is why he sees creation as ‘the key cultural battleground in the world today.’

I believe CMI is out of touch with today’s culture. This is evident by their frequent use of warfare terminology to convey the urgency and importance of their message. In a world that is already inundated with ‘jihad’ on the news nearly every night, to speak of a Christian mission as being ‘a battleground’ is seen by many to put this brand of Christianity on the same par as extreme Islamic terrorists.

Being out of touch with the present culture is also evidenced by CMI’s assumption that postmodern Joe and Jane really care what the Bible says, or, in fact, would accept their foundational understanding of Genesis. In today’s pluralistic society, the Bible is one of many voices, and it does not carry the same authority in life as it did even 50 years ago.

Further, while I believe God did create the world (though not in the same way Gary does), I see God as one who has created and set his creation free to choose. He does not ‘rule’ creation today in the sense of a dictator, arbitrarily damning certain people to hell because they don’t believe certain facts about him or join a certain community that bears the name of his son Jesus Christ. He is a God who loves generously, forgives fully, and has reconciled the world to himself.

Sure, we make mistakes. Oil spills, global warming (another thing CMI doesn’t believe in), genocide, mass destruction of God’s creation–all these prove that we have strayed from our God-given role of being caretakers of God’s perfect world.

But through all these failures, God is still with us, calling us to join him in a quest for a better world, a more inclusive kingdom of hope and peace. And he empowers us to be his agents of change in our world.

No, true Christians aren’t loving people to death. Love that comes from God brings life, healing, reconciliation, restoration–and is always inclusive.

I’ve been questioning my beliefs for the past 20 years, but have only recently begun to question the subtle ways foundationalism and my early years in a fundamentalist, KJV-Bible, dispensationalist theological environment have affected the lens through which I have, up to recently, viewed all theology.

You see, I began while I was still in High School questioning the authority of my parents in matters of faith. While I was away at university I made my own personal faith commitment, a first step in recognizing my own responsibility before God. I then started studying theology (albeit the ‘systematic’ theology of the Baptist school I was attending). While this started to strike a chord within me, I felt all along something still wasn’t right. Questions about personal salvation, the efficacy of prayer, God’s wrath vs God’s love, and the belief in an inerrant Bible nagged at me.

All during this time (around 20 years) I towed the line, completed my studies, pastured a small congregation, and put my doubts in the back of my mind. After all, I assumed that if I were to reveal my questions to my parishioners and family, there would be no future for me down the path I had chosen.

I took a sequence of seemingly unfortunate events to wake me up: my own marriage nearly ending, my church crumbling amidst irreconcilable differences and unreasonable expectations, and my employment in crisis. Into this my two children were born, and I had to do something before my own personal turmoil affected them in their fragile, formative years.

So in 1997 I left my congregation, found a new job in sales which led to a career in Administration, started spending more time with my family, and devoured a huge number of books which in some way addressed my doubts and weaknesses.

I had little encouragement to rethink my theology, but I perceived that hiding my questions wasn’t helping. So I started asking. I asked my pastor and elders why baptism by immersion was required for church membership, why women weren’t allowed to preach or be ordained in our church, why God would expect us to put on a show for him on Sundays and then allow us to live the rest of the week in guilt and hypocrisy, why it was more important to have a great building for our church than to have a church full of hearts that were warmed and drawn together in love. . . . And the answers I received (and the ones, unspoken, which I received loud and clear) haunted me, frustrated me, and confounded me. I culminated in a conversation with our pastor about foreign missions, poverty and justice. His conclusion to my burning questions was simply (paraphrased), ‘They made their choice by worshipping other gods and God has stopped blessing them. Why should we put effort into work that, because of this, will be futile?’ (I had wondered why the few ex-missionaries and mission-minded folk had left our church, and now I knew why.)

All this time, although unknown to me, my theology was being reshaped, and my questions were being answered—but with other questions, tensions, and paradoxes. But what I learned through this was that this kind of tension was OK. I really could live with it if I kept God at the centre of my life and my being.

From where I was then, it seems like a long journey. I’m not the man I once was. My mind does not even think the same way as that man anywhere. That is good. I don’t want to be back in that bondage. I believe differently—maybe not rightly by anyone else’s standards, or perfectly, just differently.

This is my ever-evolving Creed, an affirmation of who I am and where I am at this moment:

I believe in a God of love, grace and peace.

I believe God reveals himself to humanity in many ways, and that the Bible is not necessarily all fact, but that it is all true and through it–in its pages, its message, and in community with others–God speaks to me.

