Our Church: We're All Pastors

Something else we care about....
In our church, we acknowledge that some have more experience or knowledge in certain areas, but when it comes to Jesus, everyone has a valuable voice in the conversation.
There is no one preacher. We all teach each other.
There is no one person responsible for pastoral care. We all look out for each other.
No one person is especially "anointed," or has a more direct line to God, or has more authority in the group. Power is dispersed among us all. God can teach through anyone, even the kids.

Amazing guitar duet

Check out this amazing performance of Tico Tico, with two people playing the one guitar.

http://youtu.be/CcsSPzr7ays

Two Favours from God

"O God, I beg two favors from you; let me have them before I did. First, help me never to tell a lie. Second, give me neither poverty nor riches! Give me just enough to satisfy my needs.
"For if I grow rich, I may deny you and say, "Who is the Lord?" And if I am too poor, I may steal and thus insult God's holy name."
- Proverbs 30:7-9

Today

How 2 speak gen z. Win!

Check out the flash cards on The McCrindle Blog for some help translating gen z "slanguage."

Our Church: Names

No mission without names

The second thing we care about (and these are in no particular order) is "No mission without names." We're working with actual people, not hypothetical ones.

Our church and mission adapts to suit the actual people we connect with. Our church changes depending on who is in it, because each person brings something different - ideas, gifts, interests, life situation, outside connections, life story etc.

For example, we don't have a children's ministry. We just try to help Lily become more like Jesus, and Isla, and Abby etc – the same as we do for each of us in the church. There are some things we do specifically with all the kids together, but overall it's different for each of them, they're all at different stages, and we acknowledge that parents are the most important spiritual influence in their children's lives. We don't officially have a children's ministry as such. We try to support the parents in whatever ways we can.

Marriage and Choice

Covenant relationships are an uncommon thing in our culture - many people don't even know what the word means. It sounds so old-fashioned. We're used to contracts - relationships that benefit me, usually without a real person on the other end, that I can get out of if I find a better offer. And we've heard the phrase "friends with benefits" frequently, which is a kind of anti-marriage - the sex without the commitment, which gives me freedom to use the "friendship" however I want, or until it doesn't benefit me anymore. No wonder marriages are breaking so frequently. We've been set up for it.

Jesus' view on marriage is a little different. If you marry a divorced woman, Jesus says, you're committing adultery with them. If you divorce your wife, you're causing them to commit adultery. Yes it's that strong. According to the Bible, the basic rule is "One person for life."

There's an escape clause if your spouse has been unfaithful, and I would add abuse to that too. Sadly this happens. But for most people it's not some kind of tragic event that drives them apart. I would argue that at the heart it's just selfishness. Because in our culture, selfishness is seen as a good thing. Keep your options open, our culture says. Something better might come along, or you might need to back out. Just do it now while it benefits you. You're worth it. Stay free.

One person for life? You can hear the objections already. What if I stop loving them? What if they get boring? What if an opportunity comes up and I'm tied down? What if they've got issues? What if their personality starts to annoy me? What if it stops me doing the things I like? "For life" is such a long time - who can really promise something that far in advance? Life happens, you know. Things change. And on and on....

We've heard them all so many times that we've started to believe them. It sounds like truth.

It's not.

Covenant relationships acknowledge that things won't always be good, that different life pathways will present themselves, that better things might come up, that the romance will go up and down and sometimes I won't be able to stand being in the same room as you, that at times you'll be boring, angry, depressed, anxious, annoying, obnoxious, irritating, unattractive, exasperating. But even if all of that happens in the same week, I am still committed to you and I will be for the rest of our lives.

I'm yours for life, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part. Those words were written before covenant relationships faded out of our culture.

I want to bring them back. I hope you'll join me. For marriages, and also for friendships. Long-term, unselfish commitment, whatever happens. It's things like this that will change the world.

(Read Mark Sayers' book, "The Road Trip that Changed the World," for some more in-depth thoughts on these subjects, and a more intensive perspective on our culture.)

The Normality of the Bible

"When you compare the Bible to the scriptures of other religions, what is striking is the normality of the Bible. There are not gods or spiritual entities under every rock, or exhaustive descriptions of heavenly battles. Abraham is not taken away from the earth to another spiritual realm. God does speak to him, but the arena for his discipleship is the everyday. His relationship with the spiritual does not drive him away from everyday life, but instead pushes him deeper into it. The transcendent is to be found in the midst of the ordinary."

- from "The Road Trip that Changed the World," by Mark Sayers

Our Church: Monks, Cheerleaders and Activists

Our little home church has been going for a couple of years now, and I thought it might be a good time to write down a few of the things we care about. Some of these we've worked out ourselves, and a lot of it we've gratefully taken from our friends at Postcard Radio...

1. Monks, Cheerleaders and Activists
We are committed to helping each individual – adults and children – to be a monk, cheerleader and activist in their life.
Monks. Learning about who God is, his words, his way, his story, what he cares about, and who we are in relation to him. This means worship, prayer, reading the Bible, living like Jesus, etc.
Cheerleaders. Encouraging, supporting, praying, looking out for each other and the people we're connected to – in the bad and the good times.
Activists. Figuring out where each of us can make a positive difference in the world, to help bring Jesus' kingdom of heaven to earth.

More to come!

The Bible Story in Pictures

I did these for my high school chaplaincy students. It's amazingly difficult to tell the Bible story in a lunch break!

Sunday Morning Evangelism

It's worth posting this one again...

"Sunday morning in church is the one place where evangelism cannot take place in our generation because the lost are not there..." - from "Everyday Church," by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis

Review: Why Men Hate Going to Church

David Murrow begins this book with the harsh reality that most churches have fewer men than women, and because of this and various other reasons, church has gradually grown to reflect this. Church has largely become a place where women are comfortable and men are not. And thus begins a downward spiral. Church becomes slowly more feminine in its style because of the higher proportion of women, and as it does, men become less comfortable and men's numbers dwindle, which makes the church more feminine, which makes....

Although the descriptions of men/women seem a little exaggerated (not every man likes baseball and chainsaws) there are lots of helpful insights, advice on how to do church with men in mind, ways we are unintentionally marginalising men, and other practical tips.

I learnt a lot from this book. I'd really recommend it to any church leader. Church needs men. Especially now. It was Jesus' simplest strategy, and as Murrow points out: where there are men, the women, children and young people will want to be there too.

