These Infinite Spaces

The Pulpit - Onesimus - Foster

2012-01-31T21:19:00.001+11:00

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=52cBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA72&dq=the+pulpit+biographical+%22henry+foster%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-b8nT4e8IeWuiQeS5KDQAg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Great quote about web debates...

2012-01-29T17:08:00.001+11:00

"If you get into a fight with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it"

Management Tool - Open The Front Door

2012-01-23T23:11:00.002+11:00

This is a helpful little management technique you can use when you want to change behaviour. It's called "Open The Front Door", which is a mnemonic device for the four step process - "Observe Think Feel Desire".

The first step is to state what you have Observed. For example, "I saw you slam the door."

Next step is to describe what the observation made you Think, that is, what conclusions you drew. For example, "I thought you must be angry with me".

Third step is to state how this makes you Feel. For example, "This made me feel sad and hurt, and a bit angry myself."

The final step is to state what you Desire, what you want to happen. For example, "I want us to be friends again."

It's a simple tool, but surprisingly effective in practice. Here's what you might say to a staff member who is on the Internet too much -

"Hi Jenny, I've observed that whenever I walk past your desk, you always seem to be on Facebook. This makes me think that you either don't have enough work to do, or you have work that you don't want to do. I feel frustrated by this because there is a lot to be done, and everyone else in the team is working really hard. What I desire is for you to be fully productive during work hours. How can we achieve this?"

You don't have to use the exact keywords, of course - equivalent words are just as good, and might suit your style better.

This technique can also be used outside of work. It could be useful in a volunteer organisation, such as a church. For example -

"Hi Sam, I've noticed that you haven't been at church much lately. This makes me think that you either don't enjoy it anymore, or else something prevents you from coming. I feel sad about this, because you've made such a great contribution in the past. What I'd like is to go back to the old days, when you were with us every week and really enjoyed it. How can we make that happen?"

Some people might think such an approach is too confrontational, but I've used this technique a number of times, and found that it really helps open up effective communication. Give it a go...

Software Estimation and Uncertainty

2012-01-23T15:44:00.001+11:00

This is a very insightful and compelling report on the subject

Very Easy Chicken Soup

2012-01-08T20:02:00.001+11:00

Made this tonight and it tasted great! Ingredients are -

5 carrots

3 celery sticks

2 onions

2 chicken breasts

1 cucumber

salt

pepper

thyme

Chop everything up and put it in a big pot. Fill with water until everything is covered. Bring to boil, then reduce heat and simmer for 3 hours. Add spices to taste. Delicious!

Why Microsoft will win the tablet war

2012-01-08T11:56:00.001+11:00

Microsoft looks dead in the water with regards to the tablet war. Windows 7, though a stellar OS for PCs, is far too cumbersome for tablets, and Win7 tablets have been non-starters. Windows 8 will run on ARM processors, and has been optimised for tablets - but it is not due to late this year, possibly next year. This gives Apple a massive lead, and even more time to consolidate their market dominance. The only serious competition at this point is Android, which is just starting to get serious in the tablet space.

Given this, it seems outrageous to suggest that Microsoft will one day dominate the tablet space. Still, I think it will. Firstly, history has shown that it is very foolish to write Microsoft off. I remember very clearly in the late 90s that people thought Netscape (and the internet) would destroy Microsoft. Seems laughable now, with Netscape just a distant memory, but people honestly thought that. Microsoft was very slow out of the gates with the internet, and instead messed around trying to build a proprietary public network. But once they realised what way the wind was blowing, they quickly made up ground and continued to dominate the OS scene throughout the noughties. In technology, it is very common for an early market leader to lose what seems an indominatable market position. Hello, Blackberry?

Next, you need to consider the Steve Jobs factor. Jim Collins in "Good to Great" found that rockstar CEOs tend to leave behind companies that struggle without them. With Jobs, you have the typical rockstar CEO with the volume turned up to 11. Apple customers weren't just buying into a product line, they were kinda joining a cult. Can the cult survive the death of it's guru? I'm doubtful in this case.

