Skip to content

Tag: culture

Published on Leave a comment on Sending our representative to the seat of power

A Tale of Two Thursdays

On Thursday we sent our representative to the seat of power.  Eastbourne chose Stephen Lloyd to send him to Westminster.  He will now represent us in matters relating to parliament.   Whether you personally voted for him or not, he is our representative, he represents the whole constituency.  And we have sent him to the seat of power to appear for us before parliament.

That’s what happened last Thursday.  This coming Thursday we celebrate something that dwarfs the general election into relative insignificance.  This coming Thursday is Ascension Day.  You see after Good Friday where Christ made the one sacrifice for sins on the cross, He rose again on Easter Sunday and then appeared to hundreds of His followers over a period of 40 days.  Then, 40 days after He rose, it was Ascension Day – the day Christ ascended from among us as the King of Glory and went to the true seat of power.  He ascended to the right hand of God the Father – the throne of the universe.  And Jesus Christ – our Flesh and Bone Brother – sat down to rule heaven and earth as our representative.  We have sent our man to the seat of power to rule on our behalf.

At Christmas we sing the line “Pleased as Man with man to dwell.”  On Ascension Day we can sing “Pleased as Man for man to rule.”  He hasn’t just descended to us to become one of us.  He has ascended from us to reign for us.

Look at verse 24:

24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; He entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.

Jesus Christ sits on the seat of power and He appears in Heaven FOR US.  Pleased as Man for man to rule.  He rules on our behalf.  And this is so much better than anything a politician could offer us.

But maybe the first question we want to ask about our representatives is this: Are you qualified to rule?  Do you know how to use power?

QUALIFIED

Our conservative MP kept telling us about his track record in parliament, he knew his way around the halls of power, you could trust him. The Liberal Democrat MP pointed to his years of successful business – he knew how to lead.  And we want that for our representatives.

Well chapter 1 of Hebrews began by telling us Christ’s qualifications.  When Christ ascended to heaven 2000 years ago He was not a new kid on the block.  No Hebrews 1:2 says He is:

heir of all things, and through Whom God made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.

Jesus is qualified to sit on the throne.  It’s where He has always belonged.

But you know, we can get turned off a politician if we think they’re just big and powerful.  We also want to know that they are one of us.

ONE OF US

During the election campaign the various candidates kept trying to tell us how Eastbournian they really were.  “Born and bred in Eastbourne” is a line that goes down well with voters.  The candidates want to be able to say: “I know all your issues, I suffer all the same trials as you do, I’m one of you.”  That’s what wins votes.  That’s what’ll get you political power.

But what about heavenly power?  Can we really believe that the One who sits on heaven’s throne is ONE OF US?  Well Ascension Day says Yes.  The book of Hebrews says Yes.  Jesus Christ, was born and bred in our constituency.  That’s what Hebrews chapter 2 was all about.  Look at Hebrews 2 and v14: “Since we have flesh and blood, He too shared in our humanity.” (v14).

Or verse 17: “He was made like His brothers in every way in order that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in service to God [representing us to God].”

Born and bred in our constituency.  Suffering all the same troubles that we face.  Verse 18 says “He Himself suffered when He was tempted and He’s able to help us when we’re tempted.”  The Ruler of the Universe has gone through all the trials we go through.  The One on the throne is one of us!

FOUGHT OUR BATTLES

And He’s fought all the same battles that we fight.  In the election, everyone wanted to claim that they’d saved the DGH.  You might have thought that they’d thrown themselves in front of bulldozers to save the maternity ward.  Because it was a battle that affected us all, and all the candidates wanted to be able to say, “I fought the powers that be and I won through for Eastbourne.”  That’s going to win votes.

Well Jesus Christ fought the ultimate powers that affect us.  In chapter 2 we read halfway through v14:

By His death He destroyed him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- 15 and freed those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

Jesus went to the cross.  And there He fought against the powers that be – sin and death and the devil.  And He alone defeated them.  He’s not just qualified, He’s not just one of us, He’s fought our battles and won!

But more than that, He’s sympathetic to our suffering.

SYMPATHETIC TO OUR SUFFERING

When a politician says “I, like you, have suffered through the recession and I know what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet” that’s a vote-winner.  We don’t believe them, but it’s a vote winner.  And if they’ve made good through adversity we reckon that this breeds character.  And it makes them more approachable if they can sympathise with our suffering.

What about Jesus?  Heb 4:15

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Chapter 5 speaks more about Christ’s sufferings for us.  The One on the throne sympathizes with our suffering.  He was Himself THE Great Sufferer.  So we can go to Him.

But there’s something else I want from my representative.  I want them to be above reproach...

ABOVE REPROACH

The expenses scandal has damaged a lot of politicians from all the parties.  And I’m sure it damaged the former MP who held office here.  We want our representatives to be completely above board, to be pure and blameless.  We have a great fear that power corrupts.  And we hate to think that our politicians are corrupt.

But do we ever wonder whether heaven is corrupt?  Whether heaven rules righteously?  When things go wrong in life we’re very tempted to question whether the universe is being run fairly and above reproach.  Can we be certain that the One who sits on the throne is not just a self-interested, power-hungry bully?  Can we be sure of that?

