I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend Pete Volkofsky's podcasts on the Cornerstone website - http://www.cornerstone.edu.au/podcast-ecd
They're really very good and the podcasts on sex and romance are a great resource for anyone who will, at some point, have to talk to teenagers about the opposite sex.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Election Update
There was an Australian General Election on Saturday. In a shocking repeat of what happened in the UK, it's going to be a hung parliament. I consider it a blessing that I don't have to vote, as I find neither Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott particularly inspiring.
Anyway, that's about as exciting as elections can get. I thought I should update with a few photos, as I haven't posted any recently.
Also, I'm planning to take a trip to the UK in the New Year. I should be back in Blighty from the 27th December to the 17th January. I look forward to the blistering chill of the deathly winter winds of Northern Europe.
Without further ado, here are the photos.
First up - it's been a while since you saw photos of the children, so here are a couple of the boys who had birthdays recently. Reid is now six, and Parker was one in May. See if you can spot who is who...
And we've had a lot of rain here. Lots and lots of rain. It's been the biggest rainfall for about seven years, or something like that. The creek in the paddock at the bottom of the garden has been dry since we arrived here one and a half years ago, but the recent rainfall filled it up.
But not content with being full, it actually kept taking on water and flooded, which made it a tourist attraction for sheep from all around NSW.
And finally, here's Calvin deep in theologically conversation with Johnson, a student from Papua New Guinea. Community is a good thing for our children (sponsored by Coca-Cola).
Anyway, that's about as exciting as elections can get. I thought I should update with a few photos, as I haven't posted any recently.
Also, I'm planning to take a trip to the UK in the New Year. I should be back in Blighty from the 27th December to the 17th January. I look forward to the blistering chill of the deathly winter winds of Northern Europe.
Without further ado, here are the photos.
First up - it's been a while since you saw photos of the children, so here are a couple of the boys who had birthdays recently. Reid is now six, and Parker was one in May. See if you can spot who is who...
And we've had a lot of rain here. Lots and lots of rain. It's been the biggest rainfall for about seven years, or something like that. The creek in the paddock at the bottom of the garden has been dry since we arrived here one and a half years ago, but the recent rainfall filled it up.
But not content with being full, it actually kept taking on water and flooded, which made it a tourist attraction for sheep from all around NSW.
And finally, here's Calvin deep in theologically conversation with Johnson, a student from Papua New Guinea. Community is a good thing for our children (sponsored by Coca-Cola).
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Chicken and Egg
What comes first - faith or reason?
I was talking with one of the students here yesterday, and he got me thinking about this. What happens? Do we first reason ourselves into accepting the Lordship of Christ, and then faith follows, or do we take the step of faith first and then the logic comes after?
I can see arguments for both sides.
One of the best definitions of faith (as expressed Biblically) I have come across is the simple formula "Faith = belief + trust + action". If this is true then surely reason comes first, because we only trust and act on something if we have - taking the evidence into account - made the conscious decision that it can be trusted and should be acted upon. In other words, faith is expression of something that we have reasoned to be true.
On the other hand, I'm struck by the resurrection narratives making it clear that Jesus only bothered appearing to those who were already committed to Him. He didn't turn up in Pilate's chamber saying "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, I told you so", instead he appeared only to those who were already His own. Yet they were demoralised and doubting - and as Matthew reminds us, even after the resurrection appearances some still doubted. It's as if here Jesus was providing confirmation after the act of faith. The reason to believe is given after the act of belief itself.
I suppose that I find myself concluding that faith and reason are actually too dependent on one another to decide which came first. Where you will find one, you will - by necessity - find the other. Even so-called 'blind faith' is the fruit of an individual's choice - which, in turn, is the result of some internal logical process, no matter how illogical it may seem to those around him.
I was talking with one of the students here yesterday, and he got me thinking about this. What happens? Do we first reason ourselves into accepting the Lordship of Christ, and then faith follows, or do we take the step of faith first and then the logic comes after?
I can see arguments for both sides.
One of the best definitions of faith (as expressed Biblically) I have come across is the simple formula "Faith = belief + trust + action". If this is true then surely reason comes first, because we only trust and act on something if we have - taking the evidence into account - made the conscious decision that it can be trusted and should be acted upon. In other words, faith is expression of something that we have reasoned to be true.
On the other hand, I'm struck by the resurrection narratives making it clear that Jesus only bothered appearing to those who were already committed to Him. He didn't turn up in Pilate's chamber saying "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, I told you so", instead he appeared only to those who were already His own. Yet they were demoralised and doubting - and as Matthew reminds us, even after the resurrection appearances some still doubted. It's as if here Jesus was providing confirmation after the act of faith. The reason to believe is given after the act of belief itself.