Lastly, we need to consider the advantages a well designed Windows tablet would have. The same cost dynamics that drove down the price of the original Wintel PCs would be at play, and so we can expect tablets at much cheaper prices than are currently available (my guess is that the magic number is about $250 for an entry level tablet). Business would jump on such a tablet in a way that they haven't with the iPad. The 90% of home users currently running Windows will be more tempted by a compatable machine. And there will be a heap of software (good and bad) flooding the market pretty quickly, free from Apples tightly regulated content regime.

All up, even if the first Windows tablet doesn't get here until 2013, and even if it is not that good, I would lay odds that MS will eventually win the tablet war.

Leadership Without Excuses

2012-01-05T20:14:00.002+11:00

I've been reading a few management books lately, but this one is the best so far - Leadership Without Excuses. Not only is it well written, it is intensely practical, and it's obvious that they guys have been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. The chapter headings alone show you they know their stuff -

Equip your people for moments of truth and tradeoff
Invest excruciating minutes to ensure role clarity
Use commanders intent to promote ownership. Stretch your people. Align them with your business strategy
Compete for attention
Boost the credibility of your high expectations
Reward what you want to see more of... and stop tolerating what you don't
Use the other F-word to tap hidden sources of motivation
Wield your biggest stick: the power to take things away
When you have no authority - use increased confidence and reduced anxiety as your consequence currency
Whet the appetite for truth
Prevent excuses before they happen
Banish the fantasies and fetishes that lead to fingerpointing
Treat mistakes as intellectual capital and give negative feedback that doesn't freak people out

What makes a great workplace?

2011-12-08T09:14:00.000+11:00

Some time ago, Gallup initiated a multi-year workplace satisfaction survey, covering hundreds of thousands of people. They came up with a list of 12 core dimensions that are consistently present in great workplaces. As a manager, get these right, and there is a good chance your people will be very satisfied -

I know what is expected of me at work.
I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
There is someone at work who encourages my development.
At work, my opinions seem to count.
The mission or purpose of my organization makes me feel my job is important.
My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.
I have a best friend at work.
In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.
This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

8 Habits of Highly Effective Managers

2011-10-30T17:34:00.000+11:00

These were put together by Google. Some good advice...

1. Be a good coach

Provide specific, constructive feedback, balancing negative and positive
Have regular one-on-ones, presenting solutions to problems tailored to the employee's strengths

2. Empower your team and don't micro-manage

Balance giving freedom to your employees while still being available for advice
Make "stretch" assignments to help them tackle big problems

3. Express interest in employees' success and well-being

Get to know your employees as people, with lives outside of work
Make new folks feel welcome, help ease the transition

4. Be productive and results-oriented

Focus on what you want the team to achieve and how employees can help achieve it
Help the team prioritize work, and make decisions to remove roadblocks

5. Be a good communicator and listen to your team

Communication is two-way: Both listen and share
Hold all-hands meetings and be specific about the team's goals
Encourage open dialogue and listen to the questions and concerns of your employees

6. Help your employees with career development

7. Have a clear vision and strategy for the team

Even amid turmoil, keep the team focused on goals and strategy
Involve the team in setting and evolving the team's vision, goals, and progress

8. Have key technical skills, so you can help advise the team

Roll up sleeves and work side-by-side with team, when needed
Understand the specific challenges of the work

Synod: Funding the Future

2011-10-13T06:59:00.001+11:00

Intense and interesting debate last night at Synod, primarily around the issue of funding. Briefly, there is a draft report before the Synod which proposes to fund much more of the "head office" activities from "parish taxes" (to use some loose, but understandable, terms). This proposal would effectively raise parish tax rates by about 50%, although from an admittedly low base. My back of the envelope calculation suggests the proposal would cost my church about $7k a year.

Synod passed a motion to send the report to Standing Committee - basically to do some more work on the drat and bring it back next year for approval. I was surprised that this motion passed without dissent, as I knew some people strongly opposed much of the report. As the night wore on, I understood what was happening. Derailing a bill like this is very difficult, so no-one tried. Instead, they attempted to "de-fang" it in various ways via ammendments. All of the ammendments went down, but some had considerable support in the house. A number of other people rose to, in theory, give speeches in support of the bill, but in reality to tell the house what was wrong with the bill. Standing Committee is "on notice" that the report needs some serious attention, or it will face some opposition next year.