An interesting tidbit from the book to finish on (there's loads of research to back it all up)...

• When Mom is a regular churchgoer but Dad attends infrequently (or never), just 2 to 3 percent of their kids go on to become regular churchgoers.
• When both Mom and Dad attend church regularly, 33 percent of kids grow up as regular attendees.
• Here’s the shocker: when Dad is faithful but Mom never attends, 44 percent of the kids end up as regular churchgoers. This is the highest outcome of any scenario.

Read that again.

Jesus' Dream Now on Amazon

Quick update. Pretty self-explanatory if you read the post title. The short course/discussion series on Jesus that I've written this year is now available on Amazon, for any Kindle devices.

Check it out here...

Jesus' Dream: an intro to Jesus in six sessions

Love to hear your thoughts! Thanks.

Ben

Jesus Dream Short Course

Why is Jesus so important? What on earth was he on about?

Last year I became friends with a guy who wanted to know more about Jesus. I didn't want to just give him a book about it, and I thought the best thing would be for us to lock in a time each week, have a coffee, and go through one of those new-Christian discussion guides. But when I looked at what was available, I didn't find any that I thought would work well for an everyday Aussie guy - especially someone who hasn't grown up in a church (which is most Aussies now).

The ones I found were either too long (who will commit to a 10week religious course?), too impractical (watching a 40min sermon is not a normal thing for non-church people), too advanced (using theological concepts that are only familiar to people who've grown up in church) or misrepresented Jesus or the gospel. Some I felt just started in entirely the wrong place for non- church people (like calling for a commitment in the first session or starting with "you're a sinner" - which Jesus never did).

In the end I thought I'd just start the conversations myself and see where it went. In the process, through the conversations, questions and inevitable extra research by me, I ended up discovering a lot more about Aussie culture and about Jesus and his way of life. Most of all, I've discovered that Jesus and his way of life fits our culture to a T. He's the kind of guy that Aussies - even Aussie males - really respect.

So this year I've put together my own short course on Jesus that aims to fit Aussie non-church culture better. It starts where Jesus himself started, by calling people to dream with him about a new world. A better world of beauty and colour, free of pain and disaster, full of hope and light, creativity and passion, food and fun. It was a brilliant place to start, by a brilliant, visionary, revolutionary leader. So I figured I couldn't do better than start there myself. Jesus' dream is something we can all relate to.

This short course looks at Jesus' dream, his inspiring way of life and his amazing story. It's in six sessions for small groups or individuals.

After months of writing, editing and formatting, it's finally available on the iTunes iBookstore. Here's the link to the ePub version (which will work on most devices). And there's also a version specially designed for iPads.

http://itunes.apple.com/au/book/jesus-dream/id565908659?mt=11

Please go and check it out! I'd love to hear your thoughts. There's even a sample chapter there for free. And if you're using it somewhere other than Australia, I'd be especially interested to know how it goes. Thanks!

Church Size

From Lloyd Pietersen's "Reading the Bible After Christendom"....

"I am privileged to belong to Bristol Peace Church, a small group of currently six people, who meet every Sunday at 5.00pm... At the heart of the liturgy is Bible study and this is followed by a period of prayer informed by that Bible study; we then conclude with a meal together... As eating is central to our ecclesiology, we are committed not to grow beyond a number that can fit round the meal table. Further growth would result in breaking into two groups...."

Ha! My church is twice the size of yours Pietersen.

Review: "Mondays with My Old Pastor"

"Mondays with my Old Pastor" is the journey of a disillusioned pastor, encouraged by his wife to go and talk about it with his old pastor - an 83yo man who was pastor of the same church for 50 years but is now retired. So he goes and meets with the old man each monday, and these are the conversations. I love the concept, and when I saw this book I was looking forward to hearing the wisdom and sharing in the conversations. But it didn't quite work like that.

It feels like a fiction book, but unfortunately not a great one. One of those mass-produced romance ones. The old pastor is too perfect and everything he says and does is unrealistically perfect, relevant and inspiring (the word "spellbinding" is used...). The old pastor comes across as some kind of all-knowing, all-understanding super-pastor, so much that after the first meeting, without even really revealing his struggles, the author walks away both weaping and shouting verbal hallelujahs, smelling the old pastor's perfect roses with their perfect little water drops, rejoicing while watching the perfect setting sun cast a perfect cross shadow on the ground (caused by the author's raised arms), and arrives home to be lovingly greeted by his perfectly understanding wife.... I couldn't read more than two chapters.

It made me wonder, Is this guy really a pastor? It almost feels like he's a fiction writer who's done some very basic research into what it's like to be a pastor, in order to use one as his main character. I realise this all sounds harsh, and maybe it's just culture differences (this was originally written in spanish), but as an everyday Aussie, it kind of feels a little insulting to my intelligence. And it's a little preachy, like he's put his own words into his old pastor's mouth in order to preach to his readers. I can't say I want to keep reading and wait for the "old pastor" to come up with the perfect gem in each meeting.

Real pastoring is not as neat as this. It's messy, because people are messy - even old pastors are messy (unlike this one, who apparently is super-organised - possibly the clearest sign he might not be a real pastor!). If your ministry isn't messy, you've probably stopped working with people.

I like the idea behind the book - describing a pastor who is struggling, discouraged, burnt-out, and disillusioned with their ministry. It's a common story in the real world, and we need more books and conversations to help them. But I'm not sure this is one of them. I'd recommend Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian" series, or Ian Morgan Cron's "Chasing Francis," or something by Larry Crabb.

Review: The Realms Thereunder

What if there were ancient British knights sleeping beneath London, enchanted so as to wake up in the last days? A question I often ask myself. Or at least, it's a great idea for a fiction book series, which is what The Realms Thereunder heralds.

It's the first in the Ancient Earth series, by Ross Lawhead. You may recognise the surname from my other reviews (assuming you actually read these book reviews, which I pretty much do just to get free books from BookSneeze.com); yes, he's the son of my favourite fiction author, Stephen Lawhead. How could I not give this book a go?

And luckily for me, Ross writes in a similar style to his old man, although maybe with not quite the same depth... yet? I'm looking forward to seeing the works he comes out with. He's certainly got an amazing talent for storytelling, and a brillant imagination.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the book, and I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes when book 2 comes out.