I suppose that I find myself concluding that faith and reason are actually too dependent on one another to decide which came first. Where you will find one, you will - by necessity - find the other. Even so-called 'blind faith' is the fruit of an individual's choice - which, in turn, is the result of some internal logical process, no matter how illogical it may seem to those around him.
Monday, July 26, 2010
"Changes..." continued
I thought it might be good to unpack my previous post with a concrete example of what I mean.
Let's take the common, everyday situation of conflict. Conflict stalks us every day, especially if we're honest about our interactions with our nearest and dearest. It might be as common as conflicting emotions or agendas, but maybe it's something like a thankfully-not-too-common-in-our-house argument.
When we get into this type of conflict with someone all sorts of goals push to the fore. It might be the goal of proving that you are in the right, and as a result your opponent is in the wrong. It might be the goal of resolving the conflict as peacefully as possible (this kind of response can sometimes be a jackel in bishop's clothing - presenting the aura of Christianity while actually masking what is really just fear). We allow these goals to control the way that we relate in the argument. If our goal is to prove our point, we may find ourselves reduced to bullying tactics. If our goal is peaceful resolution, we may find ourselves willingly taking the blame for something we didn't do or say, not because of noble intent but because of insecurity.
Now imagine that your goal in all situations - including the argument - is 'to become more Christ-like'. Suddenly you are presented with a choice. Pursue one of the goals above, or attempt to respond to this as Christ would. If your goal is to win the argument then you become blind to your own incorrect behaviour. If you are trying to be like Christ then you may find that your view of who is right and who is wrong becomes alarmingly clear. If you are trying to win the argument then the primary focus is the other person's failings and unwillingness to be convinced. If you are trying to be like Christ then the primary focus becomes your own actions and motives. The reality is that, for Christians in conflict, who is right and who is wrong is rarely the biggest issue. It is all too easy to win the argument and lose your soul. So, what happens if the other person won't respond as Christ would to you? That's not the issue. The issue is how did you respond, and that's all that God will hold you responsible for. And growth will follow as sure as night follows day.
If, in every and any situation you face each day, the thought at the forefront of your mind is "How can I respond to this as Christ would" then you will find yourself becoming more and more like Him.
As an aside, if you wish to hear the talk that I gave at the Strathalbyn mini-muster then you can find it here - http://www.cornerstone.edu.au/mini-muster-talks. Some of the musings will not be new to regular readers of this blog, as I did some of my thinking outloud on these pages. I also strongly recommend Paul's talk on "Spirit Led Reckless Abandonment". Good stuff.
Let's take the common, everyday situation of conflict. Conflict stalks us every day, especially if we're honest about our interactions with our nearest and dearest. It might be as common as conflicting emotions or agendas, but maybe it's something like a thankfully-not-too-common-in-our-house argument.
When we get into this type of conflict with someone all sorts of goals push to the fore. It might be the goal of proving that you are in the right, and as a result your opponent is in the wrong. It might be the goal of resolving the conflict as peacefully as possible (this kind of response can sometimes be a jackel in bishop's clothing - presenting the aura of Christianity while actually masking what is really just fear). We allow these goals to control the way that we relate in the argument. If our goal is to prove our point, we may find ourselves reduced to bullying tactics. If our goal is peaceful resolution, we may find ourselves willingly taking the blame for something we didn't do or say, not because of noble intent but because of insecurity.
Now imagine that your goal in all situations - including the argument - is 'to become more Christ-like'. Suddenly you are presented with a choice. Pursue one of the goals above, or attempt to respond to this as Christ would. If your goal is to win the argument then you become blind to your own incorrect behaviour. If you are trying to be like Christ then you may find that your view of who is right and who is wrong becomes alarmingly clear. If you are trying to win the argument then the primary focus is the other person's failings and unwillingness to be convinced. If you are trying to be like Christ then the primary focus becomes your own actions and motives. The reality is that, for Christians in conflict, who is right and who is wrong is rarely the biggest issue. It is all too easy to win the argument and lose your soul. So, what happens if the other person won't respond as Christ would to you? That's not the issue. The issue is how did you respond, and that's all that God will hold you responsible for. And growth will follow as sure as night follows day.
If, in every and any situation you face each day, the thought at the forefront of your mind is "How can I respond to this as Christ would" then you will find yourself becoming more and more like Him.