My thoughts? Still quite undecided. I know that we need to restructure our finances, no question, but something about this proposal niggled at me. Sandy Grant may have nailed it when he pointed out that the bill put all of the "non-negotiable" head office costs on the parishes, effectively reserving all of the discretionary spending for the distributions from the endowments. This effectively means there is "no room to move" when it comes to parish taxes, as there has been in the past when various "taxes" have been raised for specific purposes, and voted for by the house.

Another thing bothers me a bit. A couple of people made the point that the endowment is "inheritence" money, and you shouldn't spend your inheritence on the groceries (ie. recurrent expediture). However - in the past, significant amounts of endowment money has been poured into recurrent expenditure in various parishes, mostly to subsidise "strategic" staff costs. My own parish has benefited from this. At least one ministry with an income of over half a million has had it's staffing costs subsidised for years, to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'm sure this situation will continue once the endowment distributions are freed up again. So the truth is that everyone is proposing the inheritence money be spent on the "groceries"! And one could argue that the net effect is that all parishes are being taxed a bit extra, for the purposes of subsidising the favoured few.

Synod - no fireworks, just constructive discussion

2011-10-11T23:07:00.001+11:00

Synod tonight discussed the report from the Archbishop's Strategic Commission on Structure, Funding and Governance. Hmmm...obviously no poets involved in the naming of that group. The report recommended a pretty major overhaul of the way the diocese manages it's investments. I expected some fireworks, but instead the discussion (not really a debate) generated much light, and little heat. There were obvious tensions between the Commission and the Anglican Church Property Trust, but there also seemed a desire to bridge the gap. No-one spoke against the motion (to send the report to Standing Committee), and only a few very minor amendments were raised. I guess the collective mind of Synod felt that reform was needed, and this was the only credible way forward.

I must say, I expect tomorrow nights debate on parish cost recoveries (ie. taxes), to be a bit more fiery...

Synod 2011

2011-10-09T21:10:00.001+11:00

It is Synod time again for the Sydney Anglican church. For those who don't know, a Synod is the governing body of the diocese, kind of like a parliament that meets once a year. It consists of both clergy and elected lay representatives (such as myself). In some ways, it can all seem a bit far removed from the day to day world of the pews. This distance, though, is a bit illusory - the decisions of Synod can (and do) profoundly effect what happens at the local parish level.

For those who want some more detail, the Synod 2011 home page is here. There are a lot of links to more links there. I'll give you some more help. The "guiding document" is the Business Paper, which lays out exactly what Synod is going to discuss and vote upon. You can see the Business paper here. The final two pages are an "Indicative Timetable for Synod Business", and they highlight the big ticket items. More on that below.

As per the usual pattern, Synod will run from Monday to Wednesday this week, and Monday/Tuesday next week. It starts about 3 in the afternoon, there is a break at 6 for dinner, then it resumes from 7pm until about 9. The critical bills are usually reserved for the time slots after 7pm - presumably to allow those who are working regular business hours (like myself) to participate. Furthermore, the pattern seems to be to have these more contentious bills on Tuesday and Wednesday of the first week.

What's hot this year? Funding is going to be the big debating point. On Tuesday evening we'll be discussing the report from the Archbishop's Strategic Commission on Structure, Funding and Governance. You can read the report here (pages 1-57). This commission was established after the bodies charged with managing the diocesan investments lost a cool $140M when the GFC hit. The report is pretty dry reading, but it recommends a substantial restructure. Synod wont be voting on the restructure itself, it will simply be asking Standing Committee to come up with legislation to implement the restructure, which will be voted upon at future Synods. Still, there will be a fair bit of debate about the recommendations, and also some more discussion about the failures of the past.

Wednesday night will see the Parochial Cost Recoveries Ordinance etc put forward. You can see the text of this bill here, and some background info here. Essentially this proposes to raise "Parish taxes" slightly to pay for head office functions - functions that were previously funded by investment income. The increase is slight, but I suspect this bill will be controversial, because it is the start of a longer term game to shift more head office costs on to the Parishes. This is no secrets, as that evening we will also be discussing a draft of Funding Principles and Priorities for 2013-2015, which you can also download here (pages 83-86). If the principles in this document were adopted, one estimate suggests it could increase parish taxes by an average of around $10,000 per year. This will certainly "bite", and I expect this to be another controversial discussion.