Well yes we can.  Because of Ascension Day, we know that the One in absolute control is absolutely pure.  The One up there has been down here and He’s been completely transparent with us.  Think of the Gospels.  Even Christ’s greatest enemies couldn’t make their smear campaigns stick.  And the One thing He’s shown that He does with His power is He gives it away to protect and serve the weak.  That’s the One who sits on the throne.  He is above reproach.  Look at chapter 7 verse 26:

26 Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Jesus Christ the Son of God is qualified to rule, He’s one of us, He’s fought our battles, He sympathizes with our suffering and He’s completely above reproach.  That’s what we want in our representatives in Westminster and we probably won’t get it, let’s be honest.  But this IS what we already HAVE in heaven.  We have a Great High Priest who represents us right now as He occupies the true seat of power.

Don’t put your trust in politicians or in politics or in parties or in electoral reform.  You can pray for all of that, you’re commanded to pray for all of that, but you’re commanded to pray for all that because that’s not where the real power is.  Your real representative occupies the true seat of power.

Audio of sermon

For more text continue reading...

...continue reading "Sending our representative to the seat of power"

7

Published on 7 Comments on I’d like to appear on your behalf – gratis

Far and away the best Australian comedy ever made, The Castle is a must-see movie.  Brilliantly observed, funny, heart-warming and if you're not punching the air at the triumphant ending I fear for the state of your soul.

The Kerrigan family are threatened with eviction by a nasty corporation.  But 'a man's home is his castle' so they fight it through the courts and... (last second spoiler alert!)... win.

It taps into some deeply felt Australian myths.  It's about home and land - with overt references to aboriginal land rights.  It's about family and mateship and a fair go. Most of all it's the myth of the little Aussie battler winning through.

Or is it?

In the story, Darryl Kerrigan (right) is completely helpless.  He's all at sea in a legal world far beyond his understanding.  As much as he wants to protect his family, he's absolutely powerless.  His fate, and the fate of his household, lies with one of two advocates.

First, Dennis Denuto (left) makes terrible representation (see below).  All is lost.

But a saviour is found in Lawrence Hammill QC (centre).  Everything changes the minute 'Lawrie' utters those words, "I'd like to appear on your behalf - gratis... free!"

To the court, Darryl Kerrigan only looked as good as his representative.  When his representative was poor, his case was thrown out.  When his representative was good, he was utterly vindicated.  His destiny lay in the hands of his advocate.

As an audience, we have a soft spot for the Kerrigans.  But Lawrie wins our hearts.  Only the emotionally constipated could watch his final speech (not shown above) with dry eyes.

The Castle's not about a working class hero who never gave up.  This is not the story of one man standing against the powers that be - much as we love that myth.  It's about the powerful one stepping down for the weak.  It's the strong advocate who graciously intercedes.

Therefore - two things.  1)  Go and see The Castle if you haven't already!

And 2) realise this:  You are not the determined little guy who'll make good in the end.  You're facing trial - powerless and guilty.  But you have a brilliant Advocate.  He says, "I'd like to appear on your behalf - gratis!"  And He makes faultless representation to the court of heaven.  You stand in Him completely vindicated.  What kind of Advocate is this!

24 Because Jesus lives for ever, He has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them. 26 Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.   (Heb 7:24-26)

19 Even now my Witness is in heaven; my Advocate is on high. 20 My Intercessor is my Friend as my eyes pour out tears to God; 21 on behalf of a man He pleads with God as a man pleads for his friend.  (Job 16:19-21)

.

3

Published on 3 Comments on Statism

Two perceptive comments on the evils of statism:

Pete Jackson

James Cary

And one symptom from the news today:

In the year since November 2008, when the [Baby P] case came to light, more than 8,000 children have been taken into care, an increase of 40 per cent...

John Hemming, MP, found that of the 8,173 care orders applied for in 2007... only 21 were refused outright [by the judge].  “In other words the judgment of risk of the social workers ... was so good that they were only completely refused by the judge 0.27 per cent of the total,” he notes.  Nowhere else in the legal system is the hit rate so high.

Article

.

Published on Leave a comment on Dawkins versus dualism

On this recent Australian panel show Richard Dawkins was served up a number of Christian politicians on a plate.  And he quite rightly ate them for breakfast.  Of course, given their distinct lack of back-bone, they wouldn't have been hard to chew.  But you do have to wonder why the key match-ups weren't scientist versus scientist, or atheist versus Christian - but atheist scientist versus... MP.  Huh?

Anyway both Pete and I found this particular quotation from Dawkins interesting.

I think that the existence of a supreme being - a supernatural supreme being - is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn't. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a... supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory from if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we're looking at a totally different kind of biology...

So I think you can't just say religion and science have nothing to do with each other. Science can get on and you let people have their own religious - of course you let people believe whatever they like. But you cannot say that science and religion are completely separate because religion makes scientific claims. It certainly makes scientific claims about miracles, as I mentioned before, and you cannot reconcile an authentic approach to science with a belief in miracles or, I suspect, with a belief in supernatural creation. At least the very least you should say is that this is a scientific question.