As an aside, if you wish to hear the talk that I gave at the Strathalbyn mini-muster then you can find it here - http://www.cornerstone.edu.au/mini-muster-talks. Some of the musings will not be new to regular readers of this blog, as I did some of my thinking outloud on these pages. I also strongly recommend Paul's talk on "Spirit Led Reckless Abandonment". Good stuff.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
"Turn and Face the Changes..."
As David Bowie sang.
One of the things that I reflect on are the changes that happen in my life. By 'changes' I don't just mean the environmental things but rather the changes in my character.
I've found it more and more helpful to think of God's will for my life being as simple as "become more Christ-like" and then taking advantage of the freedom that gives. The result of this is that I tend to review my life not in terms of where I am or what I am doing, but rather in terms of who I am. I think this is utterly consistent with the New Testament, as so much of what Peter, Paul et al call us to in terms of obedience to God is to do with character rather than what specific things we are doing.
This means that I like to take time every now and then to have an out-of-body experience and see how I have changed in the past few months. My hope is that I will have indeed "become more Christ-like" in the way that I relate and act. It's exciting because sometimes we link 'change' to our external circumstances so much that we think it is impossible to grow unless our environment changes. We think (and proclaim) that those wonderfully painful moments of growth come only when really cataclysmic things happen in our life - a lost job, a death in the family, depression etc. But we experience great growth in those moments not because God made things work that way, but simply because we've become so accustomed to stagnation that God has to shake things up to move us along. It doesn't have to be this way. Christ-likeness is to be pursued every moment of every day, so much so that when our circumstances change in a distressing way we should not be looking to them to provide our growth but rather our reaction to them should prove our growth.
Of course, looking for growth out of hard times is a good response, but I would rather that the pursuit of Christ-likeness be my norm rather than an unusual occurance. When it is seen through the lens of 'character' rather than 'achievement' then it can become the norm. There are a billion opportunities each day to grow, refine and shape our characters.
One of the things that I reflect on are the changes that happen in my life. By 'changes' I don't just mean the environmental things but rather the changes in my character.
I've found it more and more helpful to think of God's will for my life being as simple as "become more Christ-like" and then taking advantage of the freedom that gives. The result of this is that I tend to review my life not in terms of where I am or what I am doing, but rather in terms of who I am. I think this is utterly consistent with the New Testament, as so much of what Peter, Paul et al call us to in terms of obedience to God is to do with character rather than what specific things we are doing.
This means that I like to take time every now and then to have an out-of-body experience and see how I have changed in the past few months. My hope is that I will have indeed "become more Christ-like" in the way that I relate and act. It's exciting because sometimes we link 'change' to our external circumstances so much that we think it is impossible to grow unless our environment changes. We think (and proclaim) that those wonderfully painful moments of growth come only when really cataclysmic things happen in our life - a lost job, a death in the family, depression etc. But we experience great growth in those moments not because God made things work that way, but simply because we've become so accustomed to stagnation that God has to shake things up to move us along. It doesn't have to be this way. Christ-likeness is to be pursued every moment of every day, so much so that when our circumstances change in a distressing way we should not be looking to them to provide our growth but rather our reaction to them should prove our growth.
Of course, looking for growth out of hard times is a good response, but I would rather that the pursuit of Christ-likeness be my norm rather than an unusual occurance. When it is seen through the lens of 'character' rather than 'achievement' then it can become the norm. There are a billion opportunities each day to grow, refine and shape our characters.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
World Cup
I just want to mention that World Cup. I've not been watching it, due to the fact that even the earliest matches start at midnight. This coupled with the screen fast has meant that I've been limited to gleaning information from news sites and listening to disappointed Australians.
When the groups were announced, I thought an England/Australia second round clash could be on. As it happens, England's usual underperformance in the group stages has set us up for having to sweep aside Germany and (possibly) Argentina before we even get a sniff of the trophy. This depresses me a little.
However, I do squeeze some pleasure from Italy's inability to progress. And if I was the Irish I would be a bit miffed by France's refusal to take the competition seriously after having bent the rules to get there in the first place.
However, I will be watching the game on Sunday. Hope is a thoroughly Christian characteristic.
When the groups were announced, I thought an England/Australia second round clash could be on. As it happens, England's usual underperformance in the group stages has set us up for having to sweep aside Germany and (possibly) Argentina before we even get a sniff of the trophy. This depresses me a little.
However, I do squeeze some pleasure from Italy's inability to progress. And if I was the Irish I would be a bit miffed by France's refusal to take the competition seriously after having bent the rules to get there in the first place.
However, I will be watching the game on Sunday. Hope is a thoroughly Christian characteristic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
