Salvation

This post is the introduction to a series of posts I am going to write on the topic of Salvation. This post will outline some of the questions that I am hoping to explore in the series.

Why do we need to be saved? Some people think that a Christian understanding of salvation is just a way to make people feel guilty. They think that the church uses the concept of salvation as a way of controlling people and keeping them in line. So is there a need to be saved or is it just a tool for controlling people?

Who saves? When talking about salvation Christians are usually very Christ-centric. But we worship a triune God. How do the Father and the Spirit act in salvation? Is salvation only available to those people who lived after Christ? Is salvation through Christ the only way that God's salvation operates?

Who can be saved? Some say that if God is all knowing and all powerful then he either chooses who will be saved, or knows in advance who will be saved. But if this is so then how do we have free will?

What are we saved from? Talk to most people on the street and they wouldn't be able to tell you what the word 'sin' means. Are we saved from sin? What about being saved from infirmities? What about being saved from ourselves?

What are we saved to? If a drowning man is 'saved' he is pulled to the shore or into a boat. What about the Christian, what are we saved to? Is it temporary or longer lasting?

What misconceptions do we have about salvation?

Feel free to post some questions you have about salvation and we will see if we can't explore them together.

What I read today:

Thoughts on yesterday's bridge tragedy

Totally tolerant, up to a point

The parable of the talents

I was reading yesterday about the negative power of low self esteem. He suggested that self esteem is a crippling infirmity (in the biblical sense) that prevents people from trusting fully in God and living out their potential.

The author used the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) as his example. Three servants are given talents (a unit of money) with each one receiving according to their ability. The first receives five talents, the second three and the last one talent. The first and second servants go and invest the money so that upon the master's return they are able to hand him double the amount he had entrusted them with. However the third servant buried the money, fearing that he would loose it and the master would seek retribution.

Now the point the author was making was that the third servant had an ability. The servant's ability was to administer one talent. The point is not that he could only administer one, it is that it was within his capability to administer that talent. But his low self esteem convinced him not to invest the talent. It nagged at him and said "if you invest the talent you will stuff up and will loose it."

The author suggests that the negative power of low self esteem is that it prevents people seeing that they have talents (of the non-monetary kind) that are within their ability to use. Everyone has talents. Christians have natural talents and God given giftings (however you understand that idea). When we trust our low self esteem, rather than trusting in God we are selling ourselves and God short.

What is your low self esteem telling you can't do? What would it look like if you trusted God rather than your low self esteem?

Its the end of the world as we know it ...

Naomi commented on yesterday's post and I wanted to pick up a thought that she mentioned. She said that some people think that Global Warming (and other disasters and calamities) are a result of the 'end times' and is what is supposed to happen before Jesus returns.

Time and space is too limited for a long discussion on eschatology (belief about the end times) but I think that the idea of God's destruction being wrought on the earth is important in the context of an ecological theology or a Christian response to global warming and other environmental issues.

Genesis 1 tells us that God created the world and it was good. The idea of the world being evil is not a biblical idea, it is a Greek philosophical belief. Paul tells us that all creation groans for the redemptive work of Christ. That doesnt just relate to all the people (otherwise it would have said that). Paul is here suggesting that the redemptive work of Christ relates to creation. God is wanting to redeem creation.

Another problem we have is we think of God as a creator. God created the world and left it to go. The Hebrew understanding of God was one of re-creator. The work of creation is not finished. The biblical story is one of God interacting with creation. In the flood narrative we see God changing the way the creation works (the first time it rained).

I think end times belief is a classic example of Christian culture winning out over a Biblical understanding. A lot of Christians I know would be able to tell me the theology of the 'Left behind' series but would struggle to outline a biblical theology of the end times.

I have decided to stop adding links to what I have been reading each day because no one seems to have been looking at them. But if you want to check out some photos of my hike on the weekend check here.

Heat wave

Victoria is in the midst of the longest heat wave since 1908. We are due 4 days in a row over 40 degrees. I am going to avoid the temptation to comment about global warming.It has got me thinking however about an issue that would usually not even be noticed.

Air-conditioning.