Lots to think about, and I look forward to seeing where the debate heads. As always, it will be an interesting Synod this year!

Thomas Dykes Bio

2011-10-02T15:22:00.001+11:00

http://books.google.com/books?id=G_UDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA481&dq=Memoir+of+the+Rev.+Thomas+Dykes&hl=en&ei=d-aHToHVL9CKmQW5opQb&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Memoir%20of%20the%20Rev.%20Thomas%20Dykes&f=false

Microsoft rips up the script

2011-09-24T16:38:00.001+10:00

I don't blog too much about my job, but friends know that I manage a team of programmers, and we mostly operate in the Microsoft technical space. A couple of weeks ago Microsoft held their "Build" conference, which discusses the future of development tools, and they took the chance to unveil their Windows 8 preview. It is a bold and radical new vision for desktop computing, and a major change for Microsoft developers. Windows 8 uses the new "Metro" style for the desktop. Metro originally came out of their "Windows Phone" technology, and it effectively looks like big chunky icons which scroll in the way that the iPhone has made famous. Metro will effectively mean a single interface style across desktops, tablets and phones, which is a pretty radical departure from what we have now.

Under the covers, it all means big changes for programmers. For the last 15 years MS development has been ground in what is known as the Win32 API, and for the last 10 years the focus has been on the .NET API which runs on top of that. MS are killing off Win32 and introducing WinRT, a slicker and more powerful API which takes advantage of things like hardware acceleration. .NET will still be there for C# and VB programmers, but it will be trimmed down and (from what I can see) the WinRT API will be accessed transparently via it's own namespace, rather than all the P/Invoke stuff that we had to do before. Interfaces will still be developed in XAML (so all those anxious Silverlight developers can chillax, because their skills are still completely relevant).

The interesting thing is that MS are now supporting native development in HTML5 and Javascript. As far as I can see, Javascript doesn't run in the .NET CLR, it just access the WinRT stuff directly (I guess the javascript interpreter is effectively the virtual machine). The HTML5 stuff is supposed to be super-optimised, and running as close to the metal as possible. They showed more than a few of these Javascript/HTML5 metro apps at Build, and they looked good.

Some .NET developers are wondering though - are the Windows team secretly hoping to eventually push *everyone* toward HTML5/Javascript for Windows development? For myself, I can't see it. XAML is still a much nicer interface language than HTML5, and C# is a much better language than Javascript, and the .NET Framework Class Libraries give you all sorts of goodies. I think the more serious applications will continue to be written using these tools. The big test, of course, will be future versions of Microsoft Office. If Office 2013 is written in HTML5 and Javavscript (!!!!), then I'd say .NET/XAML are on their way out. But personally, I can't see it.

Stack Exchange - Christianity

2011-09-24T09:35:00.001+10:00

The Stack Exchange format has had a huge impact on the world of IT - every programmer I know uses it now. For those who don't know, Stack Exchange allows you to post questions and answers to those questions, and vote the questions and answers up or down. Pretty simple - but done so beautifully and well that it has become a huge phenomenon. There is now a "Christianity" Stack Exchange site. If it takes off, it could be huge - http://christianity.stackexchange.com/.

Tough times ahead for parish finances

2011-09-18T14:54:00.001+10:00

I think we are in for some pretty tough times with regards to parish finances in our diocese, in both the short and long term.

In the short term, I think most sectors of our domestic economy are weaker than thought, and unemployment might rise a bit more. Coupled with this, parishioners are facing record high costs for rent, mortgages, power, groceries and fuel. So I suspect the plate will be squeezed a bit from all this. At the same time, it seems likely that parishes will need to make a greater contribution to the costs of the episcopate - if it is to continue in it's existing form, that is. I suspect there will be some anger about this, by the way.

Long term, demographic shifts mean that a large portion of generous supporters are about to retire, and the generation following is a bit anemic in terms of numbers, which will futher hit finances.No easy answers there. Some parishes will adapt to changing circumstances, and even thrive. Others will survive, but struggle to come to grips with the changed reality, always hoping for a return to the prosperous noughties and nineties. And other parishes will fold, hit by the dual whammy of declining finance and an aging membership.