I believe in equality of all before God and in relationship to one another. I believe love which comes from God renders all barriers of race, gender, age, religion, culture, or orientation invalid and powerless.

I believe in God’s creation and know he has plans for its future that include my active participation and effort.

I believe in God’s people, not confined to a church or to a set of prescribed doctrinal beliefs, but at large in this world, joining God where he is already at work, anywhere and everywhere that may be.

I believe that God wants to bless all with joy and peace, despite any circumstances.

I believe in God’s goodness to provide our needs, but not necessarily our wants.

I believe in living humbly, loving mercy, and doing justice in my world.

I believe Jesus came so that we might have the life of the ages, here and now.

And I believe one day, because of Jesus, God’s kingdom will come, and his will will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

My theology is continually being re-defined. I may look back in a few years and see things much differently. That’s OK. I’ll accept that possibility and look forward to seeing how it all pans out.

There are times I get really discouraged with the way things are, fed up that people don’t meet my expectations, or just plain angry at brands or products that don’t live up to their claims. Like when the airline botches up my seat and puts me in the middle of the very back row. Like when the policeman I ask for help dismisses me with a level of arrogance. Like the way my burger never looks like the one in the TV ad. And these kind of things really get me down. I don’t know if I can ever fly with that airline, look at a policeman the same way, or buy another of those burgers again.

*  *  *  *  *

I’m disillusioned with Christians.

The people who are sent by God to bring healing, show love, be agents of grace and forgiveness, reconciliation and peace, spend much of their time (if not all in many cases) fighting one another, challenging the rights or privileges of one another, accusing one another. And God’s work doesn’t get done.

Instead there ought to be celebration of one another’s uniqueness and contribution to the kingdom of God. There should be building up of one another instead of tearing down. There should be unconditional love for one another instead of antagonism and backbiting.

Unfortunately, the Internet—a tool that has brought so much good and blessing to the world—is used to fuel the fires of this self-sanctified war. Posts are shot like bullets from the bows of “prophetic” blogs that claim to be “God’s watchmen.” Using names such as Reformatta, Apprising Ministries, and Slice of Laodicea (to name a few), attacks are made on those the bloggers deem to have overstepped the mark (their self-determined mark, not God’s) and who don’t hold to the truth of God’s word (their interpretation of God’s word).

And the name of Christ is blasphemed among the nations because of people like them.

I came across a tweet (a twitter post) recently that said the new ABCs of our era are “Anything But Christianity” or “Anyone But Christians.” Rather than bringing the conviction and correction they claim to want so much, the words of ill will bring about a laughable comedy routine for the uninitiated. And when this happens, these “warriors for truth” rejoice—yes, they are happy!—because in their world this is a sure sign that they belong to Christ and are on the right track.

And they pat each other on the back, congratulating themselves for being so faithful to God and courageous in the face of such evil.

I challenge these brothers (since I believe down deep inside they truly want to follow Jesus) to study the life of Jesus and to redirect their life towards doing what He did, speaking as He spoke, forgiving as He forgave, and lifting up, as He did so often, the sinners, the broken, the hungry, the fallen, and the marginalised of society. Sink your efforts into being like Him rather than like those who crucified Him. Remember: they thought they could rid themselves of evil by following rules and laws, and saw Jesus as a threat to their way of life. Recall how happy they felt when the nails were driven in and the cross was raised. The cross simply proved that His law of love was greater than their burdensome rules and self-filled religiosity.

I also challenge those who are being attacked by these self-titled “Defenders of the Faith” to also follow the way of Jesus who, when he was mocked, did not open His mouth, but always walked the path of love and forgiveness. It’s human to fight back and defend our honour. It’s human to want to see the perceived “evildoer” suffer. It’s also human to want “trophies” (in this case numerous blogs) to show off how right we are.

But it’s like Jesus to turn the other cheek and to forgive and love the oppressor, even when they don’t ask for it.

“By this shall all know that you are my followers: you will love each other.”

Looking at the responses to this news, there is an outpouring of love, prayers, and hope for all to work out well (i.e. Romans 8:28). But there is also a large element of anger, questioning, grief—and I can only begin to imagine how those close to the situation feel.

My heart goes out to all those who had children or family members on this bus and what they are feeling right now. My prayers are with them.

Yesterday I heard from our drummer at church that a young 10-year-old girl, the daughter of a family friend and a much-loved student at a local school, died of heart failure. She had a history of heart trouble and was on the list for a transplant. Her grandpa’s funeral was only the day before, so her family has to deal with two tragic events in quick succession.

