A righteous man
Loves the Lord
Reads the Law
And prospers
–
A wicked man
Hates the Lord
Ignores the Law
And is judged
Blessed is the Lord
Who raises the righteous
And judges sinners
Month: September 2015
Reflection on Proverbs 31:10-31
The perfect wife
Is hard to find
She serves her family
Working hard to feed them
Toiling to clothe them
Running a business
Working a trade
–
Her children bless her
Her husband adores her
The city thanks her
The elders admire her
Today’s Sermon
Book Review: The Anchoress
Historical fiction normally isn’t my favourite genre but the title of this one got me in.
In the Middle Ages, a woman of exceptional piety could choose to go into voluntary life-long seclusion in a cell attached to a church. For the rest of her life she would live separated from the world and only communicating from behind a screen or curtain. Such a woman was called an anchoress and her cell an anchorhold.
It is hard for us to imagine such a life of self-imposed restriction in the name of seeking a deeper life with God.
This is a story that has little action apart from what goes on in the head of Sarah, a newly enclosed anchoress. Despite this it is strangely compelling, an insight into a world that is foreign to 21st century modernity.
This book is a real page turner leaving the reader wondering right up to the end, if Sarah would keep the course she has set for herself. Will she resist the powerful people around her? Will she remain faithful to her vow or seek to leave the anchorhold?
An excellent book.
Should Adulterous Pastors Be Restored?
Here is a thoughtful article from “Christianity Today” about how the church should handle pastors who fall from grace. The author makes the strong distinction between forgiveness and restoration to ministry. I don’t know that I agree with everything in the article but it’s worth a read.
Should Adulterous Pastors Be Restored?
The Bible’s teaching about returning fallen ministers to the pulpit.“Genuine forgiveness does not necessarily imply restoration to leadership,” former CT editor Kenneth Kantzer once wrote after the moral failure of several prominent evangelical leaders. Yet the impulse to link forgiveness with restoration to ministry remains strong. Here two pastor-theologians argue for the importance of keeping separate the restoration to the body of Christ and restoration to pastoral leadership.
The North American church is seriously vexed by the question, “What shall we do with an adulterous pastor?” Over the past decade, the church has been repeatedly staggered by revelations of immoral conduct by some of its most respected leaders. How do we respond to those who have sexually fallen and disgraced themselves, shamed their families, and debased their office?
The typical pattern goes like this: The pastor is accused and convicted of sexual sin. He confesses his sin, often with profound sorrow. His church or denominational superiors prescribe a few months, or often one year, in which time he is encouraged to obtain professional counsel. Then he is restored to his former office, sometimes in another location. He is commonly regarded as a “wounded healer,” one who now knows what it means to fall, to experience the grace of God profoundly.
While each situation must be handled with pastoral wisdom, and some fallen pastors indeed might someday be restored to leadership, we believe this increasingly common scenario is both biblically incorrect and profoundly harmful to the well-being of the fallen pastor, his marriage, and the church of Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus was tempted in all points just as we are, yet it was his testing, not any failure, that made him strong. If we do not think clearly, we may be subtly encouraging people to grievous sin so they might experience more grace and thus minister more effectively. Incredibly, in the present context, some are saying things that imply just this notion.
The Forgiveness Approach
The commonly held view. reasons that a repentant and forgiven minister who was previously qualified for pastoral office remains qualified on the basis of God’s forgiveness. Was he qualified previously? Has he confessed his sin? Has God forgiven him? Then we must also.
This logic rests upon the unbiblical assumption that forgiveness of sin is equivalent to the “blamelessness” (or unimpeachable character) required of pastors in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. If this thesis is accepted, all God requires is that a fallen pastor be forgiven.
But this confuses the basis of our fellowship with Christ with public leadership and office in church. No one argues that the fallen minister cannot be forgiven. No one should argue that he cannot be brought back into the fellowship of Christ’s visible church. But to forgive a fallen pastor and to restore him to membership in the church is much different than restoring him to the pastoral office.
The “forgiveness approach” is inadequate because it does not deal realistically with two facts: First, adultery is a great sin; and second, pastoral adultery is an even greater sin.
Full article here
It’s Not About Marriage
From Citizenlink:
Human Rights Commission to Consult About Religious Freedom
I suppose this is, well, needed. But here is the problem- once we consider that human rights are granted by Government then we give them the ability to take rights away.
I wouldn’t trust the Human Rights Commission with my freedom.
From the Bible Society:
National conversation about freedom of religion set for November
NEWS | Tess HolgateThursday 3 September 2015
A new roundtable is set to put a spotlight on religious freedom in Australia, intended to spark a discussion that many commentators say is long overdue.
This November will see the Human Rights Commission convene their first religious freedom roundtable, with the aim of “stimulating much needed dialogue on exercising religious freedom in 21st century Australia,” said Commissioner Tim Wilson in a press release.
