Journeyman

Firstly, interesting thought that Christianity was “set up.” I’m not saying I disagree – I “set up” things with regard to organising church and administrating a (very) small section of the people of God all the time. And I trust I do it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But “set up” sort of sounds like Christianity is the outcome of a committee meeting or something – the reality is that it has grown organically and divinely chaotically over millenia.

I think Christianity as it currently is expressed _does_ presuppose an ability to read – but mostly because (in the Western World at least) – the whole of society is “set up” that way. If the idea of Christianity is to communicate the truths of the good news of Jesus of Nazareth to our society then that is entirely appropriate – you use the medium of communication that best suits.

In times gone past the emphasis has been less so. For instance, the early church had a significant (and reliable) oral tradition (that informed much of the Scriptural canon). At other times the emphasis on iconography, stained glass windows and other imagery were intended as a means of communicating gospel truth. The Reformation (in England at least) emphasised the public reading of Scripture so that those who couldn’t read could hear. And much of the early educating system formed around monastic libraries and the teaching of people to read (and copy) them. The gospel has always been contextualised in its communication.

The emphasis on reading I think simply derives from the fact that until very recently the best way to communicate information persistently – by which I mean the best way to say something to somebody else in a way that will last after I am gone – was writing. And so the _record_ of Christian truth has, necessarily, been writing – and perhaps that has shaped our society.

Of course we now live in an era when communication can persist through other media such as audio and video and perhaps we will see less reliance on “reading” in Christian expression. I know, for instance, that I make use of a NIV audio Bible to listen to in the car – and I have given something similar to someone who had failing eyesight and could no longer read. People download sermons and expositions of Scripture. It’s becoming less and less necessary to be able to read in order to not only hear the truths of Scripture but have a record of them.

But like all things historic in our world if you want to learn more about them then you need to “go to them” somewhat. And so teaching people to read so that they can delve into the authoritative truth of Scripture is useful – even necessary. And so is teaching people NT Greek and Hebrew so they can delve into the original documents. We teach people as much as we can to get as much as they can out of the written Word of God.

But the truth speaks to all and it is our job to make it accessible no matter where they are at.

So is that “favouring” people who read? I’d rather simply “favour” people and give everyone as much as I can give them to discover as much as they can.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/779229474

I once commented on Mark Driscoll’s imprecise consideration of this issue ( http://is.gd/dBDrG ) where I stated:

“Complementarians hold to a “serving, sacrificial male leadership and gender partnership” model of marriage and the home as a clear expression of Scripture. However there is a distinction within this view…

Some are willing to quickly extrapolate the home to the church – and this is not done unthinkingly, as Driscoll demonstrates.

However, others will argue that this extrapolation is not so simple or clearly prescribed by Scripture – where “man/woman” passages can be rendered “husband/wife”, where offices and functions within the church are only broadly defined in Scripture. They would argue that allowing a woman to teach, for instance, does not inherently damage or undermine the complementary relationship between husbands and wives. They would cite, gently, that when Driscoll announces that the “sermon” is now over and that his wife is now allowed to join him on stage to answer questions that he is juggling semantics and that the men in the congregation are being taught by his wife just as much as the women – and appreciate it!…”

In this sense I am a “broad complementarian”, taking the latter view.

The issue is that church life should not be antagonistic to the life of the families who constitute that church. In other words, a commission to ministry should never undermine a marriage or familial relationship.

Strict complementarians (women cannot be ordained to leadership) tackle this issue in the abstract. I tend to tackle the issue in reality, even on a case by case basis. Does the shape of this ministry require this man to forego serving his wife? Does the shape of this ministry require this woman to forego serving her husband?

The reality of this is reasonable easy to tackle when it’s a consideration of women in ministry in the broadly diaconal/service sense (I include serving the body through teaching ministry). Because both ministry and marriage relationship looks like service and it generally just works.

It can get complex, perhaps, in the consideration of women in leadership (although the line between ministry and leadership is fuzzy because they are both acts of service). But the only place where any complexity can (or needs to be) resolved is in the marriage relationship of the servant leader and her husband. He can lead/serve her by championing her leadership/service of others. What that looks like or how that works might need to be sorted out by the couple themselves.

If the husband cannot bless his wife’s ministry then that ministry is fraught and probably shouldn’t proceed in order to honour the marriage. But I would say the same thing if a wife was unwilling to bless her husband’s ministry. (And I know plenty of male ministers who inflict the cost of ministry on their wife and children without their blessing who need to take a long hard look at themselves).

So I have no problem, personally, working under the leadership of a woman. It does not impact on the relationship with my wife at all, or cause that relationship to be feministic or something.

Having said all that – this is an open-handed issue for me. I know that others read Scripture the other way. Strict complementarians have a place within the church and should be able to minister and lead according to conscience and integrity. The “two integrities” principle creates complexity, but such is life.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/841994421

A question that professional ethicists have struggle answering. This is very much my $0.02 worth.

1) There is a moral boundary. There are things that are wrong and things that are right and scientific research, like most fields of human endeavour is able to cross that line.

2) How do we discern the moral boundary? From a Christian point of view, the line is drawn along the question of whether something is _inherently_ sinful. Two aspects to this:

a) Inherency: I wouldn’t see something as unethical/sinful just because it _could_ (or perhaps _has_) been done sinfully/unethically.

b) Sinfulness: In Christian terms, broadly speaking, sin speaks of rebellion against God our Creator. The concept has the sense of “usurping” the role of God in some sense.

In terms of scientific research this is often (and sometimes simplistically) couched in terms of taking control over “life and death”, or “playing God” (in somewhat more sensationalist terms). So, for instance, the right to take another person’s life can be seen as a divine right. To destroy human life in the pursuit of scientific research (or any other endeavour) is therefore sinful. Any scientific research that inherently involves the destruction of human life is therefore clearly on the other side of the moral boundary.

Perhaps a more general way of looking at this is in terms of “the right to exploit.” In the Christian worldview humanity has the right to exploit the earth and all that grows in it. (This exploitation is clearly coupled with a sense of caring for, stewarding, tending creation, so I’m not talking about something inherently destructive). This means that there _is_ room (although not carte blanche) for research involving experimentation on animals. But in other areas (the exploitation of humans – physically (including death), emotionally, psychologically, spiritually etc.) that right to exploit does not exist and is rightly called abuse.

3) Utilitarianism is not the place to begin. The question “are the means justifiable at all?” is the place to begin. This is inherently an epistemological question (what is right and wrong) and requires an agreed upon moral framework. This is where the conflict often lies.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/794047628

Lobster. I’ve never had lobster. From wherever the lobster is best.

Originally: http://www.formspring.me/briggswill/q/846507295

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

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

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

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

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

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