Final Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion, and offering my thoughts on chapter three, where he looks at the arguments for God’s existence. Check out the earlier posts if you want to see what I’ve covered so far. Almost there now. Here are the last few “arguments” in the chapter.

The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists: e.g. "Newton was religious, so who are you to say different to him?" Really? Who is using this argument?

Pascal's Wager: "You're better off to choose to believe that God exists, because if you're wrong it won't matter anyway. If you choose not to believe in God and you're wrong, you might end up in hell." Dawkins has some good points to say about this one (which I'm sorry to say I've used before). Choosing God along the lines of this argument (because I'd be better off) is a selfish reason to choose God, and not very honest. Also, there are quite a lot of supposed "gods" out there. Which one are we supposed to choose in order to be safe? I remember a sketch by Rowan Atkinson that referred to this. "Oh I'm sorry Christians. The Jews were right." Not to mention the fact that many atheists have chosen not to believe because they see that religion has had a very bad (even evil) influence in the world's history.

The Bayesian Arguments, using probability, don't seem to work very well in my mind, so we may as well go with Dawkins on that one.

And then he concludes the chapter with The Argument from Improbability, which he says works in his favour. "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." This sounds to me like "God can't have designed the universe because then someone would have to have designed God." Why does God have to be designed? God is God.

I think the bigger question is, "Why is that such a conclusive argument for Dawkins?" He comes back to it a lot in these chapters. I wonder if the argument behind this one is in reality more like this: "God can't exist because it's irrational to think that God exists."

The next chapter deals with improbability a bit more, but I'll leave that for another post.

So where does all that leave us? Obviously I haven’t been convinced, although it has been a very helpful book to read. It’s great to see things from the other side of the discussion for a change, and I can see how it all works for Richard Dawkins. He’s an intelligent guy, and I respect his thinking. He's got some important things to say about religion, and Christians would do well to listen a bit more.

Summing up...

My conclusion from all of it is this:You can't prove or disprove the existence of God using science, philosophy or logic. My advice is to stop trying. It's the wrong field altogether, although it makes for some interesting, important discussions.

Dawkins proposes that belief in God is the same as if someone postulates that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. And this highlights the problem. If you're an atheist, it is the same. God and an orbiting teapot may as well be the same thing. But if you're not an atheist, obviously it's vastly different.

For myself, I'm open to the scientific possibility that God exists. For Dawkins this is irrational. I think the fact that he is closed to that possibility is irrational and unscientific. And that's basically where it all ends up. For me it's God, but for him it's a teapot.

And for that reason, we can't really have a reasonable discussion on these lines.

The Bone House - Review

"The Bone House" is the second in Stephen Lawhead's Bright Futures series. It carries on the story of a group of people who've discovered how to travel around in time - and skip between alternative universes - using the "ley lines" hidden in our own world. And Lawhead does it better than anyone else, weaving a tale impossibly wide and deep, stretching the reader's imagination in such a way as not to leave you thinking "that's ridiculous," but rather, "Could that happen? What if the world was like that?"

I've not found an author who comes close to Lawhead in his capacity to open up worlds of incredible beauty and colour that somehow still feel familiar, and characters like ourselves to stumble around and discover them. This series in particular I'm finding interesting due to his skill and knowledge in the area of quantum physics, and the way he opens up new ways to think about these fascinating areas. In such areas, we still do not know all the answers, and scientists have to think outside the box to find possible explanations. As Lawhead asks, why shouldn't a novelist enter the conversation?

I'd recommend this series to anyone.

Think you know your Bible?

I just read a very interesting alternative interpretation of The Parable of the Talents that Jesus tells in Luke 19. Completely different to the way I've always heard it taught.

As the story goes, a nobleman leaves the country to go and be crowned king. (Herod's son Archelaus did this following Herod's death, as the listeners would have known.) Before he goes, the guy divides 10 minas (worth about 3 months wages each) among his servants to invest while he's gone.
When he returns, the first servant has made 10 times the amount given - and receives 10 cities to govern as a reward. The second servant has made 5 times more than he first received, and gets 5 cities as a reward.
But the third servant has made nothing and gives back the original amount. "You wicked servant!" says the king, and takes this amount and gives it to the guy who has 10 cities.

The traditional interpretation is that this parable is about how we are to use what we've been given wisely, because one day Jesus will return and call us to account.

But watch this.

Lloyd Pietersen explains a different way to look at it, and this is very interesting. He points out that whenever Jesus talks about money, it is usually about GIVING IT AWAY, not investing and gaining more. Especially in Luke's gospel, where this is from. Blessed are the poor, Jesus says in Luke 6:20. Zaccheus' story, which is just before this one, ends with Zaccheus giving half his fortune away, and repaying anyone he's cheated four times the amount. One can assume that old Zac ends up with very little at the end. And Jesus says "Salvation has come to this house." The poor widow also gives her last pennies. The rich young ruler, also just a little before this story, is told by Jesus to give everything he has to the poor and come follow. Discipleship, in Luke's gospel, means giving up everything to follow Jesus.

In this context, it would be strange for Jesus to follow with a parable promoting accumulation. Pietersen suggests that Jesus is telling this parable to draw attention to the injustice built into the society, where the rich get richer and those with nothing have everything taken away. Sound familiar?

The third servant, which might be representative of a follower of Jesus, refuses to play by these rules (a common theme for Jesus) and is rejected. Not a particularly encouraging end to the parable. But that's just how it is. Though it's difficult, and you might get chewed up and spit out, Jesus still says generosity - not selfish wealth accumulation - is the only way to "the kingdom of heaven."

That interpretation definitely seems to line up better with Jesus' other sayings and actions. Doesn't work well for those churches that have used the parable to promote prosperity though!

Nice to still be surprised by Bible things I thought I knew. I hope that never stops.

Unicorn

Thanks Reachout.com for this one!

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 3

Carrying on my imaginary discussion with the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins (in which I get to say everything I like and he nods his head, scratches his beard and says “Hmm, I see that you are right, young Ben.”), we come to The Argument from Beauty. (Check the earlier posts if you want to see where we’ve been so far.)

Dawkins describes this one as: "God must exist because otherwise how would you account for the beauty of Michelangelo's art, Mozart's symphonies, Shakespeare's works?" Obviously it’s ridiculous if you put it in those terms. But again he's set the field in his favour by describing this argument only in terms of human artists.

