tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71410061007176270992024-03-06T03:24:04.115+11:00Multicultural Ministry MattersKamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.comBlogger522125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-73413801379070566422013-03-22T11:00:00.000+11:002013-03-22T11:01:16.143+11:00Assurance and the nature of faith in the Triune God<br />
Assurance was one of the war-cries of the Protestant Reformation. Because we are justified by faith alone, by Christ alone, then assurance is the birth right of every Christian. <br />
<br />
But, we need to be careful about how we understand assurance, within the broader matrix of who God is, and what it means to have faith in him. Otherwise, sadly and ironically, the doctrine or assurance could cause us to fall away. <br />
<br />
Our assumption re the nature of assurance is based on our assumptions concerning the nature of the bible, and what it means to trust Jesus – to have “faith”. God is a person, not a thing. Jesus is a person, not a thing. The Holy Spirit is a person, not a thing - nor an impersonal power. We – humans, Christians – are people, not things. <br />
<br />
The relationship between things is static, because things are static. You put two rocks down side by side, and measure the distance between them. That’s it. We know for certain the distance between them. And they don’t do anything any more. They just sit there. <br />
<br />
The relationship between people is constantly dynamic, because people are alive – dynamic, active. A good, healthy relationship between people is active in a positive way – it is growing, improving. Stasis is bad for relationships – it indicates stagnation, boredom. If married people say they’re bored with each other, pastors and counsellors get worried. And definitely, decline – anger, arguments – is bad for relationships. <br />
<br />
God promises that the Holy Spirit will keep us trusting Jesus. But the nature of that continued trust is active, dynamic – it’s a living trust. That’s because it’s between two people: us, and the Triune God (actually, it’s a relationship in the Trinity himself, because it’s trust in the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit… but never mind, we won’t go into that now…). <br />
<br />
Because the nature of Christian faith is personal trust in a person – not the impersonal clarity of mathematics, like the distance between two rocks – Christian assurance also has this personal element. We trust the Father to keep us trusting Christ the Son by the power of his Holy Spirit. <br />
The way the Holy Spirit keeps us trusting Jesus is through constantly feeding our faith. And he feeds our faith:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Positively: by showing how good and attractive Jesus is: his kindness, mercy, truthfulness, justice, power etc; </li>
<li>Negatively: by showing how bad it would be to not trust Jesus. This includes, among other things: </li>
<ol>
<li>Showing how powerless idols are, therefore how stupid idolatry is; </li>
<li>Showing how weak we humans are, therefore we can’t be arrogant about our own abilities; </li>
<li>Warning us about the consequences of falling away. These warnings are true, not hypothetical, in the sense that they truly speak of what happens to those who turn away from Jesus. The Spirit uses them to warn believers: don’t go there! </li>
</ol>
</ol>
<br />
Christians can sometimes think assurance is like mathematical certainty – the distance between two rocks – rather than personal trust in a mighty saviour. They reason it out like this:<br />
1) God promises he won’t let his people fall away;<br />
2) God has made me one of his people – he has brought me to trust Jesus;<br />
3) Therefore, I can’t fall away. <br />
<br />
This is logically correct, but unhealthy for Christian discipleship. This is because it implicitly treats assurance, and faith, and God and humans in terms of mathematics rather than people. It’s the wrong kind of faith, in the wrong kind of God. <br />
<br />
The practical result of the above logic is: the person who believes that stops listening to the warning passages of the Bible. They bounce off him or her, because they say “that can’t happen to me.” So his doctrine of assurance, instead of encouraging them to listen to the Bible and take it seriously, becomes armour against listening to the Bible. And that is never healthy. <br />
<br />
Instead, if we see faith as a living, personal trust in a living person – our faith in the risen, mighty Lord Jesus – then we will rightly see these warnings as his kindness. He is warning us about what really happens if we stop trusting him. And we believe the warning – we take it seriously, we say “yes, that could happen to me if I'm not careful” – and we don’t fall away. <br />
<br />
So, can we be sure that true Christians will never fall away? Yes we can. But it’s because of personal nature of faith – we are sure that the personal God will personally keep us personally true to him. And he’ll keep us true to him through the ordinary means of discipleship – read the Bible – and when you do, believe what it says, and obey it, respond to it – pray, go to church, open yourself up to being encouraged and rebuked by other Christians. <br />
<br />
Ironically, a desire for mathematical assurance can actually lead to people falling away, because they stop listening to the Bible. They become hard-hearted and presumptuous, stop listening to people telling them they're wrong, stop going to church... and just spiral down to self-destruction. <br />
<br />
More deeply: a false doctrine of assurance could lead to a kind of idolatry: having the wrong kind of faith in the wrong kind of god. They think they’re like rocks measuring the distance to another rock. <br />
<br />
We need to let the warning passages of the Bible feed our faith in Christ. Otherwise, we’ll end up blunting the sharp edges which God uses to prod us into true faith, true perseverance and true assurance. <br />
<br />Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-69941326894441693702012-12-17T10:59:00.001+11:002012-12-17T10:59:46.440+11:00Jesus the Light - A Christmas Poem by Eddie Hughes<br />
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Jesus the Light <o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<h1>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">A Christmas Poem </span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;">
by Eddie Hughes</div>
<o:p></o:p></span></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Long before the birth of Mankind, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Outside of endless time and space<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our Creator had a master plan, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A light of saving grace. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the Beginning was the Word <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the Word was with God<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the Word was God<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He was with God in the Beginning. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the Word became flesh<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And made His dwelling among us. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And John said: ‘I am the voice <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of the one calling in the wilderness; <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
‘Make straight the way for the Lord’<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the light would be called Jesus, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The anointed one of God. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He came to lead men out of darkness, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He held salvation in His hand<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To those who came to know and love Him, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He’d be The Son Of Man. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With love and knowledge he would teach them <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of the Great Kingdom yet to come,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The promise of Eternal Life <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To each and every one. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Across great seas He sailed, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Through miles of countryside he walked <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And people came in thousands <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To listen when He talked.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He performed miracles and healing; <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
His name Jesus was renowned, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The blind would see His wonder, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The deaf would hear His word<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The lame would walk beside him, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They all would call Him Lord, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There were those who loved their sinful ways and would not
repent <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yes, they would know the wrath of God from whom He had been
sent <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Sanhedrin, they felt threatened, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They feared this godly King<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They didn’t like his teaching <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Or the things that he had said, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How better off we’d be <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If this Jesus one was dead <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Later that night in the garden <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our lord would be betrayed<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A kiss from a deceiver, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
30 silver pieces paid. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They adorned him with a crown of thorns, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nailed him on a cross to die<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He was forsaken by his father <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Under sinful blackened sky.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For that great light that lived amongst us <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Has now been glorified <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A father’s wrath, bathed in tears <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally satisfied. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am the way, the truth and the life, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
No one comes to the father except through me. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Being reborn of your spirit lord, we know <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One day you’ll call us home, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And we will kneel before you, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before your judgement throne<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
* * * * * </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Eddie Hughes is a member of my congregation. He became Christian sometime in 2011. </div>
Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-29975831304293812512012-11-27T23:41:00.002+11:002012-11-28T00:08:25.813+11:00Living for God on Monday<br />
Here's the full text of my sermon from last Sunday. Feedback, anyone? <br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Isaiah ch 58: Living for God on Monday </span></b><br />
<br />
What the world needs, in these days of declining morals, is for the people of God to be <b><i>distinctively Christian</i></b>. We need to show people what it means to worship God; to honour him, live his way, and give him the respect he deserves. And we need to show them how living this way is actually the best: best for ourselves, our families, society, and even the whole world. <br />