Lots of people have it and lots of people use it. We have one and I have to admit that we do use it every so often. Now I also know lots of people who don't have air-conditioners. People on low incomes can't afford to have an air-conditioner. Air-conditioners, like it or lump it, are to some extents a class distinction.

The second issue is of course that air-conditioners use a lot of electrical power. Talk to anyone in the power industry and they will tell you that hot days are when we get to peak electrical load. Of course we all know where Victoria's electricity comes from, and that isn't good for the environment.

I think the problem of air-conditioning is bigger than just the individual units. We build skyscrapers with all this glass on the outside then spend huge amounts of money cooling them down on hot days. We build inefficient, unsustainable housing that requires us to cool it down. Friends of mine have bought canvas awnings to go on the outside of their windows, because that cuts down the amount of heat entering the house by upwards of 80%. We need to do more to think about our lifestyle and not just take the easy option of flicking a switch to make us cool. In the long run that switch is precisely what is heating us up. Whoops, it seems I did mention global warming.

What I read today:

The president, a man of faith

one incite, two cultures

Dragon Boat Racing

(This post is actually yesterday's post. I lost the internet last night and so was delayed in posting this.)

Today I went out in a Dragon Boat. It was for work, so we had 8 young people in the boat plus a couple of workers and I was at the back steering the thing. We went out on the Yarra, at the boat sheds and it was quite busy on the water.

Now Dragon Boating is a team sport. Someone sits at the front and bangs the drum to get everyone to row in time. The weight of the crew needs to be balanced on either side of the boat for stability. If people start moving around the boat can tip over. If everyone doesn't paddle at the same time the boat becomes unstable. If someone decides to stop paddling then the boat starts to turn.

It got me thinking about teamwork. Sometimes there is time for democracy. "Who has had enough for the day and wants to get out?" Sometimes there is no time for democracy and you just have to knuckle down and follow the leader. "Watch out for the cruise boat about to ram us!" There is no time for people to panic, stand up and scream "We're going to tip over." Usually if someone does that, that is when the boat tips over.

The problem with good teamwork is knowing what is appropriate for the time. Most teams are autocratic for long periods of time because they either have a controlling leader, lazy team members or decide that democracy is too hard. For most people our default setting seems to be 'tell me what to do.' Good leaders overcome this by encouraging groups to work together to set goals and then implement strategies for achieving them.

How's your dragon boat going?

What I read today:

Service vs Devotion to Jesus

Obama and Gen Y: When the Honeymoon ends

Practice makes perfect

Today I went and watched the Melbourne Victory open training session. It was a good way to spend the morning, sitting in the shade, watching my team run around. After their warm up and a few drills they got into a practice game and we were able to watch them working hard to prepare for a must win game on Friday night. While the team was practising there was very loud music emanating from the ground's speaker system. I was forced to wonder if it was to prevent us hearing the tactical discussions happening on the pitch.

Of course today's practice session was a good bit of public relations. The fans turned up. We sat and watched. We oohed and we  ahhed. The players even turned the tables and gave us a clap for coming out to watch them run around.

It makes you wonder if professional sporting clubs use a practice session as a publicity exercise how much do we use our daily practices as one too. The religious practices we do, turning up to church, playing in the band, praying in public, etc. Are these things a mere publicity exercise? I have to challenge myself a lot. If I commit to do something, what are my real motives? If I do it out of obligation, then am I not just publicising my practice?

Publicity is a double edged sword. Today the Victory built up some good will with their supporters. But their training session could also have been infiltrated by spies from Wellington, our opposition on Friday night. By their openness the club could have displayed their tactics for all to see. This too is true for our Christian practice. If we are in the public eye then we are open to both praise and ridicule, positive and negative judgement.

What I read today:

Russians strengthen their faith with an icy plunge

A motto for the people

Attitude

Today I went and saw the Australian Open tennis. What struck me about the sport is just how much the player's attitude affects their performance. Of course you see Lleyton Hewitt yelling 'come on' to himself to give himself a lift. But until I was metres away from the players I didn't get it.

