In terms of the choice we have over beliefs, it is helpful to view this from two extreme angles: Either we have no freedom of what we come to believe, or we have total freedom of what we believe. In reality, perhaps it is neither of these two extremes. As already mentioned, our beliefs are mixed and varied. Yet, there are certain worldviews that take fairly radical points of view. For instance, the life philosophy of existentialism deems that we are born radically free. We have the freedom to choose our beliefs, to choose how we live and the decisions we make rest on no prior wisdom. This, as Sartre says, brings anguish to the individual because we utterly free to make our own way in life. “Existence” asserts Sartre “precedes essence”, which is to say that there is no prior meaning to our lives. All meaning that we have, we either adopt or create. On the other hand, Calvinism stipulates that God is totally sovereign over everything. Everything, in its extreme form, is pre-ordained down to the most minute detail. The consequence is that we are left with no individual freedom of what we believe. God, in his ultimate plan, grants grace to the individual he chooses to accept his offer of salvation.

Yet, in both extreme cases of either radical freedom or radical predestination, we need to remember that both are worldviews in themselves. At this point, a bottomless pit presents itself when the next question to be asked is ‘do we choose our worldview?’.

Let’s presume that we do not choose our worldview. In that case, our attitude towards whether or not we have freedom of belief is prescribed by whichever worldview we hold. On the other hand, if we have choice over our worldview then our particular beliefs must somehow determine our worldview. For example, if we have a particular religious worldview that is based upon some form of divine revelation that simultaneously incorporates scientific rationalism, what happens when the science contradicts the religious belief? Do we change our worldview? Or does our worldview remain the same - either it was always based on a presupposed inerrant divine authority, or it was always going to be convinced by scientific rationalism.

It seems like these questions cannot be easily answered. Yet there are interesting consequences for both extreme views. If, for example, we inherent our worldview and, in turn, our worldview dictates what we believe, then who can be responsible for what they believe? Or, on the other hand, if we choose what we believe, what informs our attitude towards our choice of belief?

Perhaps it is necessary to be more specific when talking about beliefs. I guess it may come down to what we end up being a case of what we choose to be non-negotiable. What are your thoughts?

No film ever gives us what Wright says we should be looking for: a “crucifiable” Jesus, a Jesus who does something so provocative to make the Jews murderously hostile.  In the movies, Jesus is a hippy peace-child, a delicate flower of a man, a dew-eyed first-century Jewish Gandhi.  Why would anyone want to hurt Him?  Maybe because He’s so annoyingly precious; but that’s not the story of the gospels.

So very true. He goes on to use the contrast between Advent and Christmas carols to show how the Christmas Jesus has been thoroughly dumbed down, and the centrality of Israel lost:

Advent hymns are about Israel.  They are deeply and thoroughly political.  Advent hymns look forward not to heaven but the redemption of Israel and of the nations, the coming of God’s kingdom on earth.

When we turn to Christmas hymns, these themes almost completely drop out.  How many Christmas hymns mention Israel?  Many refer to Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus, but Jerusalem?

I really think he has a point! More generally, Jesus tends to get reduced to the aforementioned “dew-eyed, first-century Jewish Gandhi” by the church much of the time. Yet the scriptures are absolutely clear that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah of Israel. The word Israel either gets left out, or when it is mentioned nowadays, it is automatically brushed over or de-contextualised in the minds of Christians listening to a sermon or reading the Bible. I really think that the church that I know has forgotten the significance of the fact that Christ is in the bloodline of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. I believe that we conveniently disregard the clear scriptural truth that Jesus was all about Israel, and about bringing about massive political, cultural, and religious change. I hear him discussed like he was in some historical and scriptural vacuum. He wasn’t.