So how are we going to do that? How are we going to be distinctively Christian, and show the world how to worship God? <br />
Tell you what. Let’s go into a building where no-one can see us. And sing songs that no-one else sings. And hear some wild-haired Sri Lankan immigrant rant for a few minutes. Then we’ll go have a cup of tea and chat and feel good about ourselves. Because we’ve worshiped God. And the world will see how Christian we are. <br />
<br />
Believe it or not, that’s kind of what God’s people were doing. <br />
Isaiah 58:1 says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1 “Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion and to the house of Jacob their sins. </blockquote>
God was angry with his people. Through the prophet, God is shouting at them, telling them they’ve turned their back on him. <br />
What were they doing? Not turning up at church on Sunday? (Well, it would have been the synagogue on Saturday… but you get the idea) <br />
<br />
No – the opposite. They were really, really <b><i>religious</i></b>. <br />
Is 58:2-3a:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2 For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 3a ‘Why have we fasted,’ they say, ‘and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?’ </blockquote>
Last week, from chapter 55, we saw how God wants people to look for him, to seek him. <br />
Well, the people are doing that: they’re seeking God, looking for him. And they’re serious about it: they’re fasting and praying, and humbling themselves. In verse 5 it talks about sackcloth and ashes – that means the people were admitting they were wrong, confessing their sins. <br />
So what’s the problem? They’re seeking God, and they’re serious about it. Why is God still angry with them? <br />
<br />
Because their Godliness stayed in church. Ordinary life was very different. <br />
Is 58:3b-5:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
3b Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. 4a Your fasting ends in quarrelling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. <br />
4b You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high. 5 Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for a man to humble himself? Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying on sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD? </blockquote>
The problem wasn’t their religiousness. The problem was the <b><i>rest of the time</i></b>. <br />
They were exploiting each other (verse 3b). And fighting (verse 4a). <br />
<br />
And this is what happens when we, the people of God, live in two worlds. <br />
First, there’s the <b><i>Godly world</i></b>. That’s what we do at church on Sunday. And maybe during the week, when we go to Bible study or something. That world operates according to God’s rules. So we’re all friendly and happy and kind. And serious about our religion. And listen intently to the guy and the front. And nod wisely as he talks about living for God. <br />
And then there’s the <b><i>real world</i></b>. Monday to Friday. Which operates by the ordinary rules of the world. <br />
I mean, come on Kamal, we have to be practical here. I’m not exploiting my workers. Times are tough. There’s a world recession, in case you didn’t notice. <br />
And what do you mean, fighting? It’s a competitive world out here. We have to be aggressive to survive. You don’t realise ‘coz you’re happily closeted away in your religious world, having cups of tea and biscuits with dear old ladies. But out here, in the real world – we have to work hard. I’m not exploiting my workers. They’re a bunch of bludgers! They have to earn their pay! <br />
See what’s happened? <br />
Because we operate in these two worlds – the Godly world, which operates by God’s rules; and the real world, which operates by worldly rules – we <b><i>lock God up in church</i></b>. God has <i><b>nothing to say to us on Monday.</b></i> He becomes <b><i>irrelevant </i></b>to the real world. <br />
And church becomes our fun, relaxing Sunday social. Where we escape from all the rubbish and hardship of the real world. And relax and hang out with nice people, that we get on with – people just like us. <br />
This is what people Judah & Jerusalem did. That’s what the church has battled with for two thousand years. And it’s what we’ll do. If we’re not careful. <br />
<br />
God demands to be let out of church. He demands to rule all life. <br />
And today’s passage gives us three areas where he rules Monday to Saturday. <br />
<br />
<b><i>First</i></b>: we need to <b><i>care for those who are trapped in trouble</i></b>. <br />
Is 58:6-7:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
6 Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter – when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? </blockquote>
<br />
God always wanted his people to care for poor & needy among them. <br />
Deuteronomy 15:11:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open-handed towards your brothers and towards the poor and needy in your land.</blockquote>
God’s land was fertile. No-one had to be poor. <br />
So if they were poor, it could be their own fault. They could have been lazy. Or stupid: didn’t sow the right seed, or at the right time, or something. <br />
<b><i>Doesn’t matter</i></b>, says God. Help them anyway. <br />
Or it might not be their fault. They might be widows, with no family. Back on those days, with no security, they would have been destitute. <br />
The focus is on God’s people, the Jews. That’s why verse 7 says “your own flesh and blood.” <br />
Nowadays, God’s people are not defined by ethnicity. The church, the people of God, come from all nations. So we need to look after our church members. We talk a lot about following Jesus, being loyal to him; we will judged by how well we look after Joan. And Ronda. And other needy people like them. <br />
<br />
We shouldn’t be surprised. Because this is what <b><i>Jesus </i></b>came to do. <br />
Jesus came to care for poor sinners. <br />
If we turn away from God, we cut ourselves off from the one who owns everything! We become poor, destitute! <br />
It doesn’t matter how much worldly wealth we have. If we don’t have Jesus, then we have nothing. All our money, our houses, our cars, our iPads, iPods, i-everything-else… they don’t mean a thing. They’ll all crumble to dust eventually. And anyway, none of them really belong to us. They all belong to God. He loans them to us, to see what we’ll do with them. <br />
Have you come to Jesus? Have you given up your earthly wealth, to follow him? Never mind your earthly houses; are you looking forward to mansions in heaven? <br />
<br />
If we have, then let’s <b><i>be like Jesus</i></b>. Let’s care for the people around us – especially those who don’t deserve it. <br />
The family members who’ve hurt us. The people at school or work who are rude to us. The non-Christians who laugh at us. <br />
It’s easy to cut them off. Ignore them. And then, when they get in trouble, to laugh at them. <br />
Is that what Jesus did? When he saw us in trouble, in danger of God’s punishment – did he laugh and point his finger at us and say: “suffer!” <br />
No, of course not. That’s when he cared for us – when we were at our worst, at our most needy. He gave us everything – he gave his life for us, and a promise of eternal life with him forever. <br />
If that’s what Jesus did – for people who didn’t deserve it – then the least we can do is be kind, and bear with, the idiots around us. <br />
<br />
And the way we can do that is through our speech. This is the <b><i>second </i></b>way God rules us Monday to Saturday: in the way we use our mouths, in our words, our speech. <br />
<br />
Is 58:9b-10:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
9b If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, 10 and if you spend yourselves on behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. </blockquote>
You know that saying, “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me”? <br />
That’s <b><i>complete rubbish</i></b>! <br />
Words matter! Words are powerful! <br />
Words can build. “I’m here for you”. Or those amazingly powerful three syllables: “I love you.” Those words can make us feel safe and protected. They can make us feel like the most important person in the world. <br />
Words can heal. Another three powerful syllables: “I’m sorry”. That can undo years of hurt – a lifetime of pain. Bring a whole family back together. <br />
Words can kill. And silence can kill too. If we’re angry with someone, it’s easy to cut them off. Give them the cold shoulder. <br />
That’s why Jesus treats words so seriously. <br />
In Matt 12:37, Jesus says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
… by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. </blockquote>
In the verse just before, Jesus says God will judge “every careless word”. Don’t be fooled, friends. Words matter. To God, and to each other. <br />
<br />
The people were using their words to <b><i>kill</i></b>. That’s what it says at the end of verse 9: “the pointing finger and malicious talk”. <br />
And that’s so normal, isn’t it? What do we do when someone upsets us? We shout at them. Or if we can’t – because they’re our boss, or our dad or something – then we whinge and gossip. <br />
God will understand. I’m surrounded by idiots. I need to let off some steam. Besides, everybody does it. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Jesus </i></b>is so different. <br />
Jesus is God’s word. In the flesh. That’s what we celebrate at Christmas: God’s final communication of himself to us, to humanity. <br />
And Jesus, as God’s word, came to give life. <br />
Think about it. If anyone could have whinged about being misunderstood, not appreciated, and taken for granted, it’d be Jesus. If anyone could complain about being surrounded by idiots, it’d be Jesus. The religious leaders twisted his words and tried to use it against him. He healed ten lepers; only one came back to say thank you. One of his own followers handed him over to his enemies. And the others ran away. <br />
So – does Jesus gossip, whinge & backstab? Of course not. “Father, forgive them; they don’t know what they do.” <br />
<br />
As people who follow Jesus, God calls us to <b><i>use our words to bring life</i></b>. <br />
How do we speak? Are we different to world around us? Or just like them? Especially when things go wrong; especially when we’re hurt and disappointed. <br />
Do we swear, gossip, whinge and backstab? <br />
Or do we try and say kind, encouraging things to everyone? <br />
Even when we’ve been genuinely hurt. We don’t have to ignore it; we can say to someone “look, I don’t know if you realise – but you really hurt me when you said such-and-such”. <br />
But we can say it in a way that puts them at <b><i>ease</i></b>. That assures them that we’re not angry with them – that they’re <b><i>already forgiven</i></b>. <br />
And because they’re already forgiven, they can admit they did wrong to us, without fear of getting punished. <br />
<br />
Isn’t that what Jesus does for us? <br />
<br />
We can only do this if we treat <b><i>every day as holy</i></b>. And this is the <b><i>third </i></b>principle: live every day God’s way, not our own. <br />
Is 58:13-14:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
13 If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the LORD’s holy day honourable, and if you honour it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, 14 then you will find your joy in the LORD, and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.” The mouth of the LORD has spoken. </blockquote>
<br />
The point of these couple of verses is to be <b><i>obviously, unapologetically, publicly Godly</i></b>. <br />
This is the Old Testament. Isaiah’s talking to the Jews, to God’s people. So God frames this public Godliness in terms of keeping his law – obeying the Sabbath. <br />
Jesus fulfils the Old Testament law for us. We don’t have to keep the Sabbath in quite the same way. <br />