We arrived as a player was leading the set 5 games to 1 after losing the first set. But we arrived at the turning point of the set. As his opponent started to win games, this player started to loose his cool. His attitude went from one of cocky self confidence to aggravation. After his opponent won the set 7 to 5 he threw his racquet across the court and stormed out of the arena. When he arrived back for the third set he was constantly arguing with the umpire and grumpy with himself. He lost.

It got me reflecting on my own attitudes. I recognise that I have bad attitudes at times. Now it would be easy to say that we should all just switch our attitude, but that would be a glib, unhelpful platitude. I admit that I don't have an easy answer. I struggle to change my attitude. Sometimes I am forced to challenge my attitude by spending time with people or a situation towards which I have a bad attitude. As I have suggested before, if we can learn to understand our differences and embrace our diversity then we can move forward together. For me this is usually the only way that I can change a bad attitude. But of course it takes a commitment to challenge myself. Sometimes I just couldn't be bothered with the challenge. But when I can be, I find that I do move forward and 'win the match.'

What about you?

What I read today:

Under Obama the radical religious conservatives could become more dangerous than ever

Giving Blood

Today I gave blood. Every couple of months I go into the city and donate 470ml of my O+ blood to the Red Cross. I think it is a great thing to do and everyone who is eligible should get in there and give it a go. And for those who don't like needles, neither do I.

Here's why I think giving blood is such a good thing to do.

1) It is easy. You just sit there and it flows right out of you. It's almost as if your body is designed to do it, bleed that is.

2) It makes a difference. Just ask anyone who has received blood or a blood product. Think of people in emergency wards across the state, people receiving treatment for cancer, etc.

3) It is an anonymous, random act of kindness. I don't know what the blood bank is going to do with my donation today. I don't know if they are going to send it to an operating theatre to put into someone who has had a workplace accident. I don't know if they are going to split it into various parts and in a months time 5 different people will be walking around with a bit of me pumping around inside them.

4) It is egalitarian. My blood could go to an AFL footballer, a high flying businessman or a homeless guy who got beaten up by some idiot. It doesn't matter. I don't give to receive, although I do hope if I ever need blood there will be enough for me.

5) It reminds us that on the inside we really are all the same. We all bleed the same colour. My blood is the same blood as everyone else. It is all interchangeable (within blood type compatibility's obviously).

When are you going to give?

What I read today:

The forgotten victims of the Middle East

Rick Warren: Political and Moral Agendas

My name is Earl

Yesterday I watched the comedy show 'My name is Earl'. Earl is a bad boy who the law finally caught up with. While in goal he was introduced to the idea of karma. Earl's life is forever changed and upon release he writes a list of all the bad things he has done to people. He then sets about righting the wrongs on his list so as to avoid bad karma. He has a very simplistic understanding of karma, which adds to the laughs.

What happens every episode is that Earl goes to make up for his wrong doings. He expects it to be a simple case of righting the wrong. However every episode shows the ongoing consequences that his actions have had on his victims.

Now obviously I don't believe in karma, but the show highlights that even small actions have very large impacts on the lives of the people involved.

When I reflect back on my own life I realise that who I am today is because of the thousands of little incidents that have happened over my life, rather than 4 or 5 'life changing moments'. I realise that how we handle the small things really does matter in the long term. My life has been impacted by small decision others have made about themselves, my interaction with them has been a by-product of their decisions.

Social Justice is a labour of small incidents. Choosing which tea to buy. Reading an article on sexual trafficking. Marching in an anti-war rally. Writing a letter. In and off themselves these are small acts, but they can have huge impacts.

Just like Earl we need to realise that if we do one small thing, good or bad, the flow on effects are huge.

Got any examples?

What I read today:

A peace rally where they wanted the soldiers to fight on

Communication quotes

Inclusion

How do we include people in what we do? How do we invite others to include people they find it hard to include?

I think that community should be a place of inclusion. We invite people into community so that we can share with them and they with us. Community therefore is inclusive by nature. But problems always arise. We have groups within our communities. One group is included in the whole community but struggles to be inclusive of an individual or another group within the community. What is worse is when those who are not included do not realise they are not included. People with mental health issues, or lacking the social skills to recognise that other people seek to not include them.

I do think there is a difference between excluding people and not including them. It is a fine line. It would be easy to say that exclusion is when we actively seek to stop people from being involved. But what about excluding people by not being sensitive to their needs? Holding a meeting in a building with a flight of stairs stops people in wheelchairs from attending. The choice wasn't made actively to exclude those people, but the choice of venue is certainly not inclusive of people with varying needs.

I believe in Christian community we should provide an inclusive environment for people who struggle to be included elsewhere. But how do we handle people who feel included themselves but wish others to not be included? It is not as easy as saying 'You should include them because they have no friends, just like you have no friends.' It is the challenge of creating real community rather than just a group of people who gather together to receive something (friendship, acceptance, etc.)

What is your experience?

What I read today:

The audacity of hope

A rational world

The end of an era

Today I attended my 91 year old grandfather's funeral. My grandfather was a true gentleman. To hear him acknowledged as such by a wide variety of people, people his own age, people who work with people his age and people of younger generations, suggests the truth of the statement.

He was a gentleman and as I reflected on his passing I was forced to reflect on the passing of the idea of being gentleman. The ideals that I think of when I remember his life are not the ideals that I see in society around me. The little things, like opening a door for a lady and always walking on the roadside of the footpath (to get hit first by a wayward car) that reflected his understanding of his role in the world. He was far from a servant, but he did serve. He was also a gentle man. As far as I understand he swung the belt when needed (he was a man of his time), but it was a role he filled rather than a role he loved. He served his country in a time of war. He served his community and his family in times of peace.

He was an 'Aussie battler' of the real variety, rather than the A Current Affair kind. He worked on a dairy farm, when the land was cleared by hand. He drove a milk truck, when the milk crates were lifted onto the truck rather than the milk being pumped. He drove trucks and towed the caravan around Australia in a time before airconditioning, powersteering, ABS brakes and tinted windows.

I reflected today on the place of the gentleman in Australian society. Is it a quaint ideal? Does it belong to a bygone era, when men were Men and women stayed at home, cooked the dinner and did the washing? But again that isn't what I hear of my grandfather's life story. He was a man who loved the farming lifestyle. The hard work, the outdoors, the mateship. But he also loved his family, and they couldn't endure the farming life. So he moved into town and raised his family, still doing hard physical work.

I don't think the idea of the gentleman is a quaint ideal. I don't think that it belongs in a bygone era. I do see in some of my male friends a flicker of that gentlemanly spark. The virtues of hard work, service, commitment to family, simplicity, humility and dependability are ones I wish to emulate.

Here is a poem that my grandmother wrote about her husband:

Les

He stands tall among me:

Outstanding!

Because of his simplicity;

Expecting little from life

for himself

And yet

He gives freely of his skills

His time, his love

To others

Never one to blow his own trumpet

Though he has plenty to blow

his trumpet about ...

Always read for a laugh

For his ready wit he is valued

He sees in simple things

The larger picture;

Not obscured by wealth

Or the need to perform

to other's standards

He is always there when needed

He is strong, reliable, kind,

His name is Les.

Commun...

Had a chat to some friends today and we got to discussing communication in community, of course after the obligatory discussion about the weekend's football action. Whilst having this discussion a very basic concept hit me in the face. It is so basic a concept that we often over look it. Community, Communication, Commune, Communion, Commonwealth, etc. are all words built on the same root word.

When we are in community we share something in common. When we communicate we share seeking to find common ground. A commune is a group of people living in community sharing ownership and the division of labour. Communion is the people of God sharing together in a common activity and relating to God. A Commonwealth is where the wealth of a nation is considered to be held in common by all the people.

Obviously that is a gross simplification of each of those concepts but the simplicity of their connection hides the challenge inherent in the idea of commonality.

In community it is much easier to find that which divides rather than that which we have in common. In communication it is easier to argue over a slight difference than seek to find the common ground. In the Christian traditions how we do Communion (or don't do it) can be one of the biggest points of conflict between us. In our Commonwealth we do a good job of dividing the nation rather than uniting around our common values, ideals and beliefs (in a non-Howardian way).

Tomorrow I am going to try to spend the whole day looking for what I have in common with the people around me. Why don't you try it as well? I would love to hear how you get on in the comments.

What I read today:

Who would Jesus smackdown?

A Prayer ritual shared in religion and football

Deferred responsibility

Modern western society is built on the idea of the Social Contract. Individuals of a society give up some of their rights to the nation in exchange for the benefits that being part of that nation. For example citizens give up the right to absolute freedom in exchange for the civil order that comes from having laws and a police force to enforce those laws. The social contract is also the idea that gives legitimacy to governments and states. Individual citizens form a social contract with the state and allow it to exist.

The second theory I was thinking about today is the idea of a deferred responsibility. A parent who sends their child on a school holiday program while they work is an example of a deferred responsibility. The parent is responsible for their child's supervision over the holiday period but instead they defer that responsibility to the provider of the holiday program.

As a society we have become very good at the concept of deferred responsibility. As part of the social contract we defer responsibility for providing for the disadvantaged in our community to the government who have then deferred that on to private organisations. When we watch 'a Current Affair' and they show us the poor state of a nursing home we immediately lambast the money hungry owners of the nursing home. However under the concept of the social contract we are all responsible, by extension, for that nursing home.

As far as the social contract extends we as citizens are responsible for the actions of our government because we have given them legitimacy through the social contract. We are therefore responsible for their budgets, their wars, their healthcare plans, their lack of public transport, etc.

Do you take this into account when you watch 'A Current Affair'?

What I read today:

Behold the Jewish Jesus

Emergent Salvationism

Desensitised

I presented a workshop today at the National Christian Youth Convention (NCYC). During my presentation I showed a video produced by Stop the Traffik which, among other things showed a protest featuring a girl holding a sign which had written on it "13 year old virgin for sale". The protest was to highlight the plight of the victims of human trafficking. During the question time I was asked if the pack I was talking about had any information on how to handle sensitive topics like that with young people. It wasn't something that we had thought about when putting the packs together.

Whilst acknowledging the relevance of the question and the need for information along those lines I also responded with a thought in the back of my head. I said that this generation of young people is perhaps the most desensitised to violence and other visual stimuli generation ever.

I was reminded of the group of young people in Britain who stood at the bottom of a building while a young person stood at the top and threatened to jump to end his life. The young people on the ground were yelling out to the boy at the top to jump. The police were horrified but were unable to stop the mob. When the boy eventually jumped, the crowd rushed forward with their mobile phones out to record and photograph the dead body.

I wonder how much this desensitisation has effected young people's interest in issues of justice? The news reports coming out of Gaza are just another movie on the TV showing war and destruction. Why should we care? These are not the images of the Vietnam war beamed back to a disbelieving public who had never witnessed anything like that.

Do we care? Are we too desensitised?

What I read today:

A statement from the bishop of Jerusalem

Why creationism is not the biggest threat to schools

101 Goals in 1001 days

So I have decided that I am going to take part in the 101 goals in 1001 days challenge. Now that I have decided that I am going to have to put some thought into what goals I want to achieve. I also need to plan some categories for my goals, to make sure that I get a fair cross section. Currently I am thinking of the following categories:

1) Personal(/Selfish)

2) Personal Development

3) Community Development

4) Faith/Mission/Spirituality

5) Outdoors/Hiking/Travel

6) Relationships

7) Fitness/Healthy Living

If you can think of any more categories, or have some suggestions for some goals then leave them in the comments section.

I think effective goal setting is a useful exercise for everyone, no matter your personality type. Obviously goal orientated people are more naturally inclined towards setting goals but they aren't the only ones who will benefit from them. Goals keep us accountable to what matters in our life and achieving things that are going to have lasting impact. I see plenty of people who are extremely busy, but yet achieve very little. They don't achieve much because their action is not directed and is blown here and there by other people's situations, needs and desires.

I came across a good question while researching for 101 goals in 1001 days. It was simply, "will this matter in five years time?" If it will matter, then it is worth investing time and energy into. If it won't matter, then don't worry about it and instead find something that will matter.

So who wants to join me on a 101 goals in 1001 days journey? If we start on the 4th of April then we will finish our journey on the 31st December 2011.

What I read today:

101 goals in 1001 days

Will all of this matter in five years time?