Here was an oasis of clarity in a desert of dualism.  While other panelists were falling over themselves trying to affirm both evolution and "the one who provided the amino acids in the first place”, Richard refused to compartmentalise either religion or science.  Good.

But if Dawkins is right here - and I think he is - then there are two major mistakes you must avoid.

1) You must avoid tacking on some kind of super-intending god to the science of naturalism. Whatever god of the gaps is left by a scientific method designed to exclude the supernatural is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Christian assumptions mean a very different way of doing science .  There may be great overlap at points but the foundations are very different.  Don't pretend that Christian assumptions matter in the theology class but not the science class.  They matter as profoundly in theology as they do in science (and everything else!).

2) You must avoid judging creationists by the very same scientific method used for naturalistic enquiry.  If indeed science 'with God' would be conducted differently than science on atheistic assumptions then to test the effectiveness of YEC science you'd want to avoid just assuming they were wrong, wouldn't you?  I mean that wouldn't be very fair - not very scientific.  Well then, you're going to have to walk a mile in their shoes rather than simply test them by a scientific method that excludes divine words from the outset.  Instead, if you want to do science ‘with God’ – you’d better allow Him to BE God. ie You’d better allow Him to speak, for that to be your authority and then to move out into the world on the basis of His word. That would be good science wouldn’t it?  If God is God – that would be the only kind of science you could do.

So I think Dawkin's words need to be heeded here - first by Christians who want to conduct and affirm science on common foundations to naturalists.  But second by Dawkins himself.  If he really believed that science ‘with God’ was entirely different then he wouldn’t be judging YEC science by naturalistic science. But he does this all the time!

.

.

Published on Leave a comment on You can make it say anything you want

It's not just the bible you know.  Everything's a matter of interpretation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7h6o3I8yw&feature=player_embedded

.

Amazing how just a handful of cinematic shorthands and visual cliches can so readily trigger responses that have absolutely nothing to do with the content!  I'm sure there's a lesson there.  But for now just enjoy the silliness.

Happy Friday.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Expensive tastes

From yesterday's Telegraph:

An angry airline passenger ate an £8,930 winning scratchcard after he was told he could not claim the money immediately.

The unnamed man was flying with Ryanair from Krakow, in Poland, to East Midlands Airport when he won €10,000 with the scratch card.

Cabin crew on the flight confirmed he had a winning card, but told the passenger he would have to collect the jackpot directly from the company that runs the competition as they did not have enough cash on board the plane.

Ryanair said the man then became frustrated and started to eat his winning ticket while on the flight on Thursday.

His rash actions mean he has lost any chance of claiming the prize money, which will now be donated to charity.

Stephen McNamara, a spokesman for Ryanair, said the cabin crew and some passengers had attempted to persaude the man not to eat the ticket, but he stood up and ate it anyway.

.

Published on Leave a comment on God is a Haggler

Genesis 18:20-33

God is a Haggler.  He wants us to haggle.

What do we feel about that?

Here's a website offering to take the cringe factor out of your financial exchanges.  Instead of negotiating with a real, live human being, you can simply click a button in the privacy of our own home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PfggfGIRP4

Are you from a haggling culture?

I wonder whether the way we shop and the way we pray are linked.  I'm used to fixed prices, no negotiations, no back and forth, no give and take, in and out in 18 seconds, the less chat the better.  And my prayers?  Are they just as clean and clinical?  Do I know what it is to haggle with God?

Here's audio from a 10 minute talk for our prayer meeting last night.

Click below for the rest of the text.

...continue reading "God is a Haggler"

Published on Leave a comment on The strange new world of the bible

What do you see when you look up?

This?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0lxbzgwW7I

or this:

ht Mark Meynell

A theological revolution occured early last century when Karl Barth turned from his liberal protestant heritage to jump with both feet into "the strange new world of the bible" (the title of an early book of his).

Have you jumped in, or only dipped your toe?  It's a very hard thing to do.

It's so hard, you might just need Mike Reeves, Michael Ward and CS Lewis as guides.  So if you haven't listened to this brilliant podcast - do so forthwith.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Who sounds sillier – Stephen Baldwin or Richard Dawkins?

Stephen Baldwin has been ridiculed for his comments on Celebrity Big Brother regarding evolution.  He said:

If we're descended from apes, how come there are still apes?

Ok, a misunderstanding of the theory.  But is the theory more or less silly than the misunderstanding?

Here's Richard Dawkins answering the very objection Baldwin makes.  See if you can watch it with a straight face:

[youtube="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE"]

What we have here is a Professor of Zoology faced with a line up of four apes and an accountant from Swindon.  And he refuses to identify the odd one out.  The whole story he invests his life in says that none are superior to any other - all are equally well adapted to their environment.  It's just 4 monkeys and Pam sitting in a tree -  M-U  T-A-T  I-N-G.

To say that Dawkins has put Baldwin right is like saying:

Ohhh.  Sorry for thinking your theory was nuts.  I thought you believed in alchemy.  Now I realize you have a magical goose to lay your golden egg.

.

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer