State of Origin and the Gospel

Just to preempt those sermons being prepared for this Sunday: the State of Origin is not like the kingdom of heaven.

Over to you, commenters.

Review: Sherlock Holmes and the Needle's Eye

I've often wished to be in a situation where someone might shout desperately "If only there were a theologian nearby!" And I could step up and modesty say "I am one. Maybe I can help." But I suppose that may never happen in real life. Ah well, much the pity.

I got to experience this a little while reading "Sherlock Holmes and the Needle's Eye" though. In this fiction book (provided by booksneeze.com) Holmes and Watson have procured a time machine which they use to travel backwards in history and solve ten Bible mysteries. There are discussion questions for each mystery at the end so groups can try to solve it before reading the solution. At various points as Sherlock and Dr Watson are deliberating I almost wished I was present so I could say "Oh I know that one!" But alas.

The book is clever. It's interesting to see some of the Bible events from a first-person perspective, like David and Goliath. And I enjoyed the banter between Holmes, the doctor and Mrs Watson. At some points it can get a little preachy, where the author is trying to teach theology at the same time. It feels less like the real Holmes and Watson at these points, but I see what the author is trying to do. Actually, I'd like to read a non-religious Sherlock Holmes book from this author. I like his style of writing. He captures the fun and intelligence of the characters brilliantly.

There are a couple of apocalyptic-style events that the author includes which feel really out of place. Even in the Bible I don't believe these are meant to be seen as happening in real life. And some of the "mysteries" are not quite as fascinating as Holmes' usual fare (eg "Why did Paul start his second missionary journey in Phillipi?" Why oh why). All in all I found it entertaining though.

There'll be a lot of church people who will like this book. But I wouldn't give it to non-Christian friends.

Review: Dirty God

I just finished "Dirty God," by Johnnie Moore, generously provided by BookSneeze.com. The book is all about grace and it's written in two parts: "Getting Grace" and "Giving Grace."

I loved the first part. The author writes so poetically, explaining with clarity and passion what God has done for us, leaving behind the riches and control of heaven to move into our neighbourhood. As Moore puts it...

"Jesus didn’t keep his distance from the messy world that he descended into when he left heaven’s golden streets for earth’s dusty Middle Eastern villages, filled to capacity with the poor and frustrated, the disenfranchised and the rejected. Jesus didn’t revel in his priceless glory—rather, he gave himself completely to the opportunity to make the inglorious feel that they mattered to God.”

It's amazing grace, and it's not just for the best of us. Jesus chose to spend all of his time with everyday people - people from small fishing towns, not the big city. Ordinary people, not superstars, not overly smart, spiritual, or even ambitious. The grace God gives us is for anyone.

I reckon this book should have been two books. The second half is good too, but it kind of moves the book in a different direction and offers a bit more of the author's own perspectives on what everyday life should look like for us. I would rather if those questions ("How can we pass this grace on?" etc) were woven into the first part of the book and not answered as much, so that the whole thing remains focused on God's grace and the practical questions of everyday life are left open for readers to answer themselves.

Just my thoughts. Well worth a read anyway.

The Army

Imagine you have just completed training to be a lifesaver on QLD beaches. It comes to your first day on the job and you are looking forward to rescuing people who are struggling in the surf. But instead of supplying you with floatation devices and an inflatable rescue boat, your instructor gives you... a gun.

It seems to me this is close to the situation we have with our army, although vastly simplified. I've had many conversations about war and the defense force before, and often I've heard people say "but they're really doing aid work, rebuilding, protecting families, keeping the peace." To which I say "Brilliant, but if that's what they're doing, why all the weapons and military training?"

When that's your training and those are the resources most readily at your fingertips, peacemaking options and creative solutions also become very limited. Imagine if we only gave lifesavers a gun? I would guess that deaths on beaches would escalate and there would be a lot less rescues.

Now dream with me. What if all the money spent on our defense force was spent instead on nonviolent aid instead? What if all the time spent training these millions of people for the military was spent training them for humanitarian work? What if the brilliant minds at the top were enlisted to find creative nonviolent ways to organise nations, creative nonviolent ways to work through conflict and threat, and creative nonviolent ways to bring world peace?

I'm convinced we COULD have world peace if more nations started thinking like this. It wouldn't even need to be all of them.

Feeling Guilty About the Crusades

Every Friday afternoon during the last period of the school week I find myself helping out in a year 8 class discussing history. I assist this entertaining group of students a few times each week (one of the various things I do as a chaplain), but for some reason Friday afternoon history is my favourite.

Last week as the lesson began I learned that the topic they were learning about was the Crusades. A brief explanation in case you were doodling and passing notes in year 8 history....

As per my recently refreshed knowledge thanks to Mrs Caple, the Crusades were religious wars fought by Christians against (mostly) Muslims between the 11th and 16th centuries with the aim to recover Jerusalem and the surrounding area ("the holy land"). Jerusalem was important to both sides for religious reasons. The Pope kicked it off, the Catholic Church repeated the call and the kings dutifully led their armies out (at this point the Catholic Church had a huge amount of power, even and especially with the monarchy). Several hundred thousand soldiers responded, some for glory, some for adventure, and many for more basic reasons: they would be fed. It was a violent and dark time in history, and the "Christian" church were the main perpetrators.

As the lesson began - well aware that my chaplain hat was unavoidably atop my noggin - I thought to myself "This could be awkward."

As a pastor and as a Christian I've had many conversations with non-Christian folk where I've tried to explain how good and worthwhile Christianity is - how great it would be and what an amazingly different world we'd have if more people lived Jesus' way.