Last week I received an email from my mum who told me that a longtime friend of our family had received a diagnosis of terminal cancer. Her family is very close and are understandably devastated by this news. I cannot comprehend what they’re going through knowing that they have only months—or weeks—until their mother is no longer with them.
There are so many things I—and anyone—could say to these people who are in a place of deep loss and profound grief. I could say ‘Trust God. He knows how you feel;’ which is true but so detached from the situation. I could say ‘All things work together for good to those who love God;’ which also is true, but so clichéd that it sounds trivial and pointless at such a time.

Truth is, if I were in any one of these scenarios that these friends are in at this point in time, I would think that all this talk of ‘God meant it for good,’ and ‘God knows what he’s doing’ is a load of coswallup! I would probably go so far as to ban any well-intentioned, predestinarian Christian from stepping within 1000 metres of my house. I would be angry, upset, in pain and inner turmoil.

As humans, we have emotional, spiritual, and physical attachments to other people, especially to family. We experience grief, and this shows itself in anger, doubt, frustration, and deep sorrow when we lose what is dear to us. This is normal. We should allow ourselves and those affected by such loss to grieve in whatever way they can, for the loss of any human life is tragic. It’s a reminder that we are human—the only difference is that some of us will live to a ripe old age, and others will leave this life earlier.

Should we blame God? I know theologian Bart Ehrmann struggled with this question so much that he decided Christianity wasn’t an option for him, and took another path that made more sense to him. Right or wrong, this may be a choice some need to make.

The reality is that there is so much suffering in this world. It’s a cauldron’s-brew of self-inflicted trauma, man-made conditions, the result of poor choices, the outcome of greed and hunger for power, a cruel blow by nature, or simply a tyre that blows out while you’re travelling down a highway early in the morning.

It’s not God’s fault that these things happen. We may not see cause to blame anyone or anything because we don’t know the full story—faulty tyre? Nail on the road? Valve blowout?

The question is not ‘Could God have prevented it?’ Nor is it ‘Why did God allow this to happen?’ I believe that God has given humanity freedom to make their own decisions and to follow their own path, and, as a rule, he chooses not to intervene. This is not a callous act of indifference for we know that God is pure love. Rather this is an act of allowing us to be responsible for own selves as well as corporately for each other and all humankind. God wants nothing greater for us than the realisation of our maturity, the growing of our character, and the nurture of our spirit as we journey through life. Through things that happen to us, in us and around us (circumstances), we develop into the kind of people we were created to be.

“My brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it nothing but joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance; and let endurance have its full effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.” (James 1:2-4, NRSV)

Though painful at times, we can choose to accept whatever happens with joy, knowing there is a redeeming value in suffering, pain and loss.

I know it’s going to be very difficult and I don’t want for a moment to trivialise the grief that is felt. God never denies anyone the right to feel loss and sorrow, pain and heartache. Be assured, he feels it more profoundly than we do. Rather he tells us to embrace this moment and be free to question him and his love, feel anger, express sorrow, because this is part of becoming people whose roots grow deep and whose lives are profoundly shaped by experience. And when we are ready, he is there with open arms to comfort us and give us the courage and strength to face tomorrow.

To all who are suffering, wherever you find yourself today, my prayer for you is for deep peace, hope, to be surrounded by those who love you, and a very real sense of God with you every moment today and tomorrow.

I especially am conscious of the use of the word ‘worship’ and how it’s used. To most in my church it means a specific time when we gather to sing to God and praise him. To others it is more personal and intimate—about ‘meeting with God,’ ‘sensing his presence,’ and ‘blessing him in my spirit.’

I’m also conscious of how my church has moved away from songs and words that speak to mission, corporate change, kingdom living, and a celebration of the grace of God in our world to songs and words that are more generic—praising God for creation, blessing him for his goodness to us, giving thanks for personal salvation and the buzz we get from knowing we are ‘his.’ No hard-hitting calls for justice, mercy or peace. No challenge to be the hands and feet of Jesus in our community. No affirmations of equality. No inclusiveness.

We have tweaked the sound system to give a high quality sound, auditioned the singers to make sure they fit not just in talent but in looks that are not too far off in left field, and have pumped up the stage lights to make sure the focus is in the right place.

Then we hear talk about new programs to draw people in—excersise programs, seniors’ programs, kids programs, a new men’s program (‘Valiant Men’? Honestly, what kind of name is that for a men’s ministry?) . . . ‘Bring them in, they’ll see how good we are, and they’ll come to Jesus.’ The question is not ‘What would Jesus do?’ but ‘What DID Jesus do?’ (Thanks, Shaine Claiborne.)

