I’m not sure. But I suspect it’s because:

a) the fibre was already in place due to it being laid at the same time as the recent gas roll-out

b) they are small communities that are a microcosm of larger communities and so will help them analyse the product and overcome problems at a smaller scale before taking it further.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/785703109

image_pdfimage_print

Not sure how many pastor’s sermons are recorded online. But I’m sure I wasn’t the first.

I know Anglican Parish of Kingston have sermons: https://www.apok.org/modules/wfdownloads/
And Wellspring: http://www.wellspring.org.au/index.php?page=sermons
And St. Johns’ Launceston: http://www.stjohns.net.au/?q=sermons

It really is a pretty common thing these days. Google around.

My sermons from the 9:30 Congregation in Burnie are also recorded (using my phone!). Available here: http://burnieanglican.org.au/burnie/sermons/

Connections sermons are, of course, here: http://burnieanglican.org.au/connections/category/teaching/

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/858950432

image_pdfimage_print

Thankyou for improving my vocabulary. “abiogenesis” 🙂

The answer is “no.”

I can’t conceive of enquiry in and of itself being immoral – certainly not inherently immoral. In fact, more the opposite – we are made to be inquisitive and the delving into the fascinating workings of creation can even be respectful, even worshipful of a Creator. And this is not contingent on including God in the subject or scope of that enquiry.

Someone may undertake such research in a determined attempt to “disprove” God or something. But that sort of rebellion/rejection is not necessary/inherent to the research. And even if it were present, being simply conceptual/emotional/personal, it does not enter the domain of ethical actions which I interacted with in my previous answer ( http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/794047628 ).

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/794373137

image_pdfimage_print

For those reading this quickly: The video link is to a story about a mosque being built near “Ground Zero” in New York City. The imam of the mosque is communicating it as a gesture of peace. Others are ambivalent. Some are outraged and question the mosque’s links to terrorists and see it as a gesture that embraces 9-11 as a victory in jihad.

In answer – firstly, I’m not from NYC and can only guess at the level of emotion that is associated with 9-11 the “sacredness” of Ground Zero and the attitude towards Muslims. I can’t unpack that side of things. I think Ground Zero is significant but, for me, not being “involved” in any sense more than seeing the tragedy unfold on TV in 2001, the place is not “sacred” and I don’t have anything invested there that might be “profaned” by the building of this mosque. If the building of the mosque was deliberate provocation of the feelings of hurt, or done in a way that was deliberately ignorant of them, I would decry it’s construction and location as inhumane insensitivity and advise some relational wisdom.

Secondly, how would I consider this in general terms?In general, would I have a problem with a mosque being built, wherever it might be built? No, not really. I think religious pluralism is a healthy context for Christian witness and religious freedom for all maximises the opportunity to evangelise for me. So “I have no problem with it” would be my default position.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/779309454

image_pdfimage_print

Excellent question. I’ll preface the answer with the observation that I did relatively poorly in my oral exam in Evangelism class because I hate non-contextual hypotheticals. 1 Peter 3 assumes that a real person within a real context is talking to me – and my answer would reflect that in some ways.

Not that the substance would be different though. Here’s one example of what I might say:

The hope I have is the hope of eternity made right – of all injustices dealt with justly, of all brokennesses healed, of this groaning world clothed in beauty without injury. The Lion laying down with the lamb stuff.

At the heart of this hope is reconciliation: Creation (including us!) living once more in obedience, harmony, worship of God our Creator. All rightness lies in him, therefore restoration means reconciliation him.

The foundation of this hope is therefore Jesus Christ who delivers this reconciliation. In Jesus the justice and mercy of God – are evident, present, exercised, and satisfied. All restoration with God is therefore in Christ. In him the power of sin and shame is overcome as he pays the price for sin and enters into this new resurrection life for which we hope.

So now I live to follow Jesus – not just to walk, eventually, into that eternal hope, but to reflect him in my life today. Because of him I can pray, with hope, “Lord, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Because of him I can sing, “I will see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.”

So matter what I face in this real world, I face it with the assurance of eternity in Jesus Christ starting now. That is why I have hope.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/779107948

image_pdfimage_print

What’s that Terry Pratchett quote about the obstinate “god” who put pre-fossilised bones in the ground just to confuse archeologists?

By dinosaur I’m assuming you mean the big extinct sort. After all, I was just in Cairns, and I bought a bag of crocodile jerky, and I felt real close to a “terrible lizard.”

The Job quotes you refer to are from Job 40:15 and 41:1. The first refers to what is translated as “behemoth” with “a tail” that “sways like a cedar.” From the description you can imagine one of those big four-legged dinosaurs – more so than an elephant which, last time I looked, did not have a “tail that sways like a cedar.” But I don’t know enough Hebrew to be able to analyse the original language – and the NIV footnotes point out that “behemoth” could be “elephant” and “tail” could be “trunk.” So perhaps it’s referring to an elephant – it would still fit the imagery and the point that is being made at that point in Job.