One thing that will happen, I think, is that diocesan spending will be scrutinised over the coming years in a way that it hasn't before. I suspect the investment review that has just completed will be a pattern for similar and broader reviews in the years ahead.

The Eclectic Society

2011-09-02T21:01:00.000+10:00

"Our new institution at the Castle and Falcon promises well. We are now six members and voted in a seventh last night. We begin with tea, then a short prayer introduces a conversation for about three hours upon a proposed subject and we seldom flag... I think they are the most interesting and instructive conversations I have ever had a share in." John Newton, 1783, after the second meeting of the Eclectic Society

Why aren't we growing?

2011-09-02T19:24:00.001+10:00

Excellent analysis of the challenges facing the diocese of Sydney

Australia's Christian Heritage???

2011-08-29T21:46:00.001+10:00

I grind my teeth in frustratiion when some on the Christian political right talk about Australia's "Christian Heritage". Sometimes they give the impression that things have fallend from some great religious height. If you wonder what our religious heritage is, look at the following comment from William Henry, a preacher in Sydney. It was written in 1799 -

"Religion is truly at a low ebb here, and there is little probability of its being otherwise until matters take a great change in the colony. It is become quite fashionable among the officers and others, who should set the convicts a good example, to stay away from church and neglect the worship of God, and it ceases to be deemed foolishness with some of them to scoff at religion and sacred things and treat the Holy Scriptures of truth with contempt and ridicule. In short, infidelity, at present, like a mighty torrent, runs through the colony, and threatens a universal deluge. There are few of the officers who are not either Atheists or Deists. I have had several controversies with some of them, but have been obliged to lay aside the Bible, as its authority was of no consequence with them, and reason with them from principles of philosophy in vindicating some of the great truths of Christianity. I am not fond of holding controversies with such persons."

(Source: Historical Records of NSW, Hunter 96-99, p 714-714)

Kategoria lives on

2011-08-27T15:57:00.001+10:00

Good to see this publication available online

Modern Reformation

2011-07-28T21:25:00.003+10:00

Looks like they now have all back issues online. I can hardly describe the influence this magazine had on my theological development, especially the early volumes. I discovered the magazine in the late nineties. Every Monday I'd go to a local asian restaurant for lunch, the articles clutched in my hand, printed in miniscule 4-up. As my mouth greedily devoured a hot laksa, my mind greedily devoured the pages. Mind-blowing stuff. Good memories...

Update: Please note that some of the articles are still behind a pay-wall. They all used to be free. Ah well. Still lots of great content there.

The Briefing goes online...

2011-07-27T17:59:00.001+10:00

Well, this is good news... The folks at Matthias Media are planning to put The Briefing in it's entirety online and for free from now on. I'm sure that will imediately increase it's reach and influence. I hope it all goes well, and I'll be checking regularly.

Creationism and the Early Church

2011-07-24T21:10:00.002+10:00

I've just had a quick skim over this online book, called Creationism and the Early Church. I'm on the opposite side of the fence to the Young Earth author, but I appreciate that he has assembled a lot of source material in one place. I also appreciate that he makes two important concessions - first, that there was a diversity of views about Genesis in the early church, and secondly, that many of the church fathers did not interpret Genesis 1 literally (in our modern meaning of the word).

The Jerusalem Bishopric

2011-07-08T20:47:00.001+10:00

As early as 1838 Lord Ashley had written in his diary, "Could we not erect a Protestant Bishopric at Jerusalem?" But the actual proposal came from quite an unexpected source. In 1841 the King of Prussia sent Chevalier Bunsen to England to sound the authorities of Church and State on this very matter. "The King," so ran Bunsen's instructions, "has from early youth cherished the idea of amending the condition of Christians in the Holy Land, where the condition of all Christians is ignominious, and that of Protestants doubly so. . . . Protestant Christianity can entertain no hope of recognition in the East, unless it exhibits itself as a united body. The Government have been accustomed in all ages to see those who acknowledge themselves to be co-religionists act together as one body subject to uniform discipline. If, therefore, Protestant Christendom were to insist on being recognized under all its separate denominations, the Turkish Government would undoubtedly hesitate to grant such recognition." His proposal was that the English Church should appoint a Bishop at Jerusalem to superintend the German congregations as well as the English missions; he offered £15,000 towards the endowment of the See, and suggested that the Bishop should be nominated alternately by the Crowns of England and Prussia, the Archbishop of Canterbury having power to veto any of the Prussian nominees; all Lutheran ministers in charge of congregations in Palestine would then be ordained by the Bishop after signing the Thirty-nine Articles.