“Religious freedom is not only central to human rights, it is inextricable from other fundamental freedoms such as freedom of thought, conscience, speech and association, as well as property rights. But religious freedom cannot be unlimited. It has to be exercised with a respect and mindfulness of the rights of others such as equality before the law and government, and the freedoms of those without faith,” said Wilson.
In a speech for University of Notre Dame last year, Senator George Brandis wrote, “one of the fundamental freedoms of which we have heard far too little when we speak about human rights is the right to religious freedom. In fact, not only has religious freedom been neglected; it has actually been the subject of open attack from those who dominate much of our political discourse.”
In his speech, Senator Brandis explored the connections between the liberal view of society and traditional Christian theology, concluding that the former is a direct product of the latter.
“Religious belief is central to the human condition. Faith provides a means to help people that cannot be explained, even though it might be apprehended. It can also enable us to see ourselves as part of something larger, and thereby free ourselves from our base, everyday selfish concerns. Faith also has a unique ability to provide consolation in the face of life’s vicissitudes and to help us cope with its hardship,” says Senator Brandis.
“The Australia we know today is home to a diversity of faiths, united by tolerance, mutual respect and a commitment to democracy. Australians are free to choose their religion, and are able to practice their beliefs without intimidation and without interference, within the framework of Australian law and any attempt to interfere with that freedom is a profound outrage against our nation.”
Lyle Shelton, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby says the roundtable is a positive move. “Tim Wilson is showing tremendous goodwill in wanting to address issues of religious freedom in Australia. I appreciate his desire to ensure there is religious freedom in this country.”
Shelton says the issue of religious freedom is most pronounced where there is a clash of rights. “Certain rights can come into conflict with the very important right of religious freedom and freedom of conscience. I don’t think we’ve worked out how to adequately address this.”
These competing rights make resolution “very difficult,” says Shelton. “The political debate at the moment is that if you don’t support people’s right to sexual expression, then somehow you are bigoted. While the debate remains framed like that, then it’s going to be very difficult [to find a resolution].
“Until we see a change in the way that this debate is conducted, I think the logical extrapolation is that it’s going to be hard for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.”
Shelton wants to see a renewed emphasis on human rights as explained in the United Nations charter. “We’ve got to see the principles of the UN applied. That is, that religious freedom and freedom of conscience are a higher right that the right of sexual expression.”
Gordon Preece, director of the Ethos EA Centre for Christianity and Society thinks of it more as a balancing act, saying, “the balancing of religious freedom, which is a fundamental freedom, with things like sexual freedom is really important, and requires a lot of fine tuning.”
Preece is not naïve about the challenges to religious freedom in Australia, suggesting that one of our biggest challenges is figuring out how to make space in a secular society for both those who see religious freedom as an ultimate and fundamental freedom, and those who see sexual freedom as ultimate.
“It’s a big challenge for our society because sexual freedom is seen as an identity issue rather than just a behavioural issue. And then it lays claims on ultimate position. When it does that, that’s when you really get the clash with religious freedom because it will not book any competitors.”
This clash of freedoms is not going to be resolved with one sit-down at a roundtable.
“I think it’s going to be an ongoing conversation, over time. There are some major philosophical and worldview clashes which may not be able to be completely resolved – at the level of worldview – but may be able to be accommodated with compromises that allow for various groups to still have a sense of maintaining their integrity.”
Preece admits that finding and agreeing on such compromises will take a lot of grace and good listening – something that social media, and even mass media is not very good at doing.
“I think it’s important to try and develop non-adversarial forums that are face-to-face and allow the humanity of all parties to come through,” says Preece.
The challenges to religious freedom aren’t stopping any time soon. “In Victoria,” Preece says, “the Greens are proposing a bill that would drop religious exemptions in relationship to employment of practising gays in schools.”
“So [the roundtable discussion] is a good thing, and it’s good that Tim Wilson is proposing it. I think it’s helpful that this is coming to light now.”
The Human Rights Commission is calling for submissions from faith-based and other interest groups. Submissions close September 25.
Diversity or Uniformity
Tolerance is so 20th Century. We now demand total conformity.
From Australian Family Association
They don’t want diversity, they want to impose complete conformity
There were howls of protest from the same-sex marriage lobby when Sydney’s Daily Telegraph recently reported parents objecting to a documentary on gay families being compulsory viewing in a Sydney high school.
Senator Penny Wong tweeted that this was “bullying”, automatically classing as bullies parents wanting to teach a different value system to the same-sex marriage lobby.
Fairfax media’s Brisbane writer, Rebecca Shaw, who describes herself as a well-adjusted lesbian in her 30s, wrote an article saying, “I won’t accept your ‘tolerance’” and demanded “complete acceptance” (The Age, August 30, 2015)
Effectively, Shaw demands that all those who believe in man+woman marriage must now abandon their beliefs and accept the view that marriage is between any two people with any combination of numerous sexual orientations and sexual identities.
If the same-sex marriage lobby can make such demands on everyone, then why can’t the Labor Party demand that all Liberals must abandon the values that make them Liberals and must embrace only Labor values?