I think the argument from beauty isn't so bad when you consider the beauty in the natural world. Sunsets didn't have to be beautiful, or flowers, or mountain ranges, or rainbows. The world could have been shades of brown. I don't think it's a knock-em-dead argument, and I can think of rebuttals to it even as I’m writing. But the argument from beauty is certainly not as crazy as Dawkins paints it.

He then generously gives a few pages to considering The Argument from Personal Experience, which is another one that isn't going to be particularly strong with a nonreligious person, though it might be the strongest of them all for the believer. The fact is, it's too difficult to prove, and most likely the listener wasn't there.

The Argument from Scripture is next: e.g. "Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, so therefore he's either 'Lord, Liar or Lunatic.'" I think the popular More than a Carpenter book from memory uses this logic. Dawkins points out that there's a fourth possibility, that Jesus might have been honestly mistaken. Fair point.

He then he goes on to point out some apparent contradictions and discrepancies in Scripture itself, which show his lack of knowledge in First Century and Jewish culture. I can see how this might be particularly persuasive to people who don’t know their Bible stuff though. He writes, "Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world." Well that's just not true.

And further, "All [the gospels] were copied and recopied, through many different 'Chinese Whispers generations'..." That's a bit of a deceptive comment. It’s true that the New Testament writings were copied and recopied (as is every great work), but archaeology has over time uncovered earlier and earlier (and more and more) documents of the New Testament writings. So the fact is, our translations are getting more and more accurate, not less. And the sheer quantity of copies we have from the first centuries shows the amazing level of accuracy in the copying technique, which is quite phenomenal.

None of this is a secret. You can easily see the points where there are differences in the documents. Just pick up a Bible and check out the footnotes. There aren’t many at all, considering.

And that’s where I’ll sign off for this one.

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 2

In the last post, we ended up having a discussion about first causes, while Richard Dawkins was off on a tangent. (This is in chapter three of his book, where he rebuts the “Arguments for God’s Existence.” I'm looking at Dawkins' responses to the arguments, and then giving a few thoughts.)

Following his little diversion Dawkins goes back to the argument about what kickstarted the universe and says it's irrational to call the first cause "God" because invoking the “God” explanation is "at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading."

Let's see that again, in simpler terms: "It is irrational to call the first cause 'God' because calling it God is irrational." Does that about sum it up? This takes me back to Year 12 Logic and Philosophy class. There is more discussion about this in the next chapter, where he explains why it’s irrational. But we’ll get to that later.

Moving on, he points out that Thomas Aquinas’ next argument for God (The Argument from Degree) is illogical, and I agree.

The Argument from Design is next to face up. Simply stated, "things look like they've been designed, so they probably are." This is an argument that’s used fairly frequently by Christians. Nevertheless, how do you think this next sentence might sound to the thousands of people who aren't up-to-date with the whole discussion? "The argument from design is the only one still in regular use today..."

Clever. He's effectively told the uninitiated that this is the only argument religious people have, and, lucky for him, it's also the one where Dawkins' is in his own element, one that he is going to systematically destroy throughout the rest of his book. He's set the field (in his own field), and now he'll go to town (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

But I don't think that really is the right field for this whole discussion. Many of us Christians have already left that field and gone to town (again, sorry).

I think his response (natural selection over millions of years) is absolutely valid. I have no problems with natural selection. It makes sense, I don't think it contradicts God, and the archaeological record supports it. If I was having this conversation with Dawkins, that would be the end of that discussion. And I'm a passionate "religious" person.

And there are many many more Christians like me - notably among academics and intellectuals, scientists, doctors, archaeologists, etc. We're not debating that one.

But he is partly right, in that there are many Christians who think the Design Argument is a good one. I'd like to have a word with them.

And that’s the last of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God’s existence. We’ll carry on in the next post with the Argument from Beauty, after skipping quickly past the Ontological Argument, which I think is a little ridiculous myself.

Let me know your thoughts!

Pastor Irene's Manifesto

Here's another part I loved from Eugene Peterson's The Pastor. I post these kinds of things so I can get back to them easily!

Peterson was facilitating a class with a group of soon-to-be-starting pastors. After a few days together, he asked one young lady who'd been quiet what she was thinking. This was her response, which Peterson called Pastor Irene's Manifesto. I want to make it mine too.

"When I get a congregation, I want to be a patient pastor. I want to have eyes to see and ears to hear what God is doing and saying in their lives. I don't want to judge them in terms of what I think they should be doing. I want to be a witness to what God is doing in their lives, not a schoolmistress handing out grades for how well they are doing something for God.

"I think I see something unique about being a pastor that I had never noticed: the pastor is the one person in the community who is free to take men and women seriously just as they are, appreciate them just as they are, give them the dignity that derives from being the 'image of God,' a God-created being who has eternal worth without having to prove usefulness or be good for anything. I know that I will be doing a lot of other things too, but I might be the only person who is free to do this.

"I don't want to be so impatient with the mess that I am not around to see the miracle being formed. I don't want to conceive of my life as pastor so functionally that the mystery gets squeezed out of both me and the congregation."

Thoughts on Dawkins' "The God Delusion" 1

A friend has given me Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion to have a read of. I'm finding it very interesting actually. It’s great to be able to see things from his perspective for a bit. I've only ever read Dawkins' stuff as quoted (and misquoted) by Christians in apologetic books – most of which I wasn’t too impressed with anyway. I have to say I respect the guy a lot more now.

The aim of the book is to prove that belief in God is unnecessary and deluded. He goes about it in a few different ways, one of which is to offer rebuttals of the arguments for the existence of God. Some of his rebuttals are right on the money. That is, some of the arguments Christians have used to “prove” God’s existence really are not brilliant arguments (I’m sorry to say that some of them I’ve used before, thinking they were awesome).

However I do want to go through them in these next few posts, because I see some holes in Dawkins’ thinking. Most of these are from Chapter Three in the book, “Arguments for God’s existence.” I’ll briefly summarize the Christian argument and then his response, and give my own thoughts. Let me know if I’m missing anything. Read the chapter yourself if you can, to make sure I’m not misrepresenting Richard Dawkins.

Thomas Aquinas' 5 "Proofs"

The Unmoved Mover, The Uncaused Cause, The Cosmological Argument. Dawkins puts the first three together, which I think makes sense. Basically it's the argument of first causes: something must have kicked it all off. Dawkins’ response is (in my non-academic paraphrase), "Well, who caused God then?" and then he diverts the discussion into a conversation about the incongruities with the terms omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience etc.