However, the gospel isn’t lost amongst this oversight. There is much richness and wonderful truth which we miss, though, when we lose the scriptural, historical and political context of Jesus of Nazareth. He came to do everything orthodox believers say he came to do. Much of Christian orthodoxy tends to forget an exciting part of the story, the story which the Bible tells. Remember the Old Testament? Have you ever wondered why it’s there? It’s because God really cares about his people, and wants us to know it. Jesus came to save them. And before you counter me from an epistle, read the opening few verses of Romans. Paul says he was “descended from David”. Go to the end of Romans, and read Romans 15:12. It’s there in the passage about the Gentiles - Jesus was “the root of Jesse”. Paul knew that Jesus was the climax of the story of Israel. It s beyond me how we can forget this, even though the words of our Saviour himself make it abundantly clear. I’ll give the final work to Leithart:

As it turns out, Wright is no Grinch.  He didn’t steal Christmas.  What he stole was a false Christmas, a de-contextualized and apolitical Christmas.  But we shouldn’t have bought that Christmas in the first place, and should have been embarrassed to display it so proudly on the mantle.  Good riddance, and Bah humbug.

Read the whole article here.

The distinct lack of activity of recent months is due partly to the re-calibrating of this website. Roger has been hard at work re-jigging the whole site, and it should be pretty sweet when it’s all done. Until then, it seems we’re having a hiatus. Stay tuned for when the new site has been finished. I plan to be back writing regularly, as do the others, I presume.

Until then, I’ll leave you with a few links you might be interested in.

• For those interested in eschatology, Desiring God held a discussion between Doug Wilson, Jim Hamilton and Sam Storms on the three major Christian eschatological positions. Audio and video can be found here. Doug Wilson represents the post-millennial position, Jim Hamilton the pre-millennial position, and Sam Storms a-millennial position. It’s worth watching the video to really capture the heated debates.
• I may be well behind on this, but for those who love books, and book buying, Booko is a wonderful site which helps you find the book you want at the cheapest price, and includes overseas stores and shipping costs. Brilliant! I recently purchased two books for under $30 via this site, which have otherwise cost me $45.
• As someone who is getting married in a fortnight, I found this observation by Mark Sayers very interesting.
• Likewise, as someone getting married, I have found this site useful too. Now, before you are turned off the idea of a Focus on the Family-run site, persist. There are some wise words for singles, those who are in relationships, engaged, married, working etc… While I don’t agree with everything written here, it could be helpful for some of you.
• On a lighter note, (thanks to ADAM for this tip-off), this is a very cool video of Beyonce Knowles rehearsing Single Ladies with her band. They funk and rock pretty hard! (Not sure what she’s talking about at the end, but just ignore it.)

And that, as they say, is that.

See this article on Between Two Worlds. Keith Danby, Biblica CEO, said this in a press release:

We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand. This is why we are recommitting ourselves today to the original NIV charter, complete with its charge to monitor and reflect developments in English usage and Biblical scholarship by periodically updating the NIV Bible text.

As time passes and English changes, the NIV we have at present is becoming increasingly dated. If we want a Bible that English speakers around the world can understand, we have to listen to, and respect, the vocabulary they are using today.

HT: Justin Taylor.

Any thoughts on translations? I’m not a fan of “translation snobbery”, which users of the ESV often have a bad case of (See some of the comments at the bottom of the linked article). I use an English Standard Version. My church uses an New Revised Standard Version, which I quite like too. I own an NIV, as well as a New Living Translation, which I really like. Interestingly, the NLT comes in for some criticism, but I find it helps illuminate the text quite colourfully.

I don’t think the term ‘football’ will cease to be used for AFL anytime soon in Victoria, in fact I think it will simply just be used for both, and will cause confusion when those of one persuasion cross paths with those of another. But, there was a lot more to it than that, because this rather innoculous, and irrelevant discussion on the term ‘football’ was rasing other more relevant questions. However before I get there, let’s see the possibilities and how this may play out.

I see three possible outcomes from this multi-usage of the term ‘football’;

1. The people everywhere understand how the term is used throughout all regions in Australia. If you are in Victoria one speaks of AFL as football, and when one goes to NSW football means Soccer.
2. When one travels somewhere the term remains to them as they understand it. When discussion arises with people who understand the term differently, then either confusion or debate or clarification ensues. Thus the two groups remain estranged.
3. The people everywhere decide that such ambiguity is rather unproductive, and the term is reserved for one of them only, leaving the other to feel inferior, or go out of existence, or just go on ableit with a different name.

Now I shall turn to my hyopthesis, and ultimately my question. As I have said, this may be a rather suyperfluous topic to be talking on. But really, it raised a question within me, relating to the multi-cultural society we live in. One might see that there is a clash of identity here, that in one culture not a ‘term’ but a truth, or an understanding (of existence, etc.) might mean something totally different to another culture. So what is to be done when these two cultures meet, in a ‘melting-pot’ as suburbs of the sort are often referred?