Connection with the land

I read today that a steering committee has recommended that all Crown land in Victoria should be opened to Native Title claims by Indigenous groups. If this was to come to fruition (it still has to become legislation and pass the parliament) it would be a great step forward for Reconciliation in this state.

A number of years ago I was able to walk with the Indigenous custodian of Wilsons Promontory. He spoke of the Aboriginal heritage of that place and their connection to the land in that place. Anyone who has ever been to the Prom recognises that it is a spiritual place. That walk, more than anything else, has shown me the connection that our Indigenous people have with this land. It also showed me the lack of connection that we non-indigenous people have with the land.

While some indigenous cultural practices might change our use of the land (not climbing Uluru for example) I think that this would be for the best. For too long we have tried to live in Australia as if we lived in England. We steal water from the rivers to irrigate farmland to grow and graze food and animals from Europe.

The article currently highlights a problem with the current system. Indigenous groups currently have to show a continuous link to the land they wish to claim under Native Title. In Victoria most indigenous communities were relocated after colonisation and so have lost that continuous link. It is interesting to realise that I lived for 18 years in Gippsland and was never told once that it was the site of numerous massacres of the Indigenous population. Their disconnection from the land is a direct result of European colonisation.

It is definitely time that we recognised the indigenous communities connection with their land.

What I read today:

Native title reform bid

Isreali troops enter Gaza City

Cultural Change

I have to admit that the inspiration for this post came after reading Gen's post over at the JustSalvos blog.

Twice in the last week I have seen people wearing a 'uniform' for a cultural event. At Sensation (a dance party at Telstradome on NYE) there was some 40,000 people all dressed in white dancing the night away. Today at the SCG was Jane McGrath day, with everyone encouraged to wear pink to support the McGrath Foundation in the fight against Breast cancer.

Gen in her post talks about the ability of Disneyland to 'create a culture', a culture where people don't litter and everyone enjoys themselves. She talked about the ability of culture to shape behaviour.

I on the other hand want to reflect on how culture takes shape. All culture is fluid. From now on the third day of the Sydney Test will be Jane McGrath day and everyone will be encouraged to wear pink. That cultural event is shaped by the tragic loss of a cricketer's wife. A negative event has been transformed into a day to raise awareness and funds in the fight against breast cancer. The fact that Jane McGrath was married to one of Australia's most famous sports person helped her death, as opposed to any other person's battle with cancer, to create a cultural change.

Viral marketing is a form of cultural change. It aims to spread a message like a virus. Word of mouth, create a buzz. When I read the New Testament I see a viral marketing campaign of sorts. There was a message that was spread. It was an alternate culture, but yet was culturally relevant and culturally engaged. I don't think the same can be said of the church today.

How do you want to make a difference in our culture?

What I read today:

Binge culture curses 'lost generation'

Pulp Mill decision a 'dark day for Tasmania'

Questions

Melissa in her comment on my previous post brought up the issue of questioning. I think that a question is perhaps the most powerful tool on this earth.

William Wilberforce asked the question "is it right for human beings to be enslaved by another human?"

Martin Luther King Jnr asked the question "why is my son judged by the colour of his skin and not the content of his character?"

I could go on but I think you get the picture. Questioning of the status quo is what is required to find new directions and challenge stale assumptions. But a question is not always negative. Ask someone what they love about their spouse and you are sure to get a string of positive traits. The question can assist in pointing out the positive in a situation.

Questions can bring us closer to those around us. "How do I fix this broken wheel on my rubbish bin?" There is a level of vulnerability and humility in a question that empowers the person asked to respond.

For me the most influential question that I can remember from a faith perspective was being asked to respond to an article entitled, "Was Jesus gay?" I had to think through my thoughts on homosexuality but more importantly I had to ask some big questions about who I believe Jesus was as a human being. Most Christians I know would shake their head and tut tut at the question, some would even consider it blasphemous. I on the other hand remember fondly the challenge of that specific question on my faith journey. It challenged my assumptions and beliefs. But you know what, they survived. Not only that, they were also strengthened by the asking of a hard question.

What hard questions have you grappled with?

What I read today:

Tim Costello talks about Paris Hilton and the Celebrity syndrom in this article.

Free to Air Networks not serious about multiple channels