There’s no doubt in my mind that Jesus attracted people, but he knew it was the miracles and sensational stuff that brought in the crowds. It wasn’t his message of ‘Die to yourself,’ ‘Follow me,’ or ‘Forsake all else.’ That’s why he told those he healed not to tell anybody. He purposefully didn’t want the focus to be on the signs and wonders, but on the kingdom which was near. That’s why he hung out in the countryside and in small towns, not big-noting himself in large cities or prominent places. That’s why he embraced the sinners, prostitutes, tax gatherers, and didn’t set out to make a name for himself amongst the religious elite. In the end, the crowd rejected him as their king because he didn’t fit with their required qualifications and wouldn’t guarantee them health and prosperity. . . .

So we worship a God who blesses us, calls us by name, gives us what we want, grants us peace, and shares with us the beauty of his creation. Oh yeah, and sends his son to dies for us so we won’t have to worry about hell. We sing songs, raise our hands, cry out to him ‘Hallelujah, we bless you, Lord.’ Our guitars are in tune, drums are spot-on, piano is smooth and jazzy, singers are coordinated and hit all the right notes, and the lights are a just the right level to inspire the 97% of congregants in the pews.

Insipid, watered-down, self-serving, bless-us-and-nobody-else Christianity (or as postmodernegro calls it ‘Xianity.’)

I know there’s so much more than this. God wants me to live in his kingdom here, today. He wants me to do the work of his kingdom now, living with the poor and forsaken, the unlovely, healing in his name, giving of myself and what I have without thought, believe that his reign here and now matters so much more than whatever happens on Wall Street, in Hollywood, or at the mall.

He wants me to do what Jesus did—love, give, serve. I don’t think there are any simple answers to my own situation. Jesus calls and I must follow, yet demonstrating to my church family my love for them and respect their understanding of these things. It’s not easy to live the kingdom of God anywhere, especially in a Church.

But God calls. Speak, Lord. Your servant is listening.

It’s scary. Networking sites such as myspace, twitter and facebook allow people to interact with one another in real time, sending messages, photos, videos, music, and any other conceivable piece of media.

It’s all too easy.

Years ago it would require me to write either longhand or on a typewriter what I wanted to say, then post it to the person or people I wanted to read it. Or, if I had training or a writing gift, I could become a journalist and my essays and stories would be published in a newpaper, or an author whose books would be printed and sold all over the country.

Now I can do the same from the comfort of my own home with a few keyboard strokes and a mouseclick.

OK. You know what I mean. In fact, you’ve probably heard it all before, or maybe just accept the age of the networked home computer or mobile phone as the way it is (Maybe you never used or even have seen a typewriter). This is all very basic information to you.

I understand this. But I also have to say that, although it is very basic, this simple fact of instant access and communication brings to me a sense of personal responsibility and accountability.

Sure, I could publish anonymous messages to people I don’t know and they possibly would never discover who I am. I could . . . but that would be irresponsible. I could say all sorts of things inline knowing that no one will come banging at my door with a gun to do me in (that’s if I don’t live in China!) . . . but that too would be irresponsible.

So I say things and they are from me and everyone knows where they originated. I have friends who read my posts, my tweets, and are my facebook friends. This keeps me accountable to speak well-thought out words. If I don’t, they will let me know.

I will post things from time to time that are reactive to what I see around me and, possibly not well thought through. This is the nature of instant access to these tools. If I do, I’m sorry and I don’t mean to offend. I may make generalisations which aren’t accurate, or statements about a group of people that are a personal opinion rather than fact. Rather than hide behind a label like “I-call-it-like-I-see-it” or “tough-luck-if-they-don’t-like-it,” I take responsibility for my words and apologise if I offend anyone.

BUT if I offend someone because of something I hold with conviction, something I strongly believe in and would die for, I’m sorry–but I won’t apologise. Some things are worth standing for, and some words are worth saying regardless of the outcome.

These are some things you may read about in my posts and these are things for which I unaplogetically stand:

• The unconditional love of God for all of his creation, regardless of their perceived worth, status, or orientation.
• The equality of all people and their right to enjoy the same rights as each other with justice and dignity.
• The oneness of the people of this planet which is greater than the diversity in race, religion, culture, status, political leanings, or moral understandings.
• The responsibility we who share this planet have to be caretakers of all life and wise stewards of its resources.
• The rights of all to converse, discuss, debate, believe, or question, to embrace what I hold to, or not, provided it is all done in decency and respect of each person’s unique perspective.