In the first case mentioned above, each culture learns how to understand the other, and aim to relate accordingly. However, it is by far the most difficult solution, because it would require education in all cultures that another may come in contact with, and mankind has never (generally) been so inclined to expend so much energy for others.

The second case, though it may seem to suggest conflict, merely says that upon meeting two cultures have obvious differences and no real understanding of them; there has been no effort expended, as in the case above. Because of this lack of understanding, conflict, ghetos, or confusion might follow. Ultimately no “translation” is ever done between the two cultures, and only when it becomes a problem in how they relate.

The third case, quite simply, one identity is created, completing the process of the melting-pot. In which much of the individual identity of each culture is lost. As a result, general experience, history, may be forgotten and depth may be eclipsed by the melting down.

Now obviously this is a rather crude way of describing the present millieu we live in. And each point above could be developed or described in many more different ways, and in many ways I think all of them are employed in our present context. My question really is that at this level, the options above are rather opposed to one another. And if opposed, ought we decide on one? Which way sounds best? Do too much, do too little, or compromise?

There’s silence between various aspects of the service. I encourage service leaders to NOT do the “no-dead-airspace” TV standard of busy-ness. We LIKE “dead air space.”  “Dead air space” gives us time to reflect.  To collect our thoughts.  To consider what we’ve just heard or read or sung.  The silence amplifies the words or music we’ve just heard.  It allows us time to take it all in, and to pray.  We have silence to prepare ourselves.  We have silence between the announcements and the scriptural call to worship.  We even have a moment of silence AFTER the service!  I pronounce the benediction from the end of II Corinthians, invite the congregation to be seated.  And then, after about a minute of silence, the pianist begins quietly playing the last hymn that we had just sung.  During those few moments, we reflect and prepare to speak to others and depart.  We do business with God.  We prepare ourselves for the week ahead.

Isn’t it interesting? Isn’t it interesting that in our media saturated, claustrophobic culture, where we are surrounded by “loudness” pretty well all the time, silence seems to be surprising. It’s even uncomfortable. At church, I sometimes find myself feeling concerned when there’s a gap of ‘nothing’ between, say, a song and the service leader talking. I feel discomfort during silence! When there’s nothing happening, I feel insecure.

Psalm 62:1:

For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation.

Habakkuk 2:20:

But the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him.

In Revelation 8:1, the seventh seal is opened:

“…and there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.”

Perhaps we’re hiding, or avoiding something. Whatever it is, silence shouldn’t always feel awkward. Imagine how Elijah, in 1 Kings 19:9-18, felt when he sought to hear from God. He received an onslaught to the senses: an earthquake, great winds, and a fire. It was only after the fire that he heard:

…the sound of a low whisper. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him and said “What are you doing here Elijah?”

We fill our senses with sound and vision, some of us almost constantly. Yet, it was in the silence that Elijah heard the voice of God; the “low whisper”.

The book propounds that Aldous Huxley, in his novel Brave New World, was actually right in his predictions. He contrasts Huxley’s thought with that of George Orwell’s in 1984. This is compelling and thought provoking. See here for the cartoon.

You might notice the Dreamworld symbol in one of the drawings. It turns out that McMillen is from Brisbane. McMillen’s site, Recombitant Records, is a cartoon blog. He cartoon-blogs about clean energy, bike riding, and stuff. Check it out!

I have read and listened to some of what each of them has to say on the matter, and am sort of unsure what the fuss is about, but can see why the Reformed/Calvinist crowd aren’t a fan of Wright’s thought. I’m not sure I agree with them though. Anyway, the article is here, and is worth reading, to catch up on this significant and widespread debate.

I realize that my life has changed significantly since the early ninties, that is before the net and before the mobile cell phone became ubiquitous. I realize that much of my time now, despite trying not to, is spent in this out there realm, wondering what is happening with my blog, what is happening on facebook, etc. Now I can check all of these things on my phone even while I wait at the lights, I am now transported at least mentally away from where I am and what I am doing to this seemingly other world.

It’s worth 5-10 minutes of your day. Read the whole article here.