The Evangelicals took up the scheme with enthusiasm. Lord Ashley used his influence with the Government to gain its consent. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London warmly welcomed the proposal. Broad-minded High Churchmen like Bishop Wilberforce and Gladstone favoured it, hoping, as probably the King himself did, that it would lead to the introduction of episcopacy into Prussia. Dr. Hook subscribed to the fund, and wrote a pamphlet defending it. But the Tractarians were furious, not only because there was already an Oriental Bishop of Jerusalem, though Pusey himself pointed out that the rule of antiquity allowed people who spoke different languages each to have a Bishop of their own, though living side by side, but also because the scheme involved the recognition of Prussian Protestants as fellow-Christians, whereas the Tractarians regarded them as ex-communicate heretics. Newman sent a strong protest to the Archbishop, and, when the scheme was adopted, declared that this was the blow which finally shattered his faith in the Anglican Church.

In September, 1841, the Bill passed through Parliament, and in November Michael Solomon Alexander, a Jew by race, a Prussian by birth, and for many years a devout and learned clergyman of the Church of England, was consecrated at Lambeth as Bishop of Jerusalem. On his death in 1845, the King of Prussia nominated Samuel Gobat as his successor, a Swiss, who had been trained at Islington College, and had served as a C.M.S. missionary in Syria and Egypt. He was still Bishop at the time of the Society's jubilee.

Extract from "A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England" (G.R.Balleine)

The New Sydney Anglicans

2011-06-24T13:01:00.006+10:00

A review of "A Fresh Look at Mission"

Now, I imagine no-one will like the title of this review. Those who organised this conference have been at pains to express their continuity and solidarity with those who have gone before. And there's also a danger that whenever you are seen as the "New" anything, all sorts of disaffected cranks will jump on board and try and hi-jack what you are do.

And yet as I listened to the speakers (via the website), it was increasingly apparent that they are proposing something substantially different to the status quo, and so the "new" label seems appropriate, even if these men themselves don't appreciate it. And after all, the word "new" is not so dissimilar to their own label, "fresh". But I doubt they'd like to be known as the "Fresh Sydney Anglicans"!

Generation X is inexorably taking over the world, and this is as true of the diocese as elsewhere. Among this group are some of the leaders of this generation, in our little Anglican world, at least. A leader is someone who paints a vision of the future, and inspires others to pursue that vision. This is what these fellows are doing. Part of their influence is due to the mastery of technology, which often happens in Christian history. The retiring generation of leadership came to prominence, at least partly, through their mastery of the then new technology of desktop publishing. The new leadership have obtained influence (at least partly) through the mastery of digital technology.

Anyway, here are some dot points I took from the prepared talks (I wont go into the interview, Q&A or panel session). I will speak frankly about what I liked and didn't, and also point out a few of the elephants in the room. One disclosure up front is that a number of these men are friends or warm aquaintances, so keep that in mind as you read.

Welcome (Moffatt)

Justin Moffatt was the host for the day. His church, St Phillips York St, is uniquely placed to host events like this - essentially all of Sydney's rail and road networks converge at his door. You couldn't run something like this from St Blogs Woop Woop. In his brief welcoming address he said that he assumed people were at the conference because they were passionate about reaching the city with the gospel, and believed ("or were willing to believe") that that being an Anglican was a great way to do this.

Thank God I'm an Anglican (Jensen)

In a provocative and entertaining talk, Michael Jensen passionately defended Anglicanism. He went so far as to state that Anglicanism was the very best way to be an Evangelical, and the best way to reach the city. The old phrase "just a good boat to fish from" is not good enough anymore, as people are opting for indie church plants at a greater rate. We need to convince people that the Anglican heritage is, actually, something valuable and worth embracing. This does not mean a return to robes and 1662, but it does mean Bible, creeds, sacraments, liturgy, parishes, the episcopal system, being rational, and being missional. Michael is criticical of the "Anglican lite" that is so prevalent in our churches.