For us, in these New Testament times, every day is holy. God wants us to live his way, every day. So that people see what it means to honour God. <br />
<br />
But to do that, we’re going to have to open our mouths and <b><i>speak</i></b>. We’re going to have to <b><i>tell </i></b>people about the Jesus who makes us holy. In whose name we’re doing all these nice things. <br />
In Matthew 5:16, Jesus says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
… let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds… </blockquote>
… and tell everyone what a nice person you are. <br />
That’s not what it says, is it? <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
… let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and <b><i>praise your Father in heaven.</i></b> </blockquote>
If we don’t tell them why we’re doing all these good deeds, we could accidently send people to <b><i>hell</i></b>. <br />
Because they’ll see us being good. And think: “look at those good little Christians. To be friends with God, I have to be a good person”. <br />
So they’ll be good. And ignore Jesus’ death on the cross. <br />
And get judged by God. <br />
Because it doesn’t matter how good we are. We can never be good enough for God. <br />
That’s why we need Jesus. <br />
And that’s why we need to tell people about him. About the one, in whose name, we live such good lives Monday to Saturday. <br />
<br />
God promised to restore his people to the promised land. And to his city, Jerusalem. <br />
Is 58:8-9a: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard. 9a Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. </blockquote>
Is 58:11-12:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
11 The LORD will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. 12 Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings. </blockquote>
Remember who Isaiah’s talking to. This part of his prophecy is directed to people in <b><i>exile</i></b>. They’re away from Judah, away from Jerusalem. Babylon’s conquered them. <br />
Basically, God’s promising a <b><i>new exodus</i></b>. A new journey, back through the desert, to the promised land, to rebuild Jerusalem. <br />
<br />
In the New Testament, this becomes a promise about a whole <b><i>new creation</i></b>, the <b><i>heavenly Jerusalem</i></b>. Christ taking us to the new heaven and earth, the home of righteousness. <br />
This is the only thing that’ll keep us going. <br />
Why bother doing all this? Being kind to people who don’t deserve it? Saying nice things to wicked people? Forgiving our enemies? <br />
Because living with Jesus forever will make it all worthwhile. <br />
We don’t earn heaven by being Godly. Only Jesus gives us the right to live with God forever. <br />
But, because we’re confident that heaven is our home, we can bear with all the hardship that comes with living for God. The hope of glory gives us courage and patience, to be kind and generous, to stupid, undeserving people. <br />
<br />
God will not be locked in church! He demands to rule our whole life. <br />
What the world needs, in these days of declining morals, is for the people of God to be distinctively Christian. To worship God. In all of life, all of our days, Monday to Sunday, 24-7-365. <br />
And living for God, worshiping him, involves caring for those in trouble. And speaking words of love and care, even when people don’t deserve it. And publicly declaring that we’re doing it all in Jesus’ name. Even when it’s difficult; especially when difficult. <br />
<b><i>That</i></b>… is what it means to live for God on Monday. <br />
<br />Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-17108700336704509162012-08-17T21:54:00.004+10:002012-08-18T10:48:49.457+10:00Patricia Weerakoon: Teen Sex By The Book<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizkCMvKQgeh5gXZz_uRIJRF6RtMXSvuvsVFN6jY-FfZKBL7E0RVu33nkCYun5OE3gQaowVA8Y0Y8t1GzClFvq9CiqULZRfoU2mD79W3ZEdkEz7NibdndLF559GFkxNAVw_AppreJh4mss/s1600/teen_sex_by_the_book_available_september_1_300.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizkCMvKQgeh5gXZz_uRIJRF6RtMXSvuvsVFN6jY-FfZKBL7E0RVu33nkCYun5OE3gQaowVA8Y0Y8t1GzClFvq9CiqULZRfoU2mD79W3ZEdkEz7NibdndLF559GFkxNAVw_AppreJh4mss/s1600/teen_sex_by_the_book_available_september_1_300.jpeg" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have <a href="http://kamalsmmm.blogspot.com.au/2008/10/sexology-christinaity-and-sydney.html" target="_blank">previously blogged</a> about my mother, Dr. Patricia Weerakoon: Evangelical Christian, and professional researcher and teacher in human sexual health. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">She has written a book on sexuality for teenagers: "<a href="http://www.cepstore.com.au/p/591/teen-sex-by-the-book-available-september-1" target="_blank">Teen Sex By The Book</a>". It integrates a lifetime of academic research with the Biblical framework for sexuality. I highly recommend it as a resource for yourselves and your youth leaders. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Patricia is available to speak at churches & other ministries. See <a href="http://www.patriciaweerakoon.com/" target="_blank">her website</a> for details. Some of her talks are on <a href="http://vimeo.com/" target="_blank">vimeo </a>- <a href="http://vimeo.com/44511446" target="_blank">here's </a>the one she did at <span id="goog_452663205"></span><a href="http://www.mbm.org.au/" target="_blank">MBM church</a><span id="goog_452663206"></span> - search her name for more. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's do everything we can to help people live healthy, God-pleasing, productive lives in the midst of an unhealthy, self-destructive, permissive, sex-crazed society. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-42773491476862141712012-07-16T11:49:00.003+10:002012-07-16T12:28:45.962+10:00Church growth and decline: a matter of perspective<br />
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/rossdouthat/index.html">Ross Douthat</a> has written a fascinating op-ed piece in the New York Times on the decline of the American Episcopal Church: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html">Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?</a> He notes, amongst other things, that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[The American] Episcopal [= Anglican] Church ...has spent the last several decades changing ...into one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States... In the last decade [2000-2010], average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase... Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance. </blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;">But, lest conservative churches get a big head, he also notes: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The most successful Christian bodies have often been politically conservative but theologically shallow, preaching a gospel of health and wealth rather than the full New Testament message. </blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;">Douthat makes a serious mistake that skews his whole article. It comes to surface late in the piece: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The defining idea of liberal Christianity [is] that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion. </blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;">That is not theological liberalism. It may be political liberalism, but it is not theological liberalism. Theological liberalism is the idea that the value of "religion" (not just Christianity - any "religious faith") is to be evaluated from a human perspective - through universal human rationality (19th century liberalism), or by its visible, palpable, social benefits (early 20th century liberalism). The health and wealth gospel is thus a grandchild of liberalism. Liberalism's basic assumption is that God has to serve us - that's his/her/its job. </span><br />
<br />
In this, Liberalism starts off in the wrong direction. <span style="background-color: white;">The Christian faith is understood not from a human perspective but from God's perspective - with reference to God, in Christ, understood through his word the Bible. The Biblical Christ did not say indulge yourself, he said deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me. The Bible's basic assumption is that we serve God - and that it's actually <b><i>good and healthy</i></b> for us to do so. That's because God's mastery over us, and our service of him, are appropriate to our respective natures. God's nature is to rule; human nature is to be ruled by God.</span><br />
<br />
The amazing message of the New Testament is: this mighty, ruler God offers to rule us – in forgiveness. That’s why Jesus came as a humble man, and died and rose for us: so we can be ruled, not by God’s anger, but by his forgiveness.<br />
<br />
But we can only understand this properly through the Bible.<br />
<br />
If we see Jesus from a human perspective, we will inevitably expect him to make our lives happier. So, when bad things happen to us – as they do – we will inevitably think Jesus has failed us, and get angry with him.<br />
<br />
But, when we see Jesus, not from a human perspective but from God's perspective - through the Bible – then we understand that real value of what Jesus has done for us is invisible, effected by the Holy Spirit, with reference to God: turning away God’s wrath, changing us from God’s enemies to his sons and daughters.<br />
<br />
Once we understand this, anything that happens to us from a human perspective is actually irrelevant. We are forgiven and accepted by God in Christ – we have been reconciled to our creator – so we can be happy and fulfilled. Our health, wealth, size of our churches & denominations – none of it matters. We can be sick, unemployed, impoverished, spurned by our family and society - all at the same time - and still rejoicing. More than rejoicing - we can love and forgive our family and society, and care for others, even though we're sick and weak and don't have any money. So, having been reconciled to God through Christ, we become healthy, normal humans. <span style="background-color: white;">Why? Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Simple, really.</span><br />
<br />
So can liberal Christianity be saved? No, because it's not Christianity. Douthat is basically as liberal as the health and wealth false-gospellers, because they both evaluate the usefulness of so-called Christianity according to visible, palpable, worldly standards. It also renders his thesis vulnerable to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/can-christianity-be-saved_1_b_1674807.html">responses</a> like that by <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/">Diana Butler Bass</a> in the Huffington Post.<br />
<br />
That said, we do want our churches and denominations to grow – because it’s good for people to treat Jesus as their king, and one sign of treating Jesus as your king is faithfully attending and serving at a Bible-based church. And we do care for people, especially the poor and vulnerable – that’s another sign of treating Jesus as our king. Growing churches, and social concern, are outworkings of being healthy humans – of being reconciled to God through Christ.<br />
<br />
What I have outlined above is classical evangelicalism. It’s often called “fundamentalism” because it’s easier to name-call like a playground bully than actually read the Bible and find out what it says. One of the enduring ironies of this world is how evangelicals grow churches and care for people – then the liberals come along, take all the credit for all the good work the evangelicals have done, wreck it all, then blame the evangelicals (“fundamentalists”) for the mess. <br />
<br />
It all comes down to this: how do we evaluate the value of “religion”: from the worldly perspective of human usefulness? Or from God’s perspective through the Bible? In the long run, the stakes are higher than church attendance; it’s the difference between hell and heaven.Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-70295047588428678742012-06-28T09:48:00.000+10:002012-06-28T10:08:08.035+10:00Why bother to defend lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage?<br />
Here in Australia we're in the throes of debate about same-gender marriage. One of the issues in the debate is: from the secular side: "what right do Christians have to dictate how other people live?"; and from the Christian side, the exact same question in reverse: "why bother trying to impose Christian values on non-Christians? They're unforgiven sinners anyway; just let them do what they want." <br />
<br />
Here's some thoughts on why Christians care about other people's marriages. Not specific to the same-gender marriage debate, though of course it has implications for it.<br />
<br />
1. Biblically speaking, God instituted marriage in Genesis ch 1 & 2. It's an aspect of being created male & female, for procreation - babies - and ruling the earth. Jesus validates heterosexual lifelong monogamous marriage in Matthew ch 19 (and parallels). There is a consistent Biblical metaphor of God and his people being compared to a groom and his bride, eg: Ezekiel 16; Hosea ch 1-3; Ephesians 5. So marriage is a “creation ordinance”, not a “gospel ordinance”. It’s good for everyone, not just Christians. <br />
<br />
2. The Biblical picture of marriage is NOT about self-satisfaction, but about responsible service. God doesn't (metaphorically) "marry" his people because they make him feel good; but because he cares about them, takes pity on them, and wants to bless them. Similarly, human marriages are NOT about "baby, you make me feel good", but "for better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health" etc. <br />
<br />
3. That means Biblical love is the opposite to modern secular love.<br />
(a) Modern secular love is an expression of freedom: we MUST be free to "love" whoever or whatever we want, just because we feel like it. <br />
(b) Biblical love is the opposite: it's about UNfreedom, commitment, binding ourselves to care for someone else whether we like it or not- ESPECIALLY when we don't feel like it. <br />
<br />
4. Unsurprisingly, that means the Biblical view of what is "good" for us is exactly opposed to the secular view. <br />
(a) The Bible thinks it's good for our sexual desires to be managed - controlled, directed - and marriage is one way to control our sexual desires. In marriage, we deliberately limit our freedom by subjugating our personal freedom to our words of promise, our commitment to our marriage partner. This is another reason why Christians affirm lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage for anyone, Christian or not. It's a good external discipline, which channels our desires away from potentially unhealthy, destructive ways of expression, and towards healthy, constructive means of expression. <br />
(b) The secular view of human "goodness" is unlimited freedom, ESPECIALLY sexual freedom. We must be free to do whatever we want, whatever we "feel" like. And anyone who tries to stop us is "oppressing" us. People rightly see marriage as limiting that freedom - so why get married? Just live with the person / people / animal / thing you like to have sex with. And when you stop liking to have sex with he / she / it, move on. <br />
<br />
5. Unlimited freedom doesn't work. ESPECIALLY unlimited sexual freedom. Even atheist social commentators recognise that. See my review of Clive Hamilton's book "The Freedom Paradox". <br />
<br />
6. This is why Christians stand for lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage. It's actually good for individuals, families, society, and the world. We make a stand for lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage because we love everyone, Christian or not. <br />
<br />
7. This is also why no-one understands us and will call us hate-mongers. Sin is not rational - by it's nature, it's irrational and unhealthy. It is irrational and unhealthy to reject the creator God, who gave us all things - including our bodies, with their sexual possibilities - and loves us so much that he gave us principles and guidelines for the good use of those good bodies. So we shouldn't be surprised when people irrationally reject God's good purposes for ourselves, including our sexuality, and oppose those who try to make a stand for health and rationality. <br />
<br />
8. And this is also why we have to patiently turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute us. When we irrationally rejected God, he did not reject us, but sent his Son to die and rise for sinners. Similarly, when people irrationally reject and persecute us for caring for them, we don't reject them, but continue to love them anyway. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-13754383823700615032012-04-10T19:01:00.003+10:002012-04-11T08:34:38.146+10:00Two articles on community, secular and sacred<div><span ><span style="font-size: 100%;">ABC has two interesting articles on </span>community, the first on secular society, the second on the international Anglican church. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">There's a good <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-10/stephens-questions-without-answers-in-the-kingdom-of-whatever/3941740">article </a>on the ABC's <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/">Drum </a>on the Q&A failure-of-a-debate between Richard Dawkins and George Pell. <span style="font-size: 100%; ">Try not to let <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/scott-stephens/33390">Scott Stephens</a>' pontificative pollysyllability put you off, it's quite a good social comment. Basic point: we're so used to doing whatever we want, just coz we want to, we no longer have any basis for shared community. </span><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-10/stephens-questions-without-answers-in-the-kingdom-of-whatever/3941740">Questions without answers in a Kingdom of Whatever</a>. </div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">Then John Millbank has an excellent <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/04/3470498.htm">article </a>on the future of the international Anglican communion. Note his presuppositions about the nature of the church: </div><div><ul><li><span >"... the Anglican Communion [is] part of the Universal Catholic Church (it has never been officially identified as "Protestant")..." </span></li><li><span >The Anglican denomination has been "struggling against" Puritanism and Calvinism. </span></li></ul></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">And this only goes to show there really are only two views of church unity: either confessional (Protestant) or personal (Catholic). Both sides throw around the words "gospel", "spirit", "mission" etc, because they have different definitions of each - a different gospel, a different spirit, a different mission, a different everything. As a Protestant, I of course believe that the Catholic denomination is not part of the church catholic - it is apostate, because it does not hold to the Biblical teaching about Jesus, his atonement, salvation, the church... anything, really. <span style="font-size: 100%; ">Sydney Anglicanism, with African and Asian Anglicanism, has always been unashamedly Protestant; British and American Anglicanism has trended towards Catholicism. </span><span style="font-size: 100%; ">Rowan William's departure may cause the faithful Anglican remnant to finally embrace the Reformation. Better five hundred years late than never. </span></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-865286606687324832012-03-14T09:45:00.001+11:002012-03-14T09:45:00.077+11:00Theological Commons & Christian Classics<div><span ><a href="http://ptsem.edu/">Princeton Theological Seminary</a> has partnered with the <a href="http://www.archive.org/">Internet Archive</a> to create <a href="http://commons.ptsem.edu/">the Theological Commons digital library</a>. It provides free, online access to over 50,000 theology and religion books from the PTS Library. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >And don't forget the <a href="http://www.ccel.org/">Christian Classics Ethereal Library</a>, with thousands of documents from church history available on-line and downloadable in various formats for free. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-14160416942937315642012-03-13T09:03:00.004+11:002012-03-13T09:15:53.018+11:00Christian ethics are theological, evangelical, and scriptural<div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">Every ethic is connected with an assumed anthropology and worldview. We instinctively act out of a sense of who we are, and our place in the world. </div><div><div><span></span></div><blockquote><div><span>Our answers to the questions “<i>Who </i>am I?” and “<i>What </i>am I?” are intimately connected to the question of “<i>How </i>ought I to be in the world?” In other words, theological anthropology can never be entirely descriptive. A description of human nature always both presumes and entails a prescription for human living. [</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">Marc Cortez, <i>Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed</i>: 2-3, emphasis in original]</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">Christian ethics are theological, evangelical and scriptural. As Christians, we conduct all of life <i>coram Deo</i>: God is the ultimate reality, the foundation and framework of the world we operate in, in whom all things hold together. We think of ourselves as beings created by God, beloved by him, and responsible to him. This God we worship is not distant and unknowable, but is God in Christ. The cosmos is Christ-powered; it does not operate purely through natural processes or human agency [Andrew Cameron, <i>Joined-Up Life</i>: 84-86]. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; "><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">Christian ethics are theological through being Christological. </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">We can know God because he has revealed himself in his Son. And our knowledge of God’s Son, the man Jesus Christ, is shaped by our knowledge of his historical work for us: his incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, heavenly session, and expected return – we know Christ through the gospel. And we know the gospel through the scriptures – the Old Testament which prophecies him, and the New which demonstrates the fulfilment of the prophecies, and explains his significance for his new people – the international church. </span></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote><div><span>The Bible makes a very radical idea inescapable: not only in the gospel the interpretative norm for the whole Bible, but there is an important sense in which Jesus Christ is the mediator of the meaning of everything that exists. In other words, <i>the gospel is the hermeneutical norm for the whole of reality</i>. [Graeme </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centred Hermeneutics: 63, emphasis in original.]</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">Thus are Christian ethics theological, evangelical and scriptural. Through the bible, we know Christ, who brings us to God. And, through this knowledge of God, we know our world and ourselves. </span></div><div><span></span></div></div><blockquote><div><div><span>Nearly all the [true and sound] wisdom we possess… consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. [John Calvin, <i>Institutes</i>, 1.1.1] </span></div></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "></div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-79002306014589172032012-03-09T13:38:00.004+11:002012-03-09T14:01:23.935+11:00Against polygamy<span><span style="font-size: 100%;">A couple of days ago I got asked whether polygamy is immoral. Here's some biblical ruminations on the topic. </span></span><div><ul><li><span style="font-size: 100%; ">God created Adam and Even (Gen. 2), not Adam and Eve and Rachel and Charlotte and...