"Well, what about the Crusades then?" people have replied. That was a time in history, they point out, where entire nations were "Christian" and yet took it upon themselves to slaughter everyone else (not just Muslims). It's a pretty crushing response and it's been very difficult in these conversations to find anything else to say. Even though it was hundreds of years ago in a medieval world, I've felt a fair bit of guilt over this dark part of history.

There has been a lot of church-bashing going on in the last few decades and the Crusades is one of the more well-worn blunt instruments.

Recently at a pastors conference that I attended, one of the speakers (who'd had similar conversations with his buddies) encouraged us to take the humble approach: although it wasn't us fighting those wars, we need to own up to it and just wear it because we wear the Christian name. (Similar to how our prime minister Kevin Rudd said sorry to all indigenous Australians on behalf of... who exactly?)

I think humility is definitely the right course of action whatever we do, but I also believe that in this instance that answer might actually prove to be a little unhelpful. Here's an illustration....

This week the Australian Rugby League State of Origin is on, for which I'm a very proud Queensland supporter. Suppose that in a club somewhere on Wednesday night a drunken fight breaks out over a dodgy ref's call and a QLD supporter leaves a NSW fan in a coma. Should I then hang my head in shame for the rest of my life because like that drunken thug I also support Queensland?

Or suppose it was discovered that during the world wars of last century one of the secret Nazi organisations devoted to wiping out the "inferior" races was code-named World Vision. Should today's World Vision aid organisation hang its head in shame and wear the wrongs of that Nazi group?

Or suppose someone was to steal my identity and then under my name start up a crack-dealing crime syndicate. Should I then go and apologise to anyone who's affected? "It was all done under my name. I'm so sorry for ruining your life. I'm heading to the cops now so they can lock me away." Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Once it was established that someone was using my identity I'd be perfectly in the clear. "It was just somebody using Ben's name."

I think you get it. Jesus himself said once "You can tell a tree by its fruit." If you go to Bunnings and buy a lemon tree and find out later that it grows oranges, it doesn't mean you should call David Attenborough because you've discovered an amazing new variety of lemon tree. It means someone at Bunnings put the wrong tag on the tree. If it grows oranges, it's an orange tree.

Although the Crusades were fought under the "Christian" name, they were nothing at all like Christ. They were in fact pretty much the exact opposite of Jesus. Jesus was a compassionate, inclusive and accepting, humble man devoted to peace. While many of his fellow Jews wanted to stage a violent military revolution against the oppressing Romans, Jesus taught about sacrificial love, unrelenting grace and above all he painted a vision of a future world that could include everyone, free of pain and heartache, violence and corruption.

The word "Christian" literally means "little Christ." It was originally given to Jesus' followers in the first century because people looked at them and thought "These people are just like Jesus."

Last week in that year 8 history class, I found that I don't feel guilt anymore when someone talks about the Crusades. Because to me, those soldiers, those kings and the violent, power-hungry "church" were not Christians at all. They were not "little Christs." They were not like Jesus at all. I similarly disown the violent and racist "Christian" groups of modern-day times. There are a lot of "Christians" in the world but a lot fewer people who actually look like Jesus.

Don't look at the tag. You can tell a tree by its fruit.

TEAR: A Vision of the Kingdom

The apostle Peter was married with children

I was privileged to do a baby dedication (plus first birthday celebration) a few weeks back for a friend of mine, and at the morning tea afterwards I found myself in a bizarre theological discussion with an old retired minister. During the dedication I'd talked about how much God cares for children, using Psalm 127:3, "Children are a gift from the Lord." The old minister let me know that what I had said was true (phew) and went on to list a few more references I could have used. I find this kind of thing happens a bit after preaching.

"Oh and of course the 18th chapter of Matthew," he went on (because since I am a pastor I would obviously know the exact passage that he was referring to. We ministers have most of the Bible memorised, in case you weren't aware...).

"Sure," I said, knowing he would elaborate.

"Yes, when the disciples are arguing over who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus calls over a little child and says, 'Anyone who wants to be great in the kingdom has to become like a little child.'"

"Oh yes," I said, as I remembered the story. At the same time I was thinking that this particular passage might be a bit of an obscure way to show that God cared about children, but we were at a one-year-old's birthday party so I didn't really want to get into a theological discussion. At this point I was just smiling and nodding.

But the minister wasn't finished.

"Now think about this," he said. "If I were to call over one of the kids here, the only reason they would come to me is if they already knew me, right?"

"Ok," said I, noncommittally.

"So obviously," he said, "Jesus had already developed a relationship with this child. He'd spent the time getting to know them, probably years. The child obviously knew Jesus well."

Finally following his line of thought I ventured, "Ah I never thought about that. Maybe it was a child of one of Jesus' followers, one of the disciples maybe?"

The old minister nailed it home then: "It was Peter's child." Said with absolutely no doubt or room for questions.

"Oh right," I said with even less commitment.

"Peter was the only disciple to be married, and therefore the only one with kids. It was Peter's child Jesus called over."

I politely backed out of the conversation. As I walked away chuckling to myself inwardly, my mirth gradually turned sour as I contemplated the tragic use of the Bible I'd just experienced. This was clearly reading something into the text that was not there. Fortunately in this instance it was more humorous than harmful, but if the minister was that cavalier with his exegesis of this passage, what other passages had been similarly mangled? Over the many years of ministry, through hundreds of sermons to attentive listeners. And probably what troubled me most was not the tenuous leaps he'd made in his theology, but the way he then spoke his interpretation as absolute fact. "It was Peter's child."

It's all a bit scary really.

Pastors, please be careful with your Bible reading, because people are listening. People, please don't just accept everything you hear from the pulpit. Check it out for yourself. Pastors can make mistakes too, even and especially the ones who seem to have no questions or uncertainty themselves.

This guy deserves a mention