Why can’t anti-religious secularists demand that Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists – all people who hold religious beliefs – “completely abandon” their beliefs and “completely accept” secular beliefs?
Rebecca Shaw’s demand for complete acceptance is a demand for complete uniformity of beliefs to create a homogenised society.
Complete acceptance of one value system destroys diversity and creates uniformity. It is authoritarianism.
Has the same-sex marriage lobby lost its pride in diversity?
The ground rule for a liberal democracy is tolerance of another person whose views differ to yours.
You can disagree with your neighbour’s values but tolerate your neighbour who believes them. You can disagree with your neighbour’s lifestyle without inflicting vitriolic abuse, hatred, bullying, denigration and threats of legal action.
This is most clearly demonstrated by civil debate between opposing groups.
The demand for “complete acceptance”, not just for same-sex marriage but also for the sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) into anti-discrimination law, is itself “intolerant”.
“Complete acceptance” abandons diversity for universal conformity.
If realised, this demand moves society from a liberal democracy to an authoritarian state where only one belief system is promoted by government and the institutions that make up the state.
When democracies cease to be tolerant, they can quickly become tyrannical.
By Patrick J. Byrne (Patrick is a regular contributor to News Weekly magazine, and Vice-President of the National Civic Council)
A New Aussie World Record
From the ABC:
Wool world record: 42kg fleece shorn off overgrown sheep in Canberra, RSPCA says
Updated
Wool shorn off an overgrown sheep found near Canberra yesterday has set a world record for the heaviest fleece removed in one shearing, the RSPCA says.
The sheep, found yesterday, underwent a risky shearing operation to remove 42.3 kilograms of wool.
It smashed the previous world record held by a sheep in New Zealand called Shrek, whose fleece weighed 27 kilograms.
This morning, a national shearing champion took on the challenge to clip the sheep, which wasrescued by RSPCA staff after being reported by a member of the public.
It was so woolly its life was at risk, as sheep can develop serious medical conditions if they are not regularly shorn.
Vets were worried the animal could go into shock during the shearing, so it was sedated during the process.
The RSPCA estimates the sheep, which could barely walk due to the mass of wool, had not been shorn in more than five years.
It took four-time Australian Shearing Championship winner Ian Elkins and four helpers 42 minutes to shear the sheep.
An average fleece that has not been shorn for 12 months weighs about 5 kilograms and takes three minutes to shear.
Mr Elkin said it was a difficult job.
“It was a challenge but the sheep was calm and the vets gave it a mild sedation before we started the shear,” he said.
“We started on the belly, just laid it on its back, kept it comfortable.
“There were parts of the sheep where we had to cut it in different layers because the problem for me shearing it was the weight of the fleece was pulling on the skin and we wanted to keep the skin cuts to a minimum.”
Sheep to be put up for adoption: RSPCA
With 35 years in the sheep shearing business, Mr Elkin said he had never seen anything like it.
“I’ve shorn a few sheep with two years’ worth of fleece unshorn, they would cut 10 or 12 kilos,” he said.
“Sheep are shorn every 12 months and an average weight would be 5 kilograms. For this to cut over 40 kilograms and smash the world record, Shrek the New Zealand sheep, he cut 27 kilograms, it’s unbelievable.”
One runaway Tasmanian sheep, known as Shaun, lived in the wild for six years and was found with fleece that weighed more than 20 kilograms.
Mr Elkin believes the fleece will not be sold.
“Because of the length of it, it’s 42 centimetres long. It will have no commercial value but it will be interesting to see what the RSPCA do with it, whether they put it in a museum or something like that,” he said.
RSPCA spokeswoman Jane Gregor said the animal was being checked by vets.
“Obviously it was a bit hard to check yesterday,” she said.
“Once everything’s fine we’ll put him up for adoption.”
Reflection on Mark 7:24-37
Scripture
They were completely amazed and said again and again, “Everything he does is wonderful! He even makes the deaf to hear and gives speech to those who cannot speak!”
Observation
A Gentile woman comes to Jesus and begs Him to cast a demon out of her daughter. Jesus tells her that He has been called to Israel and it would be like taking food from children to feed the dogs. But she counters this by saying that even dogs can eat the scraps from the children’s plate.
Jesus is pleased with her faith and He tells her the demon has left the girl.
Jesus then goes to another place where a man who is deaf and has a speech impediment comes to Him. He heals the man immediately to the amazement of the crowds.
Application
There are times when Jesus wants to provoke people to a deeper faith. We want to see Jesus as a kind of vending machine to give us what we need, but He wants to take our relationship with Him deeper.
Sensing a profound faith and a strong spirit in the woman, He presses in with an apparent rebuff to her that merely reveals a deeper faith than was on the surface.
The Lord deals with us each in individual ways according to our needs. He Is no “one size fits all” God.
Prayer
Thank you Lord for your unfailing love. Help me to always trust you. Amen.
New Life Narrabri 