</span><span></span></li><li><span>In the OT, polygamy always caused problems. Abraham's son through Hagar was not the child of the promise; Isaac, his son through Sarah his wife, was (Gen 17:15-22). Jacob wound up marrying Leah and Rachel because of Laban's deceit, but he loved Rachel more than Leah, and that caused tension and competition between the women (Gen ch 29-30). </span></li><li><span>Song of Songs portrays exclusive love. "My lover is mine and I am his" (SoS 2:16; 6:3). </span></li><li><span>Jesus validates one-man one-woman in Matt 19:5-6 & Mark 10:7-8, where he quotes the "one flesh" reference in Genesis 2:24. </span></li><li><span>Paul requires monogamy from church leaders: 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6. This cannot be reserved for church leaders alone because they are supposed to be examples to the rest of the people: 1 Tim 3:15. </span></li></ul></div><div><span>One way to dismiss all this is to say that polygamy was taken for granted in the Ancient Near East, so that's why the OT accepts polygamy. My response is: then why is </span></div><div><ol><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">Genesis 2 monogamous? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">the OT so negative in its portrayal of polygamy? </span></li></ol></div><div><span>More foundationally: to read the bible this way - that because everyone else was into polygamy, the Israelites had to as well - is to not make a key false assumption: that the bible <b><i>has </i></b>to validate what was socially accepted. Or, to put it another way: it is to ignore the idea that the OT portrays polygamy <b><i>in order to criticise it</i></b>, and call God's people to live differently. Of course, if we're willing to consider that: </span></div><div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">God doesn't want his people to live like everyone else; </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">But instead wants their lives to be distinctively shaped by his word; </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">And God's word reflects his character, which is uniquely committed and loyal; </span></li></ul></div><div><span>... then a critique of polygamy, and assertion of monogamy, makes a whole lot more sense. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; ">Thoughts, anyone...? </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; "> </span></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-76838059538095011092012-03-03T13:12:00.003+11:002012-03-03T13:17:58.614+11:00Presbyterian Theological Centre graduation & commencement service this Wednesday<div>My new assistant minister, Damien Choi, will be graduating from the <a href="http://ptcsydney.org/">Presbyterian Theological Centre</a> this week. </div><div><br /></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9WmXtrPoNRnyCaKmOT-nhLZ4IZIM0visa8CJDxUTH6Jtuzw0VknAINrHEP2SaQNWImppX9jY_B-0DtJW45KY9vneUv6sKLyRSAbCgYYr7C7nTmysjeXYyddpFEEdpZ45K1VByogT3LSg/s1600/Graduation.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9WmXtrPoNRnyCaKmOT-nhLZ4IZIM0visa8CJDxUTH6Jtuzw0VknAINrHEP2SaQNWImppX9jY_B-0DtJW45KY9vneUv6sKLyRSAbCgYYr7C7nTmysjeXYyddpFEEdpZ45K1VByogT3LSg/s400/Graduation.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5715488532543748338" /></a>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-26787342151321432452012-03-01T14:01:00.003+11:002012-03-02T15:50:31.433+11:00St Mary's Presbyterian Church new website<span>My church - the <a href="http://pcnsw.org.au/">Presbyterian </a>church in the suburb of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Marys,_New_South_Wales">St Mary's</a>, near Penrith, in Sydney's outer west (I always have to give that long explanation because if I say "St Mary's Presbyterian Church" people think St Mary is the church's patron saint... which isn't very Protestant...) - has a <a href="http://stmaryspres.org/">new website</a>, including my <a href="http://stmaryspres.weebly.com/media.html">Sunday bible talks</a>. </span>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-56992111277864326122012-02-29T22:50:00.003+11:002012-02-29T22:57:11.894+11:00Position Vacant: Lecturer in Biblical Studies (Old Testament), Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney<div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">John Davies, old testament scholar and founding principal of the Sydney </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; ">Presbyterian Theological Centre, is retiring at the end of this year. PTC </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 100%; ">is looking for an OT lecturer. For more info, see the <a href="http://ptcsydney.org/news/">PTC news</a> or <a href="http://ptcsydney.org/content/files/OTLecturerJob%20Description2012.pdf">download the job description</a>. Applications close 13 April 2012. Applications to the PTC Principal, Rev. Dr. Ian Smith, ismith@ptcsydney.org. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-32409404571422321072012-02-25T21:44:00.003+11:002012-02-25T21:59:01.144+11:00Speech act theory in a nutshell<div><span >A Facebook friend just asked me: "Just quickly, what is speech act theory in a nutshell?" </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >My response: </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >Words <b><i>do</i></b> things. To speak is to act. We don't want people to simply listen to us, but to be impacted by what we say and respond in some way. Eg: you asked me a question - you want your words to act upon me in such a way that I respond by providing you with information concerning speech-act theory. Which I have now done. I take it you don't want me to respond to your question by writing a thesis on speech-act theory, rolling it into a scroll, squeezing it into a nutshell, and handing it to you... </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >The intended impact of a particular unit of discourse depends on its context. </span></div><div><span >Eg: Fred says to George: "the door is open." </span></div><div><span >Does Fred mean: </span></div><div><ul><li><span >It's cold - could you shut the door, please; </span></li><li><span >Take the opportunity while you have the chance; </span></li><li><span >Get out! </span></li><li><span >Something else...? </span></li></ul></div><div><span >It depends on context - what Fred & George's relationship is like; where they are; what they've been saying to each other... etc. When communicating in person, we discern nuances of meaning from body language. When dealing with a written text, we need to pay attention to genre ("writing style"), literary and historical context, and author's particular writing style... etc. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >Eg: </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">your request for info "in a nutshell" depends on a shared assumption between you & I that by "nutshell" you don't literally mean you want information stored inside </span><span >the empty shell of a nut, but you want a brief answer. This rambling discourse proves my complete inability to answer anything briefly, nutshell notwithstanding. </span></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-31803204377334391092012-02-24T09:46:00.006+11:002012-02-24T10:08:34.796+11:00Evangelical use of Speech-Act theory<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; "><span style="font-size: 100%;">Recently, Evangelical theologians have been applying Speech-Act theory to various elements of theology. They include: </span></span><div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; "><ul><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">Timothy Ward, <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Bx2yQl0m5IAC&dq=Timothy+Ward+word+supplement&hl=en&sa=X&ei=28JGT4yALcipiAefiNGODg&redir_esc=y">Word and Supplement</a> and <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cmcvFiOBpncC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Timothy+Ward&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yMJGT47ZFemTiQeW073mBw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Timothy%20Ward&f=false">Words of Life</a>; </span></li><li><span>Kevin Vanhoozer, <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2LES8XbNJkUC&dq=kevin+vanhoozer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DcNGT4fyGKO5iAf0z7yyDg&redir_esc=y">Is There a Meaning In This Text</a> and <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=fY2b6C93N18C&printsec=frontcover&dq=kevin+vanhoozer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DcNGT4fyGKO5iAf0z7yyDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kevin%20vanhoozer&f=false">The Drama of Doctrine</a>; </span></li><li><span>Nicholas Wolterstorff, <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FVydaBw6g3sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wolterstorff+divine+discourse&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N8NGT-TgKZCuiQeyw8SADg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=wolterstorff%20divine%20discourse&f=false">Divine Discourse</a>; </span></li><li><span>Richard Briggs, <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=T3TcyDkDh-MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=richard+briggs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TMNGT6bvM6OTiAfGx6y4Dg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=richard%20briggs&f=false">Words In Action</a>; </span></li><li><span>Michael Horton, <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=J_LDeOV5754C&printsec=frontcover&dq=michael+horton&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d8NGT_iZNsmuiQfvwO2IDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=michael%20horton&f=false">Covenant and Eschatology</a>. </span></li></ul></div><div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; "><div><span>Anyone know any other significant ones that I've missed...? </span></div><div><div style="font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Here's my summary of the theological use of speech-act theory: </span></div><div><ol><li><span>The Bible, as God's word, is not "dead" - it's not passive, just sitting there waiting for us to breathe life into it through our hermeneutical manoeuvres; </span></li><li><span>On the contrary, it is "alive", because it is God's active speech to us. </span></li><li><span>In the Bible, </span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">God proposes the means of relating to him - viz, Christ, the Gospel. The Bible is God's word and Jesus is God's word. The Bible is living and active because the risen Jesus is living and active as the divine communication of the living, active God. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">T</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">hat divine proposal, by it's very nature as God's word to his people, achieves its desired result of causing those people - "the elect" - to take hold of those proposed means of relating to God. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">Putting it Trinitarianly</span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; ">: the Father speaks - the Son is the content of that speech - the Spirit applies the Word to our "souls" - our hearts & minds, the internal aspect of human being - such that we willingly & wholeheartedly turn to God in Christ in repentance and faith. </span></li></ol></div><div><span>My questions to you are: </span></div></div></div><div><ol><li style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; "><span>Have I got it right? Is this a good summary of the Evangelical use of Speech-Act theory? </span></li><li><span>Have <b><i>they </i></b>got it right? Does this faithfully represent God, and his means of relating to the world and the church? </span></li></ol></div><div style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; "><span>Thoughts, please. </span></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-66731302721849071552012-02-19T17:59:00.003+11:002012-02-19T18:11:11.044+11:00Marriage & radical individualistic voluntarism<div>Over at <a href="http://www.bigthink.com/">Big Think</a>, <a href="http://bigthink.com/peterlawler">Peter Lawler</a> has an i<span style="font-size: 100%; ">nteresting secular article on the recent trend to re-define marriage in terms of radically individual voluntarism - that is, defining marriage as a "contract" by an individual, to whom "society" must grant the freedom to marry whoever they want (= voluntarism), and if they don't get that freedom, they're being "oppressed". </span></div><div><span style="font-size: 100%; "><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 100%; "><a href="http://www.bigthink.com/ideas/42500">Big Think: The Deconstruction Of Marriage?