My response to that is: God by definition is not characterized or limited by the way the universe works, so why does God need a first cause? It seems to me that Dawkins has first defined God as needing a first cause, and then gone on to ask, "Well, what caused him then?" I've noticed this happening a bit in his book. He defines God within the laws of this universe (e.g. science and physics) and then denounces the result.

Having said that, I do understand how my response looks to an atheist. Unhelpful at best. Frustrating and immature probably. It looks like I’ve pushed the discussion beyond the realms of what we can test and see - the physical, material, natural universe - which in many ways shuts down the conversation if you're talking to an atheist. Or at least removes the conversation from their field of expertise.

And that’s exactly what I’ve done. My view is that you can’t prove OR disprove God using science. There are incredibly intelligent people on both sides of the discussion. Neither side is stupid. It’s the wrong field altogether when we’re talking about God.

To me the First Cause argument makes sense, as it did to Aquinas, because I’m open to the possibility of a God. But to an atheist who is by definition not open to this possibility, it’s a ridiculous argument.

Dawkins goes on later in the book to offer alternative explanations to the First Cause problem. E.g. There might be billions of other universes, and this just happens to be the one where everything works – which I think is entirely valid, but obviously untestable (like God?). Or, the universe might be continually expanding and contracting (the term used by physicists is “bouncing”), producing many big bang singularities in a long chain of universes – and this universe just happened to work perfectly. Probability-wise, this also makes sense, although I think it’s a little more difficult physics-wise.

At first glance, with both of these it might seem too good to be true that we just happen to be in the one-in-a-billion universe that worked. But if you think about it that makes sense too. Obviously this would be the one that works, because otherwise we wouldn’t be here. If that still doesn’t make sense I’m not explaining it well enough. Keep thinking and you’ll get it!

So there are viable alternatives. It really just comes down to belief again. I’m open to the possibility of God, so it makes more sense for me to say God designed it all perfectly and kicked it off. Dawkins is not, so that perspective makes no sense at all to him. It makes more sense to Dawkins to believe that it was something other than God.

On another important note: the fact that there are other possibilities doesn’t disprove God. It just means we’ve thought of other solutions, which humans are notorious for being able to do. That’s intelligence. It’s not intelligent to think: “I’ve proven God is unnecessary, so therefore God doesn’t exist.” You have to go further than that, which Dawkins attempts to do in later chapters.

But that’s more than enough for now. Let me know what you think if you’ve read this far!

"We always marry the wrong person"

"Destructive to marriage is the self-fulfillment ethic that assumes marriage and the family are primarily institutions of personal fulfillment, necessary for us to become "whole" and happy. The assumption is that there is someone just right for us to marry and that if we look closely enough we will find the right person. This moral assumption overlooks a crucial aspect to marriage. It fails to appreciate the fact that we always marry the wrong person.

"We never know whom we marry; we just think we do. Or even if we first marry the right person, just give it a while and he or she will change. For marriage, being [the enormous thing it is] means we are not the same person after we have entered it. The primary challenge of marriage is learning how to love and care for the stranger to whom you find yourself married."

- Stanley Hauerwas

Dead Letter Chorus - Run, Wild

Love this song, by Sydney band "Dead Letter Chorus."

Big Random Odds

From "The Daily Galaxy"...

"'The discovery of the Higgs boson represents a milestone in the exploration of the fundamental interactions of elementary particles,' states Professor Dr. Matthias Neubert, Professor for Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics and spokesman for the Cluster of Excellence PRISMA at JGU.

"On the one hand, the Higgs particle is the last component missing from the Standard Model of particle physics. On the other hand, physicists are struggling to understand the detected mass of the Higgs boson. 'Using our theory as it currently stands, the mass of the Higgs boson can only be explained as the result of a random fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe at a level of accuracy of one in one quadrillion,' explains Neubert."

One in one quadrillion? Is that even a number?

Which Way Is Up?

Here are some very interesting world maps, forcing a change of perspective.

No prizes for guessing why the Europeans put themselves at the top, but how many of us are aware that this is just a perception? Really it could easily be the other way round. Our world in space doesn't really have an "up" or "down."

Enjoy!

The Skin Map

It was an exciting day for me when I discovered that my favorite fiction author had started a new series. I've just finished the first one today, "The Skin Map," and I loved it. Stephen Lawhead has an amazing way of taking the ordinariness of our familiar world and connecting it with much bigger worlds of colour, mystery and life. His books make me see our own world with new eyes.

I would only say that you couldn't read this book on its own. No problem for me, as I was always going to read the whole series. And luckily for me I just looked it up and the second book's available now too. Brilliant. I don't want this guy to ever stop writing.

Homosexuality and Heaven

Can homosexuals get to heaven? According to some so-called "Christians" (a frustratingly ill-used term), apparently not.

I just read an article from the New York Times about the values of Exodus International, an organization existing "to provide spiritual support for Christians who are struggling with homosexual attraction." Recently there has been some controversy surrounding statements made by the president, Mr Alan Chambers, in which he declared "that there was no cure for homosexuality and that 'reparative therapy' offered false hopes to gays and could even be harmful." Apparently for many years Exodus has operated under the idea that anyone can be cured of homosexuality through prayer and psychotherapy, and now Chambers is calling for people to be more realistic. According to the article, "he said that virtually every 'ex-gay' he has ever met still harbors homosexual cravings.... But those who fail should not be severely judged, he said, adding, 'We all struggle or fall in some way.'"

I won't go into the details of that debate (maybe another time), but I was struck by a statement made by one of the people who want Chambers to resign. From a man who is supposedly an associate professor at a US theological seminary: "My greatest concern has to do with Alan's repeated assurances to homosexually active 'gay Christians' that they will be with him in heaven..."

This brings to light quite clearly a view I've sadly heard before, that practicing homosexuals are somehow disqualified from God's grace. Let me say this as clearly as I can: this is not true, and grossly misrepresents God. The idea that ANYTHING can disqualify us from God's grace is utterly false.

If it were true, how would any of us be saved? To use a verse the conservative evangelicals love, "For all have sinned..."