While I do not apologise for what I believe, I accept responsibility for the way I convey these principles.

I apologise in advance for times when I will make an error in judgement, or stray from my own values. I apologise for not always being the one who is loving and gracious, and generous. I apologise for my human frailty in advance because I know I will have lapses of judgement. Please forgive these moments and, through them, understand that I am who you are and you are who I am, and we share this humanity in all its glory and brokenness together.

It would mean a more simple way
Of doing church
But a more real and meaningful way
Of being the church
And I can’t help but think
It would not only be more of what Jesus intended it to be
But would be more attractive to it’s neighbours.

Christian music is a subculture.

I agree with Dan’s observation and would add more to it: you can tell it is Christian music because (for the most part) it is formula-driven, cliché-overloaded, and often sounds like a soppy love song. Beyond that, the musical quality tends to be poor—boring and predictable riffs, one- or two-note stretches of melody which, apart from the chords backing it up, would warrant instant ‘switch off’ for me, and singers who wouldn’t make it in the secular music industry. (There are exceptions and many Christian musos have successfully crossed over to mainstream media, but the cases of these outside Christianised USA where a sympathetic audience exists are few.)

I just bought the Benton Brown album on iTunes Because of Your Love. Remembering such great worship standards such as Lord Reign in Me, Everlasting God and All Who Are Thirsty, I thought I was on to another ‘anointed’ recording that would once again bring some great uplifting, God-focused music that was a high standard musically and lyrically.

I was wrong.

While Brenton ‘nails it’ several times, overall the songs are boring. Unfortunately, a 30-second clip of the best part of a song can be misleading. In fact the only redeeming quality in a few of them was the bridge where some variety was introduced. Even the re-working of his classic All Who Are Thirsty lacked a good sense of rhythm and focus. In Adoration it seems he was attempting to reproduce in the studio a prolonged worship response which, in a live recording, may have hit the mark. However, the lyrical quality (Adoration being one case in mind) lacked luster (rhyming ‘sound’ with ‘resound’? C’mon!) and it was full of ‘Christianeze’—phrases that would mean zilch to the non-initiated. The singing style was monotonous with Brenton’s characteristic lingering on the first syllable of a word (as in L-l-l-ord, w-we w-w-w-ait…) is a distraction.

Now I know it will be a big hit with the Christian radio stations around the world and worship bands all over the place will be singing a few of the better tracks. But I have to question whether Brown desires to make an impact beyond the insiders. Any non-evangelical, non-‘blood-bought’ believer who tunes in would probably tune out right away. It has nothing to draw the listener in.

I suppose, rather than critiquing Brenton Brown’s offering, which, in its field is probably quite acceptable, I should be concentrating on the overall Christian music scene, mostly driven from the USA. It is a subculture driven by imperfect imitations of contemporary music, and lagging about 5 years behind in styles and innovation. It’s almost as if someone has decided that we want a sanctified version of pop music but don’t want it to be so close to the real thing that people will lose the idea that Christians are to be ‘not of this world.’ In this industry it is easy for anyone with half a talent to make a living (again, only in the USA where Christianity and Christian radio in particular is so widespread). Why struggle to raise the bar to the level of secular bands when your CD will sell quite well to the 150 million churchgoers?

In contrast, I listened to U2 latest album No Line on the Horizon, and, while it didn’t stay long in the bestseller’s list, its musical power, variety, and lyrics were of a high standard and a consistent quality. The message of the songs was far more profound to me than anything I’ve seen in CCM (except for a few random tracks by Third Day, Delirious, Matt Redman, and The David Crowder Band). And the ability to draw in the uninitiated into the power of the worship found in Magnificent was evident.

Yes, I know U2 have been accused of being ‘undercover’ Christians, or ‘compromising’ in their faith. Personally I think that’s a load of rubbish because I have heard them speak boldly of Jesus and see the practical outworking of their deep faith in the tireless work they do to fight poverty and environmental mismanagement, championing the cause of the poor and misplaced in our world. And although their work is of a high standard musically and lyrically, and is a highly effective tool to bring change, it is backed up by a more powerful faith that is unashamed to be seen doing the work of Jesus.

So, although I regret my recent purchase, I think a lesson has been learned and it provides me with fodder for another blog! Money well spent? Still not so sure about that. But I do know that, as Christians, we had better start to think differently and work differently—and write and sing differently– if we ever hope to bridge-building, missional people of God and followers of Jesus.