</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-90544237114465762162012-02-14T12:09:00.005+11:002012-02-14T14:31:29.642+11:00God's love and human romantic love<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; ">Seeing as it's Valentine's day, I got to thinking - is there any connection between God’s love and human romantic love?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 100%; ">Some Old Testament passages describe The LORD’s attitude to his people in emotional terms. He delights in his people and considers Israel, even in exile, precious and honoured, the very apple of his eye (Deut. 30:9; 32:10; Is. 43:4; 62:5; Zech. 2:8). Yahweh ‘desired’ [<i>hashaph</i>] Israel (Deut. 7:7; 10:15), akin to how Shechem desired [<i>hashaph</i>] Dinah (Gen. 34:8), or an Israelite may desire [<i>hashaph</i>] a war-captive woman (Deut. 21:11).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 100%; ">The New Testament also portrays God as desiring his people, and this desire motivating him to redemptive action. Christ felt compassion [<i>splagzomai</i>] for needy people, and this compassion motivated him to acts which eradicated the effects of sin – healing the sick (Matt. 14:14; Mk. 1:41), feeding the hungry (Matt. 15:32 = Mark 6:34; Mark 8:2), giving sight to the blind (Matt. 20:34), raising the dead (Lk. 7:13). The virtuous characters in his parables demonstrated similar compassion attitudes and merciful actions: the ruler in the parable of the unmerciful servant forgave the servant’s debt (Matt. 18:27); the Samaritan cared for the Jewish man (Luke 10:33); the father of the prodigal son did not hold his sins against him but rejoiced at his return (Luke 15:20). Saul discovered that to persecute Christians was to persecute Christ (Acts 9:4-5). This all demonstrates that God, in Christ, ‘desires’ his people: he sets his affections upon them, identifies with them, and therefore acts to redeem them.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-size: 100%; ">The analogy must be handled cautiously. First of all, the the doctrine of God’s asceity indicates that, in his eternal, Triune self-giving and mutual constitution, God is replete – he is fully satisfied with himself.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-size: 100%; "></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-style: normal; font-size: 100%; ">[I]n their interpersonal reciprocal relations the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Communion of Love which the One God eternally is in himself… It is as this ever living and acting Communion of loving and being loved that God is who he is… </span><span style="font-size: 100%; ">(T. F. Torrance, <i>The Christian Doctrine of God</i>, London: T. & T. Clark, 1996: 5-6.)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-size: 100%; ">Shechem and the Israelite men were attracted to the women for their beauty; Yahweh did not redeem Israel for any attractive feature they possessed, but because his consistent character moved him to fulfil his promises to their fathers (Deut. 7:7-8). God’s affection for Israel is unilateral and often unrequited; Song of Songs and 1 Cor. 7 show us that healthy marriages are characterised by mutual affection. Jealousy drives humans to excessive anger (Prov. 6:34, 27:4; Eccl. 4:4; Acts 5:17, 13:45, 17:5; etc), while Yahweh is slow to anger (Ex. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2; Nah. 1:3).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-size: 100%; ">Nevertheless, the analogy is there. The God of the Old Testament acted to redeem his people because he ‘desired’ them – he ‘wanted’ to dwell with them. So he acted powerfully to rescue them from oppression and take them to himself in the promised land. To say ‘God loves’ is to say he, of his own gracious will, binds his well-being with the well-being of his people, and this alignment motivates him to redemptive action, supremely in the cross of Christ.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-size: 100%; ">God's redemptive love is unique. We cannot "save" anyone by our love. Only God can do that through Christ. Missionary dating is a disaster. Do not marry an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14). The first point of contact for this analogy is that we who trust Christ should feel absolutely comfortable in his love, expressed and enacted in Christ.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><span style="font-size: 100%; ">But, I think we can say that God's love in Christ reflexively validates human romantic love, in the sense of the goodness of a desire to be with someone, and share life in mutual blessing. This isn't "redemptive" in the proper sense - doesn't save us from sin - but it does fulfil our genuine created relational needs. We were not made to be alone, we were made to be in relationship with each other, especially the relationship of marriage. Human romance is, at its best, an expression of this appropriate need. And this need is connected to the gospel of the God who does not need us, but voluntarily chooses to be with us. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-style: normal; "><o:p></o:p></p><p></p>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-67234072839726843552012-02-08T12:41:00.003+11:002012-02-09T09:06:01.549+11:00First vs Second generation ethnic ministry<img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 143px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU4OdX3RQiJPQfuvM6pJsu5eliCeu9tEwyHKmuKuQ-rqdh9JPGjfYylqkJZICiG7lNkDjJMQlnstiNdNp9IEc-UYkOqA0dfFEyrD1Oqj-2r-Gzb-aTMOU_eRikrT0ujN5k_oGJLX8XZb8/s200/subcontinent.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5706889368248951506" /><p class="MsoTitle">Here's some thoughts on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent">Subcontinental </a>ministry I put together for a ministry working group. Feedback appreciated. </p><p class="MsoTitle">*** </p><p class="MsoTitle">All humans are created by God, responsible to God, sinful before God, redeemable in Christ, and, depending on their status in Christ, heading for ultimate glory or judgement. The gospel is the same for all people everywhere.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Subcontinental churches potentially become expressions of Subcontinental Christian culture rather than the gospel. I see no difference between this and Australian, Western ecclesial traditionalism – “we like it this way ‘coz it’s always been this way and it makes us feel comfortable.” The difference is that ethnic churches are tolerated, even celebrated, by both the broader church and the world, when they say this. The broader church encourages ethnically enculturated churches because of the HUP and a (rightful) interest in communicating the gospel clearly. The world tolerates ethnic churches because of multiculturalism. In contrast, Western churches where culture > the gospel become historic relics, opposed by Evangelical churches and ignored by the world. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Because these highly enculturated ethnic churches are tolerated or celebrated, they could be blind to the highly enculturated nature of their teaching, worship and formation. Even if they don’t intend to – even if the leaders are converted & mean well – they could end up with culture > the gospel. They too will be in danger of becoming historical relics, irrelevant to both God and the world. This tendency will be accelerated if the church has successfully contextualised the gospel in the home, Subcontinental context – that is, if local believers in the Subcontinent thoughtfully worked out how to express their devotion to Christ in their particular situation. The problem is: there’s no point simply transplanting something that’s culturally appropriate for the Subcontinent to Australia! <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This will happen, in part, because second-generation Christian Subcontinentals do not share their parent’s Subcontinental Christian enculturation. In all other aspects of life they mix freely with Aussies, and their parents will encourage this, because that’s what they came here to Aust for – to give their children a chance at a “better life”, where “better life” = Western materialism. Second-generation immigrants are hybrids – they behave in certain ways very “traditionally” – more like their parent’s Subcontinental ways of behaving than their Aussie friends – but are in other areas of life very Western. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This hybrid-ness may occasionally cause conflict in the home. But it <b><i>will</i></b> certainly cause conflict with their Christian identity. If, for the ethnic church they attend, Christian culture > the gospel, their church experience will be <b><i>culturally oppressive rather than evangelically challenging</i></b>. These young people will eventually reject both the gospel and their inherited Christian culture, because they are not intellectually sophisticated or personally mature enough to distinguish them, nor should we expect them to be. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As these young people reject the gospel, they will instinctively trend towards Western materialism instead, because the whole purpose of immigration is a “better life”, where “better life” = Western materialism. But because of their Christian Subcontinental traditional values, they will probably not adopt a self-evidently destructive hedonistic lifestyle. Ex-Christian Subcontinentals become nice, clean, moral, healthy, wealthy, dignified materialists – the type you’d really love to have as your neighbour. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is not inevitable for every single ethnic church; it is inevitable for an ethnic church that has <b><i>not learned to distinguish between the gospel and their inherited Christianised culture</i></b>. Fixing this is not as simple as creating an English-language service. Such a service could still be highly ethnically enculturated and oppressive. It requires deep self-insight and a critical view of both church and ‘liturgy’. It requires a deep enough grasp of what the gospel actually <b><i>is</i></b>, so that we can communicate it to the next generation, and then, having entrusted it to them, liberating them to enact it in a manner appropriate to their social situation – which we cannot assume is the same as ours. It is up to church leaders, not the children, to engage in such thoughtful, honest reflection. I suspect that most churches (not just ethnic?) tacitly expect the opposite: “we’re going to do things our own way, coz that’s how we like it; the kids can take it or leave it”. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Such thoughtful self-criticism is possible. The gospel will enable it, indeed demand it. A truly Christian church is a church founded on the gospel of Christ crucified and risen. <i>Ecclesia semper reformanda est</i> – the church is always being reformed. Second, such thoughtful self-criticism is a return to the individual church’s origins – to its history as a community of people working out what it means to live for Christ in a particular historical culture that ignores or denies him. <i>Ad fontes</i> – back to the source. Also, ethnic churches need the church ‘Catholic’ – they need to be examined and held accountable by other churches. If the church leaders are converted, then when other churches challenge them that it looks like culture > gospel, the leaders will listen. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Second-generation English-language churches are not necessarily the solution; the gospel is. It is tempting to contrast cultural oppression with evangelical liberation – but I think that’s the wrong dichotomy. The real contrast, I think, is between <b><i>cultural comfort</i></b> and <b><i>gospel challenge</i></b>. Sinful human beings seek comfortable self-affirmation rather than God’s approval – that is, we seek our own righteousness instead of God’s. Such comfortable self-affirmation could come through a familiar social context – a group and place where we do and say familiar things that make us feel welcome and valued – a ‘culture’. First-generation immigrants seek to replicate their comfortable culture; the second generation resist this and seek their own comfortable culture. <b><i>The gospel cuts across both</i></b>. It calls the parents to seek the children’s well-being over their own comfort; to desire that the children be converted and following Christ more than happily married and wealthy with a nice career; and to entrust the gospel to those converted children and trust them to grow in it and take it to future generations. It calls the children to submit to the parents, value their insights, and be patient with their foibles. “Honour your father and mother…” “Do not rebuke an older man harshly”. (Note: the verse does not say “do not rebuke an older man”, but “do not rebuke an older man <b><i>harshly</i></b>”. Also, the logic of the comparison with exhorting one’s father assumes that it is possible to gently upbraid one’s elders without disrespecting them). <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Second-generation Subcontinental immigrants need the same that first-generation Subcontinental immigrants need, which is what the whole world needs – to be challenged, through the gospel, to worship God in Christ. </p>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-80190847440468910112011-07-01T10:58:00.004+10:002011-07-02T08:23:20.340+10:00Shout out: Michael Jensen on theological educationQuick shout out: over at <a href="http://mpjensen.blogspot.com/">The Blogging Parson</a>, Michael Jensen has some excellent thoughts on <a href="http://mpjensen.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-theological-education.html">why we need theological education</a>, who needs it & what to look for.Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-44508437482415570472011-06-30T09:03:00.007+10:002011-06-30T10:12:11.898+10:00Hezekiah's silence<div><div><div>Why did King Hezekiah remain silent when Rabshakeh, the Assyrian field commander, taunted Hezekiah and insulted the LORD?<br /><br /><div><div><a href="http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/galleries/middle_east/room_10b_assyria_siege_of_la.aspx"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 146px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 97px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5623797338194901618" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxav9i_w1u73xnA-hexBEyxqxNcZdWQzWwyP8OFrmGQDT0TCnU9BUfe5Nn_tM0gSIzQnXAJBvbZtBWhqunADBYVst4wMMsQ1_1xqAmjosvCq7touvpTuuF_eiNw7hD1WbiNnlgHYlRgXg/s200/Lachish.jpg" /></a><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2036&version=NIV">Isaiah 36</a> and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20kings%2018&version=NIV">2 Kings 18</a> record how Sennacherib, king of Assyria, attacked Judah and conquered all the way to Jerusalem. Sennacherib memorialised his conquest of Lachish, Judah's second most important city, in sculpted reliefs in his palace at Ninevah. Those reliefs, and a rock prism boasting of his Judean campaign, can now be seen in the <a href="http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/galleries/middle_east/room_10b_assyria_siege_of_la.aspx">British Museum</a>. I saw them myself last week, when I visited the museum during my UK holiday.</div><br /><div>Having conquered Lachish, the Assyrian army besieged Jerusalem. Isaiah and 2 Kings both record the Assyrian field commander taunting Hezekiah and the LORD. "Don't let Hezekiah deceive you," he says to the people of Jerusalem, "the LORD can't save you. None of the gods of the other nations were able to resist us. Come over to us Assyrians - we'll look after you." </div><br /><div>In the face of these taunts, Hezekiah's response was: silence. Isaiah 36:21:</div><blockquote><div><div>But the people remained silent and said nothing in reply, because the king had commanded, “Do not answer him.” </div></div></blockquote><div>Why did Hezekiah command silence? </div><br /><div><b><i>Fear or cowardice?</i></b></div><div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUhoqinQu8nNiUIYgN87iaHACOB4qUCFM5KwJAQapozzSBD_D3EXZe_BGe2mKodDj1_dw5zlXZCLRdR12jQdphxfJ0qZHjpWRPOOLham72_T-CP1NhrZ9J-9AoWgTRm6OAT7SrxOgGwiY/s1600/fear.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 85px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 73px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5623797647033957490" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUhoqinQu8nNiUIYgN87iaHACOB4qUCFM5KwJAQapozzSBD_D3EXZe_BGe2mKodDj1_dw5zlXZCLRdR12jQdphxfJ0qZHjpWRPOOLham72_T-CP1NhrZ9J-9AoWgTRm6OAT7SrxOgGwiY/s200/fear.jpg" /></a>He could have responded with Godly confidence. That’s what his ancestor David did in a similar situation: he responded to Goliath's taunts with Godly defiance - see <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20sam%2017:41-47&version=NIV">1 Samuel 17:41-47</a>. If Hezekiah had that option, then his silence was fear, or even cowardice.</div><br /><div><b><i>Pearls before swine / do not answer a fool? </i></b></div><div>Or it could have been Hezekiah's wisdom in not responding to foolish arguments. Proverbs instructs us not to answer a <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+26:4&version=31">fool according to his folly</a>; Jesus told us not to cast our <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:6&version=31">peals before pigs</a>; and Paul tells us not to be involved in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20tim%202:23-24&version=NIV">foolish and stupid arguments</a>. If this is the case, then Hezekiah's response was wisdom. <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/isaiah/36.html?p=3">Matthew Henry</a> takes this line, as do a couple of current online commentators (<a href="http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/2336.htm">David Guzik</a> and <a href="http://biblestudycourses.org/isaiah-bible-study-courses-section-2/isaiah-36-1-37-38-exploring-the-passage/">Donald F. Ritsman</a>). </div><br /><b><i>Humility?</i></b><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmRlQDpviPImXnrsE_za90Vm9gFDWm2sTD5E30Z2GgzMUCTleAeJorgN0zPdKXFAQF71_oEuUqCgORAnfxgs708wKHJ9pjn2SNACaydphSiRWEIb-nco6UxSIhCBSfN55Xay8ihDJZV1U/s1600/cute_lamb-8398.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 104px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 102px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5623797843395411522" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmRlQDpviPImXnrsE_za90Vm9gFDWm2sTD5E30Z2GgzMUCTleAeJorgN0zPdKXFAQF71_oEuUqCgORAnfxgs708wKHJ9pjn2SNACaydphSiRWEIb-nco6UxSIhCBSfN55Xay8ihDJZV1U/s200/cute_lamb-8398.jpg" /></a>Or his silence could be a Godly humility. Like the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53:7&version=31">suffering servant</a> of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=is%2052:13-53:12&version=NIV">Isaiah 52:13-53:12</a>, Hezekiah could have been resolved to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter+2:22-24&version=NIV">patiently bear</a> the <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom%2015:3&version=NIV">taunts and mockery</a> of unbelievers. In this case, Hezekiah would be a prototype of Jesus, and an example to us.</div></div><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center">* * * * *</div><br /><div>I don't know which of the three options to go for. They're all plausible. Might there be a way to combine them into something more wholistic? </div><br /><div>Thoughts, please. </div></div></div></div></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-78979324004287534832011-06-28T23:40:00.008+10:002011-07-02T08:37:33.478+10:00Some thoughts on returning from holidays<div><br /><div><a href="http://www.visitbritain.com/"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 120px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 69px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5623830203127670082" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF96L9JdSsDT2sxkopfiUD415ZwLXs6oQK-EmwNdtS4L_qXZJNkx2UY5c93jM9VX_5EP6G5uGy4qbioaeDdL9MsnrS8YIWtY4STnlCbd95vgaOhDiQ2lbebJ9qcTzKzkISAqwlrmsfVOk/s200/uk-lgflag.gif" /></a>I'm back from a three-week holiday in the UK. First week in <a href="http://www.visitlondon.com/">London</a>, with day trips to <a href="http://www.visitoxfordandoxfordshire.com/">Oxford</a> & <a href="http://www.visitcambridge.org/">Cambridge</a>; second week in <a href="http://www.seeglasgow.com/">Glasgow</a>, with day trips to <a href="http://www.mallaig.org.uk/">Mallaig</a> (Harry Potter country!),<a href="http://www.edinburgh.org/">Edinburgh </a>& <a href="http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/">St Andrews</a> (Presbyterian country!); third week in the <a href="http://www.cumbria-the-lake-district.co.uk/">Cumbria Lakes District</a>, with day trips all over the place.<br /><br /><div>Some reflections:</div><div><ul><li>Australia sure is a long way away from the UK (*yawn*) (*jet-lag*); </li><li>The UK is full of history. Things built in the 1800s are new - like the "new" palace of Westminster and the "New Wing" at <a href="http://www.magd.ox.ac.uk/">Magdalene College, Oxford</a> (where C. S. Lewis had his rooms); </li><li>I love the museums. I saw artefacts relevant to Biblical times in the <a href="http://www.britishmuseum.org/">British Museum</a> in London and the <a href="http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/">Fitzwilliam Museum</a> in Cambridge. Highly recommend the <a href="http://www.iwm.org.uk/">Imperial War Museum</a>; </li><li>Most of the museums & galleries in the UK are free & have cheap audio tours which provide an excellent commentary; </li><li>Scotland has, given its small size & population, made a disproportionate impact on world history through its heavy engineering - Glasgow, in the mid 19th century, constructed more than half Britain's shipping and a quarter of all locomotives in the world - and in heavy intellectuals - notably the philosopher <a href="http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfamhume.htm">David Hume</a>, but also poets like <a href="http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfamburns.htm">Robert Burns</a>, and scientists like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt">James Watt</a>, whose improvement of the steam engine enabled the industrial revolution; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell">Alexander Graham Bell</a>, who invented the telephone; <a href="http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfamkelvin.htm">Lord Kelvin</a>, who created the Kelvin scale down to absolute zero; and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fleming">Alexander Fleming</a>, who discovered penicillin; </li><li>The major church denominations (<a href="http://www.churchofengland.org/">Church of England</a>; <a href="http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/">Church of Scotland</a>) are stuffed. Widespread lack of confidence in the Bible has gutted their ability to proclaim Christ, with the result that more & more church buildings are turning into pizza parlours; </li><li>But within the denominations, there's plenty of Evangelical churches valiantly holding the line and preaching Christ. The flagships are <a href="http://www.st-helens.org.uk/">St Helen's Bishopsgate</a> in London and <a href="http://www.thetron.org/">St George's Tron</a> in Glasgow - but they're not alone;</li><li><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 102px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5623830709190887362" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj36G2R05jOTTSM0PA3dxyEHDJ7znqlqKo-IW_yTdawrUEcF0vt5BwuSxzFIH9B4gupnO7HYmD0UhjBORTxuoXxnjjp9wEThz23DrklADbBx9QHwWxiS3STMzqO9J__Phi8VaIW-URdaeY/s200/westminster.jpg" /></a>The quality of the speeches in parliament at <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/">Westminster </a>were far, far above anything I've heard from Canberra; </li><li>The <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/768/global-financial-crisis">Global Financial Crisis</a> has hit the UK and Europe much harder than they have Aust. The whole of Europe is reeling from unemployment and financial and corporate collapses. When I was there, the UK govt was debating a financial bailout for Greece - as in Europe financially assisting the whole country of Greece. This economic hardship might be behind the recent flare-up of sectarian tensions in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/northernireland">Northern Ireland</a>; </li><li>UK is dog-friendly. Or maybe I should say dog-indulgent. Everyone seems to own a dog. Or two. Or six. Shops put up signs saying "dogs welcome." People work as professional dog walkers - as in taking dogs for walks. The trade-off is a 1,000-pound on-the-spot fine for not cleaning up after your dog; </li><li>Sydney winter weather is more pleasant than UK summer weather (*wet*) (*cold*) (*grumble*); </li><li>But the benefit of all that rain is that UK fields really are green. I love the rolling hills with ancient stone walls with lambs gambolling and cattle grazing. Aust really is a wide brown land; </li><li>Speaking of a wide brown land: I still call Australia home. </li></ul></div></div></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-26579353325650064142011-06-09T13:08:00.004+10:002011-06-27T22:26:15.017+10:00Sex as a relational act<div>In my <a href="http://kamalsmmm.blogspot.com/2011/06/sexuality-and-scientific-naturalism.html">previous post</a>, I showed how naturalistic science depersonalises sexuality, turning it into a mere manipulation of bodily functions. </div><br /><div>In contrast, the Bible treats our sexuality as a good gift from a personal, Triune God, who <i>is </i>love (1 John 4:16) – who is constituted within himself by his relationships. The logic of the Bible is, unsurprisingly, the opposite to atheistic materialistic <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKp1mtq3S5vNZDuUnhnCSkA30xmHsCkx8EkGNIDtDZC0FO8kyhxCEhu-D08hmMcuMblDkkZJPwaSb1Ph935CbKxqN-gEE1AgrweatvUGSt2mfks1pEs5y7WDRC31WCxLakMmfotUlLslU/s1600/happy-family.