The amazing beauty of the gospel is this: that ANYONE can turn to Jesus and be saved. It's not about what we've done, or (let's be honest) what we might yet do. It's about God's love. The thief on the cross turns to Jesus and says "Remember me when you come into your kingdom," and Jesus' immediate response is "Today you will be with me in paradise." This guy could have done anything. Murderer? Fraud? Terrorist? But it wouldn't have mattered. It doesn't matter because of God's love and grace. Anyone can go to heaven.

No one is disqualified, thank God. Anyone can turn to Jesus and be a part of his future kingdom.

Any other message is NOT Christianity.

It's Not Fair!

"That's not fair!"

Three words my young daughters use fairly frequently to helpfully educate me on my parenting.
My basic response is: no it's not. Get used to it. Life isn't fair.

But I'm curious, where did we get this idea that everything has to be fair? Why do kids instinctively complain about unfairness? And not just kids. People have been whinging about it for eons. Right through the Bible we see people complaining about unfairness. "Why do good things happen to bad people, while I'm here doing the right thing, and it looks like I'm cursed.... That doesn't seem fair."

Actually, I can't find any reference in the Bible where it says things should be fair. Contemplate that for a second.

The fact of the matter is, God has created a world that isn't fair. And I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. Inequality creates some amazing opportunities for love and grace, generosity and sacrifice. It's an opportunity to show people that we care enough to be generous - to give love. And for those on the difficult side of the equation, it's an opportunity to receive love and care.

What kind of painting would it be if the painter only used white? It'd just be a blank canvas, or a sheet of paper. I can buy a 500-pack of those sheets for under $5.

It's all of our differences that bring the colour.

And go with me a little further for a minute....
I think this whole obsession with fairness might be a dangerous one that might be better left behind. If you think about it, God's blessings go far beyond fairness. His generosity is extravagant beyond what we deserve, and as followers of Christ, we should follow his example. We should go far beyond fairness - even beyond the point where we worry that our generosity might be abused or taken for granted - and extravagantly bless people way beyond what they deserve.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, and possible implications you could see for the world.

For All the Saints

Grab a cuppa, find a nice spot to sit, and meditate on the words of this beautiful old hymn....

For all the saints who from their labors rest,
Who Thee by faith before the world confess,
Thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest,
Alleluia! Alleluia!

Thou wast their Rock, their Fortress, and their Might;
Thou, Lord, their Captain in the well-fought fight;
Thou, in the darkness drear, their one true Light.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

Oh, may Thy soldiers, faithful, true and bold,
Fight as the saints who nobly fought of old
And win with them the victor's crown of gold.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

The golden evening brightens in the west;
Soon, soon, to faithful warriors cometh rest.
Sweet is the calm of Paradise the blest.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

But, lo, there breaks a yet more glorious day;
The saints triumphant rise in bright array;
The King of Glory passes on His way.
Alleluia! Alleluia!

- William W. How (1823-1897)

The Stars

I wonder if we lost something when we discovered that the earth is round and God and heaven are not "up there." I can really see how it would be nice to look at the stars, or the clouds streaking across the sky at sunset, and think of it as God's home.

I guess we can still take our cues from the vastness, glory and beauty of the sky, but it does take a little more imagination now.

But maybe it is for the better. What do you think? Do you think we lost something?

Why Pastors Leave

Some stabilising thoughts from Eugene Peterson on why many pastors leave their ministry...

"I wonder if at the root of the defection is a cultural assumption that all leaders are people who 'get things done,' and 'make things happen.' That is certainly true of the primary leadership models that seep into our awareness from the culture - politicians, businessmen, advertisers, publicists, celebrities, and athletes. But while being a pastor certainly has some of these components, the pervasive element in our two-thousand-year pastoral tradition is not someone who 'gets things done' but rather the person placed in the community to pay attention to 'what is going on right now' between men and women, with one another and with God - this kingdom of God that is primarily local, relentlessly personal, and prayerful 'without ceasing.'"

From "The Pastor: A Memoir"

What do you think?

Book Review: Gabby, God's Little Angel

Gabby, God's Little Angel is a cute little book and my girls love it. It's about a little guardian angel whose first assignment is a girl who turns out to be a bit of a handful - the main message being that God loves each and every one of his children, and he's sent his angels to protect us.
Having said that, though, I'm still a little unsure what to rate it. This whole idea that each of us has a guardian angel protecting us is not really in the Bible. And the book shows the angels up in "heaven", sitting on clouds and watching us down below.
One of the most dangerous ideas that Christianity has picked up is that heaven is a place of clouds and angels that we will go to when we die. This book obviously doesn't say anything about "when we die", but I wonder if it doesn't help when we tell our kids this is what heaven is like?
I was just flicking through a new book for kids yesterday, which was basically written to help them through the grief when a child loses someone they love. Brilliant concept. But their pictures of heaven - the place we're supposedly looking forward to, that makes all of this pain worthwhile - were of a place of fluffy clouds, with angels flying round, where we'll sing songs forever. It's a shame really.
Here's what's really going to happen - and it's much more real and worth looking forward to than that shallow image: One day God is going to restore and renew everything - flowers, trees, mountains, streams, hippopotamuses, chrysanthemums, the earth, the planets, the universe, and us too. God is going to bring heaven (the realm of God) and earth (the physical realm) together, never to be separated again. It's going to be like what we have now, but unimaginably better and more amazing. Fluffy clouds? Come on. I'm looking forward to the breathtaking beauty of mountain ranges, pacific islands, people with no limit to their creativity. A restored, renewed UNIVERSE, with no more pain, violence, cancer, crying, or death.
Now THAT'S worth looking forward to. Can't we tell our kids that instead?
But as for this cute little book about Gabby, God's Little Angel, I guess I'm ok with it. God is in a different realm at the moment, and I'm fine for kids to imagine he's in the clouds. And he does send his angels to protect us.

How to Smell like Jesus

A few years ago I did a series of talks for a youth camp called "How to Smell Like Jesus." The idea came from 2 Corinthians 15, where Paul writes, "Our lives are a Christ-like fragrance rising up to God."

How might we become people that smell like Jesus, I asked, so that we can make the world a little more beautiful, and so that others around us will begin to notice the sweet fragrance? The goal, I told those teenagers, is for people to come up to them and ask, "What is that heavenly aroma?" I know, this might seem a bit of a stretch of the imagination if you happen to know any teenage boys....

Can you think of any people in your life who give off this kind of Christ-fragrance? I can.