Similarly with 41:1 which refers to a “leviathan” – a water-based creature from the imagery. Again, imagination allows for a Loch-Ness-Monster type animal. But a crocodile also fits. I also like 41:3-5 which seems to be the inspiration for the song “Never smile at a crocodile.”

So basically, if you’re looking for a biblical basis for dinosaurs: is the Bible aware of them? In particular, does it have an example of humans and dinosaurs co-existing? Then my answer is: you’re asking a question that the Bible is not setting out to answer. The point of Job 40 and 41 is not to answer that question, it’s to point out Job’s inherent smallness and powerlessness by comparing him to this big animals.

The Bible also doesn’t mention kangaroos, polar bears, or boa constrictors. Doesn’t mean they didn’t exist or didn’t coexist with humans. But you can’t invent an answer (one way or the other) where the information simply does not exist.

In that sense, a particular view on dinosaurs is not an inherent requirement for holding a Christian world-view. It’s an “open hand” question – something on which variation in thought, speculation is allowed, necessary in fact.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/924880556

image_pdfimage_print

Nice.

I’m not sure. Most of my childhood things have been redone – A-Team, Knightrider, Doctor Who, Scooby Doo etc. We didn’t have a TV for much of my childhood (we bought one to plug the Commodore 64 into) so I’m deprived in this area…

Perhaps Battle of the Planets? But I suspect that would be really really cheesy and annoying – like the redone Astro Boy.

I don’t want to see 70’s British comedy revisited. Except, perhaps, The Goodies (or equivalent concept).

What about Mary Poppins – not as the movie/musical, but as the books, re-done as a series? I loved those books.

And I think for me, that would be what I would want to see – books converted to the screen in a good way. Because it was books that shaped my childhood. So show me Biggles as a TV series. Do Lord of the Rings and Narnia properly. Do Robin Hood properly.

But then again, a remake of Back to the Future would be fun. Perhaps it could be done by 2015 🙂

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/720342853

image_pdfimage_print

I’ve received two question to do with the theme of gender roles and women in ministry etc. I’m not sure which order they arrived in. I’ll answer this one first because it’s somewhat conceptually prior.

When it comes to “gender roles” different people mean different things.

Some use “role” in a very functional sense – certain jobs belong to the woman (stereotypically home-making, domestic stuff) and certain jobs belong to the man (stereotypically providing for the family etc.). I think this is less ascribed to these days – even among the most complementarian of couples I find men cooking and women working for income etc. I don’t think this is a helpful place to be begin.

Some use “role” in more of a management sense – certain decisions belong to the man, and other decisions belong to the woman. In an extrapolation this is the “wife obeys the husband” sense. Less extreme, but equally unhelpful is a “we work cooperatively, but if we can’t agree, he wins” attitude. Again, however, I find inconsistency – amongst complementarian couples you will find everything from choices of dinner menu to decisions about remortgaging the house made by either partner or both. I don’t think this is a helpful place to begin.

Some use “role” in more of a relational sense – and I think this is where I would want to begin. And it begins with unity. For instance, Jesus interprets Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 along these lines: “They are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

The aim of each partner in a marriage/household relationship is therefore to maintain that unity. The question is “what do I do, how do I respond/engage express myself in relationship that will maintain and build a genuine unity?”

And that begins with mutuality and submission. Ephesians 5:21 expresses this: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Submission can only be given, not taken. And so the intimate unity of the marriage relationship is, at it’s heart, a giving of oneself to the other. The cry of the heart is “I am yours.”

If there is differentiation, or a dynamic asymmetry, in what this means for the man or the woman, it can only be grasped at this point. Otherwise you end up destroying the mutuality. (It’s like slipping into tritheism if you forget that Trinity is unity).

The differentiation I see is that the masculine cry of “I am yours” is meaningfully expressed in terms of “I give myself FOR you.” And the feminine cry of “I am yours” is meaningfully expressed in terms of “I give myself TO you.”

When it works, this is beautiful. There is no danger in the woman placing herself in the hands of someone who absolutely has her best interests at heart. Rather, ugliness in relationship comes, for instance, when a man takes the one who gives herself to him and abuses that gift, or, when a woman takes the one who gives himself for her and belittles or betrays that gift.

The masculine side of this is often expressed in terms of “headship” taking cue from Ephesians 5:23 which states “the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church.” The explanation of what this actually means comes a couple of verses later where it talks not about Christ’s authority or lordship but in terms of his giving of himself FOR the church. A man therefore loves himself when he truly loves his wife – by “dying” for her (in the sense of dying to his own interests and living for hers) etc.

For this reason when I hear men standing on the fact that they are the “head of their home” I often wonder if they realise the true meaning of what they are saying.

And I don’t look for how their family is managed, I look to see whether that man is truly serving his wife and family with gentleness and respect and a deep sense of self-sacrifice. And if I don’t see that, he may call himself the head of his house, but I can usually think of other parts of the anatomy that are a better fit.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/841897875

image_pdfimage_print
image_pdfimage_print