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 160px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5613815274312192242" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKp1mtq3S5vNZDuUnhnCSkA30xmHsCkx8EkGNIDtDZC0FO8kyhxCEhu-D08hmMcuMblDkkZJPwaSb1Ph935CbKxqN-gEE1AgrweatvUGSt2mfks1pEs5y7WDRC31WCxLakMmfotUlLslU/s200/happy-family.jpg" /></a>naturalism. Humans are fundamentally <i>relational </i>beings. God gave us our bodies – including the sexual nature of our bodies – to express these relationships. The way to care for our bodies is, generally, to attend to our relationships: if we are in healthy relationships, our bodies will flourish; if we are in toxic relationships, they will deteriorate. So, from a Biblical perspective, the way to rightly use our sexuality, which both acknowledges its status as a divine gift, and helps us lead healthy, happy sex lives, is to consider how we are using our sexuality to enhance our relationships. </div><br />This perspective is not unique to the Bible or Christianity. Creation itself, being the creation of the Biblical God, embodies within itself principles that are coherent with the Bible. Open-minded, responsible scientific investigation, which seeks to genuinely discern how the physical world operates, will therefore render results that are broadly compatible with the Bible. We therefore expect sexual research to demonstrate that healthy sexuality is intimately connected to healthy relationships.<br /><br />Recent sexual research demonstrates that our neurological sexual responses show that we're wired for long-term intimacy. I reviewed this research in a paper I presented last year at the Religion In the Public Square conference of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. You can download the conference proceedings <a href="http://www.reformers.com.au/Colloquium/Colloquium_Complete.pdf">here</a>, from <a href="http://www.reformers.com.au/">Reformers books</a>.Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-12406291294180775162011-06-07T12:06:00.002+10:002011-06-07T12:06:00.202+10:00Sexuality and scientific naturalism<div><div>In my previous post I argued that sexual research and therapy were good professions, blessed by God. To deserve such blessing, this research and therapy must be conducted in a manner that acknowledges our sexuality as a divine gift.<br /><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUHYanqEor6tq_Bo6koUCH5KSs8fPx5lqpgMGLO63c_YLP4tU3Lw2EOnTUG2_DuJWU35iiDcGNwFfi4ursadDXLJJjbaQXW08WzLvgn9fMhAI-QpMyplC-EXltKCyo-P9ecifXPGL7SKs/s1600/experiment.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 161px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5613814395137022258" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUHYanqEor6tq_Bo6koUCH5KSs8fPx5lqpgMGLO63c_YLP4tU3Lw2EOnTUG2_DuJWU35iiDcGNwFfi4ursadDXLJJjbaQXW08WzLvgn9fMhAI-QpMyplC-EXltKCyo-P9ecifXPGL7SKs/s200/experiment.jpg" /></a>Naturalistic science presupposes radical materialism – the natural world of physical matter is ultimate reality. It presupposes that there is no creator God, who made the physical universe for us to enjoy. Instead, physical matter is all that really exists. As mere physical matter, it is in itself inert, passive, and lifeless. It operates according to rules that are complex but predictable. The role of science is to discover these physical rules of operation so that we can manipulate them, enhance the physical objects beyond their ‘natural’ state, and use them to ach achieve whatever we want. Naturalistic science dissects and reconstructs so as to control and dominate. </div><br /><div>Applying this to sexual research and therapy: naturalistic science assumes that everything about sexuality can be ultimately boiled down to physics and chemistry, neurology and biology. Humans are, in the end, nothing more than complex biological machines. Love, loyalty, affection – all the personal emotions that accompany relationships, including sexual relationships – are not really real; they are merely outworkings of our biology and neurology.</div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf2WRCKEvFGEsMo6cEpBuZ5JRhxKN11zBMI0ybwfVJev4nGDZ8EofuH-CGKWFBHwpj_SDaMqzF0G08ORJxG1AeLyJOn3JZ2d8xtJ9IvysPeAlEDe4pGuHWOTYemEvnfFvHy0Sz5FT8VEU/s1600/test_tube_experiment_1600x1200.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 157px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 121px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5613814636505896434" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf2WRCKEvFGEsMo6cEpBuZ5JRhxKN11zBMI0ybwfVJev4nGDZ8EofuH-CGKWFBHwpj_SDaMqzF0G08ORJxG1AeLyJOn3JZ2d8xtJ9IvysPeAlEDe4pGuHWOTYemEvnfFvHy0Sz5FT8VEU/s200/test_tube_experiment_1600x1200.jpg" /></a>Therefore, our physical bodies, and the internal operations of our will and emotions – our souls, our <i>psyche </i>– operates according to physical rules that are complex but predictable. Our bodies and souls are infinitely malleable according to the precision and detail of our scientific insight. The role of sexual research and therapy is therefore to dissect, reconstruct, control and dominate: to understand how our bodies and souls respond to sexual stimuli, so that we can manage and redesign our bodies and souls to do whatever we want. </div><br />The plastic surgeon and the counsellor represent the priesthood of sexual science. We think they can put us in touch with ultimate reality – the laws that our bodies and souls operate according to – so that we can manage that ultimate reality, and live healthy, happy, fulfilled lives. We end up living in a world of surgically enhanced genitalia and frequent trips to the therapist.</div></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-26346140406514609172011-06-05T12:30:00.003+10:002011-06-05T12:30:00.445+10:00Creation, sexuality, and the good of sexual research and therapy<div>Sexuality is a good part of our created nature. God made humanity male and female, and commanded humans to "be fruitful and increase in number..." (Gen 1:27-28). Adam rejoiced over Eve as his own flesh and bone, and they were to be united as one flesh, naked with no shame (Genesis 2:23-25). Therefore, gender and sexuality is part of our humanity - it is part of what it means to be in God's image. </div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJrjQjCzcowdAMTgfXjWbXaJFWfCtAImad4E6yRvt5dsiEfs46ulnnm9K3gJJXwwFWQRO2XBkUm-Kb8BowDa9jCYjgy9u256CvwVp-IfXXCghLB29jHIGZJZVDBV9mNmGacDNu-dZ917A/s1600/scientists.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 128px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5613812821122524018" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJrjQjCzcowdAMTgfXjWbXaJFWfCtAImad4E6yRvt5dsiEfs46ulnnm9K3gJJXwwFWQRO2XBkUm-Kb8BowDa9jCYjgy9u256CvwVp-IfXXCghLB29jHIGZJZVDBV9mNmGacDNu-dZ917A/s200/scientists.jpg" /></a>As part of good creation, our sexuality is open to scientific research and medical therapy. Any research and therapy that helps people discover who they truly are, as sexual beings in relationship with God and other people, is a good thing, and God will bless it. Any research and therapy that assists people to conduct their sexual lives in a responsible, healthy manner, before God, their sexual partner, and the world, is a good thing, blessed by God. Sex research and therapy – like any medical research and therapy – is a blessed profession, pleasing to God. All of this helps us recover, in part, God’s good intentions for our bodies and our sexuality, and thus helps us to be truly human.</div><div></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141006100717627099.post-45008849287143355832011-06-03T11:25:00.005+10:002011-06-03T11:54:11.077+10:00World Congress for Sexual Health, Glasgow<div><br /><div><a href="http://www.worldsexology.org/"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 68px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5613804991313786754" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY5VkGIwrz9NPMXtuwWY0dSaJBDlYI_vL9LFkU4FUzAsE_fZlJ9qyq9Kq-HUEGxgHMdprxug23tG6JFU2L7L6SRmj2NZNKoG4IR1cfi4bZDOCyFftjeQUul0fFKjwcrJsBPuL1mitMSkw/s200/was.png" /></a>I'm preparing to head off to Glasgow, Scotland, to participate in the <a href="http://www2.kenes.com/was2011/Pages/Home.aspx">20th World Congress for Sexual Health</a> of the <a href="http://www.worldsexology.org/">World Association for Sexual Health</a> ("WAS"). I'm delivering a 15-min paper on "<a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abstractserver.com%2Fwas2011%2Fplanner%2Findex.php%3Fgo%3Dabstract%26action%3Dabstract_iplanner%26absno%3D233%26WAS2011%3D62uv09abagln809rgpuu25ouc4&h=1b88f">Biblical Principles for Sexual Research and Therapy</a>" at a <a href="http://www.abstractserver.com/was2011/planner/index.php?go=abstract&action=abstract_iplanner&absno=270&">Symposium on Religion & Sexual Health</a>. It'll be on Thurs 16 June between 10:30-11:30 Glasgow time = Thursday 16 June 2011 7:30 - 8:30pm Sydney time. It's my first time delivering an academic paper at a secular conference. Prayers appreciated.<br /><br /><div><div><div><div><a href="http://glasgowsleadingattractions.com/"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 137px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 135px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5613805142085322306" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz_8-qyTA4C8DyWFIRQXGFGqbD6ogr7XUyP3UW2k8NeZNu3FKdO2PxFgoXTlb6nbeTZlu3ggchKOyxuEfBD92Zdx-MfI-u_xBlbu4hgA7qX0Cu4PJGqFAtr1ej8g8CuMrZgGuCQ7MaM9k/s200/map_scotland.jpg" /></a>Of course I'm also going to have a holiday at the same time: London, Oxford, Cambridge, then Glasgow, Edinburgh, perhaps St Andrew's, then the Lakes District - then home. I'll be travelling with my parents - my mum, <a href="http://www.patriciaweerakoon.com/">Dr. Pat</a>, has various presentations at the conference also. I'm looking forward to visiting <a href="http://www.thetron.org/">St George's Tron Church</a> in Glasgow. So I'll be an Sri-Lankan - Australian Presbyterian in Scotland... </div><br /><div>I'm finishing off the paper now. My post a few days ago on <a href="http://kamalsmmm.blogspot.com/2011/05/relationships-love-sex-marriage.html">relationships, love, sex & marriage</a> is part of an earlier draft. Shall pop up some further thoughts over the next few days. Let's see what happens.</div><div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Kamal Weerakoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08986038926569703410noreply@blogger.com0