But unfortunately, I can also think of some Christians who give off an entirely different kind of smell. Matthew Paul Turner agrees, in his book "Relearning Jesus"...

"Most of the weirdest things I have encountered in my life have 'Christian' written on them.... The stench of Christians is revealed more through evangelism than anything else. I smell it often, the scent of misplaced words and poor, inexcusable timing. When mixed with uninterested patrons it becomes an especially nasty odor."

Hands up if you've smelt that one.

I was going to go on to give some ways of becoming a less nasty and more heavenly fragrance, but I think I might leave that for another post. For now let's stick with this question:

When do you think Christians smell the worst? Or if you'd rather not dwell on the negative: When have you seen someone doing something that had an undeniable Jesus-aroma to it?

Love to hear your thoughts!

Jesus and Buddhism

Wow. Check out this quote, from one of the characters in "A New Kind of Christian," by Brian McLaren...

"We have to realize that Buddhism is more than a religion, more than a culte. It is also a culture. So I can't see why Jesus couldn't invade Buddhist culture, just as he invaded Jewish and Greco-Roman culture in the first millennium and European cultures in the second. If in the third millennium Christ enters Buddhist culture, he will spark an outbreak of real Christianity - just not Western European Christianity. And if Christ enters Islamic culture, he will spark an outbreak of real Christianity, but again, it won't be Western European Christianity. That to me is the missionary challenge of the third millennium: not eradicating Buddhist or Islamic or tribal cultures but blessing them with Christ - letting Christ enter them and drive the evil from them... and in that way redeem them. And my guess is that each will bring something that will enrich our Christian heritage too... And in the process, maybe we'll let Christ enter our own Western culture in a new way too. That's a nice thought!"

What an amazing vision! I love it.

Rekindle Your Love of Touring

I recorded some jazz trumpet for an ad for Tourism Queensland quite a few years ago. Completely forgot about it, but I just got the most recent issue of The Road Ahead magazine in my letterbox today and they've used a shot from the ad as the front cover. So of course I then had to see if I could find the ad, and wouldn't you know it, it was on YouTube. So here it is for you to enjoy! It's a pretty cute ad.

Above All Else

"Seek the Kingdom of God above all else,
and he will give you everything you need." - Luke 12:31

"Our Father in heaven,
may your name be kept holy.
May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven." - Matthew 6:9-10

Good Friday: It Is Not About You

My family and I went to a church service on Good Friday that left me upset for the rest of the day, and not for the right reasons.

I was expecting to leave in some level of sadness because this Friday was a dark day in history. It's the day we reflect on Jesus' horrific death, crucified at the hands of the Romans, by his own people, though he did nothing to deserve it. I was expecting to feel some sense of connection with the evil in the world. We put him there, on that cross. Jesus' closest friends left him to die, and it would be arrogant of me to think that I would have done any different. As humans, this was our darkest hour.

But I was upset for much different reasons.

The message that came across over and over again in this service - through the words spoken, the reflective acts, the dramatic monologue, even the songs that were sung - was "It was all for you." Jesus died on the cross so he could be your personal saviour. It was your sin that put him there. Love for you that held him there. It was all about you. At one point we were left singing the refrain over and over again, "For me, for me, for me, for me..."

At this point, many of you are thinking, "So what? That's the truth isn't it?"

Many people won't see a problem with this message, because the same one is communicated every week. A bumper sticker I've seen lately (unfortunately my company sells it) reads, "Crown of thorns on his head, Cross of wood on his back, You on his mind."

Many Christians think the Gospel is: Jesus died so that we can have a personal relationship with God, and go to heaven when I die.

But that is the gospel isn't it?

To put it bluntly, no. That's not the gospel. There was a lot more going on that Friday than Jesus saving you - although that is a nice outcome.

Let me come at it from a different angle. I have three beautiful little daughters, and I love them dearly. But suppose I told my oldest daughter, "Lily, everything I do, I do it for you." Yes, there is some truth in that. I do love Lily, and there's a lot I would give for her. Much of what I do benefits Lily - working, praying, providing and so on. But to put it in those words - while there is some truth - is actually FALSE. There's a huge amount more going on, including my other kids, my wife, living for God and working to bring Jesus' kingdom to earth. To say something like this is just to pander to Lily's ego and make her feel good. Flattery, we call it.

The same thing was happening in that Good Friday service. Yes, you are saved because of Jesus' death on the cross, but to say that it was all for you is actually a long way off the truth.

Jesus didn't die JUST for your personal salvation. There's a MUCH bigger story than that. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was the inauguration of a new kingdom, a new world which will lead to the restoration and renewal of the whole of creation. The cross of Christ drew all the streams of the old testament stories and prophecy together into one glorious climax. The cross of Jesus was the ultimate turning point in the whole of history. Jesus' death and resurrection changed EVERYTHING. There is a new king and this is how he's bringing his kingdom in: sacrifice and incomprehensible love. "There is no greater love than this: for a man to lay down his life for his friends." The king put himself last and gave everything for the sake of others. And then defeated death itself.

And it was all about you? Please. How can Good Friday, of all days, turn into a message about us?

Perhaps the thing that angered me most is that we hear the same message over and over again from our culture: "It's all about you. You deserve it. You are the most important person in the world." They flatter us because it works.

And then we go to church and hear the same message? Even on Good Friday? If a rock band does this - just giving the people whatever they want - we call them a sellout.

Wake up Christians! It's not about you. There's only one person worthy, and he gave it all up for the world.

School is...

"School is a building that has four walls - with tomorrow inside."
- Lon Watters

Tired? Stressed?

You'll feel better on Swisse.

Or so the ad says. And sure, you probably would feel better. Or if you don't have any Swisse tablets available, you could grab one of the plethora of energy drinks around these days. Red Bull gives you wings? We need to come back to earth.

Is it really a good thing to be able to just take a tablet and keep going? Is it a good thing that these energy drinks are selling so well in our culture? Does that tell us something?

Why do we do this?

Tiredness and stress are warning lights. They're our body telling us "You're doing too much. There's a lot on your plate. You need to rest." You can't just ignore these things, turn off the warning lights and keep going. What if a pilot did that? "Damn, another warning light. Gee that's annoying. I'll just flick that off."

Might not be a pilot for long.

I know it's just a silly metaphor, but the reality is pretty important too. We're not invincible. We're not superman. We can't keep writing cheques our body can't cash.

If you see these warning lights, for goodness sake, have a rest. And make sure you're getting at least a day of rest each week. God knew what he was doing when he designed you.

The lights are not just to annoy you.

Simple Ideas for Simple Churches

It's not always beneficial to run like a large church.

I preached at a little church recently that had about 15 people in the congregation. If you've ever facilitated a small group in a home, you'll know this is a great size group! You can have some amazing discussions with different perspectives, eat meals together, connect with the kids fairly easily, and build some great friendships along the way.

If they ran it like a small group, this church would have been alive and thriving! But somehow they felt they needed to run it like a traditional large church. They had Sunday morning services, with the pews all set up in rows, notices at the beginning, the correct amount of hymns, and sent the kids (all three of them) out the back to Sunday school while I preached to the rest.

I have no problems with this way of doing things, but is it the best way for a small church?

As a result, this little church felt like they weren't doing a very good job, but the reality is, this group of people is one of the most lovingly unified, generous churches I've ever seen. They really care for one another, and they're giving all they've got to make a positive difference in their local community.

If you're a small church, my advice is: don't try to run like a large church. You don't need to. Make the most of the amazing opportunities you have. Have meals together (a great place to gradually introduce non-church friends to the rest of the group). Get rid of the pews and have multi-perspective discussions instead (rather than hearing from just one person behind a pulpit). Get involved in each others' lives. Care for each other. Enjoy the strong friendships, from the smallest kids to the oldest grandparents - this is so much more difficult to cultivate in larger congregations.

There are HUGE benefits to being a small church. Don't miss out by trying to be something else!

Review: Story Engineering

Story Engineering: Mastering the 6 core competencies of successful writing, by Larry Brooks.

There are almost limitless possibilites when you're designing a home. Thousands of different ways it could end up. You could make it eco-friendly and build the whole thing out of bamboo. You can make it open and airy, and "invite the outside in," as Better Homes and Gardens says. You could build it on water. Or you could build it at the top of a tall tower, as a nice place to keep wayward princesses.

But however you do it, there are some basic structural elements that EVERY house must have. As I was singing with my 1-year-old this morning: "Build a house with a floor, with a floor, with a floor. Build a house with a wall, with a wall, with a wall. Build a house with a roof, with a roof, with a rooooooooof..." Of course, the house didn't turn out too well in the song, but the fact remains: you can be endlessly creative in your designing, but any house still has to have some kind of roof, walls, and a floor. As well as a place to sleep, a place to prepare food, and somewhere to, shall we say, shed the unwanted food....

Story Engineering, by Larry Brooks, is a little like this. It's a book on how to plan and build a story or screenplay - explaining all the work a writer should do before beginning to write, in order to have a winning story at the end. As opposed to flying by the seat of your pants (pantsing, Brooks calls it) in the hopes that if you just start writing it will all work out in the end.

When I first started reading this book, to be honest I wondered if it might kill the creativity, making storytelling clinical and formulaic. Like he was saying, "You want to build a house? Here's a photo of one. Do that." But as I got a little further in, and Brooks began giving guidance on the six core competencies, I began to see that they weren't formulaic at all.

What this book does is explains what a wall needs to be. And a roof. And a floor. And then the author says, "Once you've got that, feel free to go crazy! But just make sure it's got those elements." After all, a house without walls would be a little impractical (where would you hang photos?...).

I would recommend this book to any aspiring writer. It really is helpful and freeing. It's enjoyable to read (if sometimes a little repetitive, but I could understand why). You're not guaranteed to have a bestseller if you master these six competencies of storytelling, but it's highly likely you'll have a flop if you don't.

Different

What makes Christians different to others? According to Tom Wright, it's humility, patience, chastity and charity.

I reckon that sums it up pretty well. May we grow more and more into these virtues, and help others become part of the family and do the same.

Little Miss Dentist

I just saw a girl - looked like she was in her twenties, asian, I'm guessing a uni student - wearing this t-shirt. And I must say it worried me a little.

Now it's true that I've been to the dentist just this morning, and it's probably only because of this that I noticed the shirt in the first place. But am I wrong to think there's something amiss here?

Would you want this girl to be your dentist?

I remember Mark Sayers speaking about the Japanese culture of "cute" - I hope I'm explaining this right - flattening everything, including the deeper, important things into the cute and fluffy and trivial. At heart it's a bit of an avoidance of anything deep or potentially painful. "Oh it's nothing. Just a bit of fun. I'm not really serious about it."

And I must say, since hearing Mark say that, I have seen these ideas in our culture a lot.

Anyone else got some thoughts on this?

Have you seen this happening anywhere?

The Oven

My daughter Isla is three years old and I tell her, "Don't touch the oven. Ever. Why? Because the oven is dangerous and you might burn the house down and we might all die. But mostly because I said so. Just do what I say and things will go well."

When she is older it will all change. I will tell her, "Sure you can touch the oven. In fact, use it all you like, and make beautiful food with it."

What will change, and what won't, and why?

Are we mostly asleep?

"Altogether, almost half of human genes - the largest proportion known in any organism - don't do anything at all, as far as we can tell, except reproduce themselves."

- A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson

I read this and it makes me wonder: have we got, built into us, the potential for much, MUCH more life? Half our genetic makeup just sits there, doing nothing except reproducing itself so it carries on. And we only use something like10% of our brains.

One day we will be resurrected and will be more fully alive than ever before, with new bodies, capable of much more, far beyond what we can comprehend now. I wonder if God has somehow already built this potential into us. We just can't "access" it in this life.

Like we're mostly asleep. Stumbling around in a daze. Only 10% alive.

If you read some of Paul's letters, he often uses imagery like this. But he also goes further. Paul's perspective is that, through Jesus, we can slowly become more awake even now, start living in the new world, while other people yet sleep. We can wake up and live more fully, more completely, even if it's still only a tiny bit more like our future life.

Could we somehow start living this built-in potential in this life?

I'm not completely sure how this all works yet, but my hunch is that saturating yourself in Paul's writings will give us some ideas.

7 Billion Actions

I posted recently a video from National Geographic about some of the implications of a world that now has over 7 billion occupants.

Here's a website with even more insight to what this world is like, and some thoughts about what the future may hold for us all. Definitely worth a look, but if you don't have time to look through a website, at least go back and watch the video!

http://7billionactions.org/data