Mission to Gen Y: A Case Study (Moffatt)

Justin gave a 15 minute talk describing his efforts at reaching urban Gen Y with a new evening service in the city. He believes he has picked the vibe of his mission field correctly, and results seem to back that up, as he has gone from nothing to about 100 people in a bit over a year. He modestly admitted that he had seen very little numerical growth in his morning church. He went through some characteristics of his new service - gospel centric, thoughtful contextualisation (who lives here? pound the streets!), traditional ("light" liturgy, creed, calendar), generous, joyful, "influence not control, insights not information", community, "organised love" (food is important), a culture of creativity, affirm "work, rest and play" as part of their doctrine of creation. Challenges to current methods would be the use of liturgy, the focus on community and creativity, and the affirmation of secular work. It is a holistic vision.

Sydney is Your Friend (Clarke)

Greg Clarke gave an enlightening talk on the nature of our engagement in the world. He was gracious, but I imagine this talk will challenge (and possibly offend) some people as well. He suggests that Sydney Anglicans have become far too negative in their approach to the world, especially the media. He proposes a more irenic and constructive approach, citing his experiences at CPX as a good example. It was a very good talk - my summary does not do it justice!

Lessons from Connect 09 (Nixon)

Andrew Nixon gave a brief summary of some lessons from Connect 09. It was a more downbeat talk than I expected - he stated that growing the church at the same rate as the population is nothing to cheer about. Some good things were achieved in Connect 09 - lots of literature distributed, and many households contacted. On the other side, people were much less involved than everyone hoped, laity and clergy both. Some small steps were made in the right direction, but much more is needed.

Effective Leadership (Katay)

A very engaging talk on leadership from Andrew Katay. Leadership is not hard to understand - it involves a clear vision of both the present and a desirable future reality, and the ability to motivate people toward the vision (his own description was much richer than that - listen to the talk). Giving a vision without a clear path to get to that vision is a "joke" or a "con" (possibiliy a criticism of the diocesan mission). We have done a poor job at teaching leadership in the diocese. Theological college should teach theology - leadership needs to be learnt elsewhere. Lots more that was thought provoking in this talk, and I need to give it another listen.

The Way Forward (Dickson)

Another provocative talk, and one that will offend some people. At the same time, John Dickson spoke in an engaging and winsome manner. Six years ago, did not believe the Anglican church in Sydney had the ethos or flexibility to reach the city, but has "repented", and since become an Anglican rector, and "loving it". Wants to go "backward" - back to Anglican heritage, back to evangelical roots, back to the New Testament. Five reflections on the "ideal" church - devoted to Scriptural teaching (must scrutinise leaders, generous toward other denominations), pious abandonment to God (awe, need permission to "experience" piety, "reformed evangelical passion", "abandonment to God", "worshipping God only to the borders of respectability?"), recovery of the communcal aspects of the gospel life (fellowship, breaking bread, all social interactions, doing good to community, not just a mental faith, "goal of biblical knowledge is the biblical life", Dickson decries the change in Deacon vows), longing for evangelical increase (the Lord loves growth, Dickson thinks we need more "mid-sized" churches perhaps through mergers), enjoy the favour of the community (hints we have a persecution complex, need to adopt a more generous stance toward the outside world, better media interactions, smart alec letters to editor no good, handled SRE debate "terribly").

My Thoughts

This has been a bit of a rambling, stream-of-consciousness review. Partly because I'm pressed for time and wanted to get something up quickly, and partly because I want to put my effort into a proper feature for another medium.

But what is my reaction to all this? Well, these men are my generation, speaking my language, and some of them are my friends - it should come as no surprise when I say that much of what they are saying resonates with me. I like the rediscovery of tradition, the emphasis on community and joyful experience, and the respect given to work and the secular world. These all seem right corrections to me.

What am I worried about? Well, the current leadership may not have converted 10% of the city, but they have managed to keep the diocese faithful and (somewhat) fruitful over a long period. Any change from the status quo is going to make us all feel a bit nervous.

But my overall feelings are positive, and I look forward to debating these ideas further in the future.

Click here to comment (if we are not yet friends, feel free to send a request along with an intro)

A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England

2011-06-19T08:52:00.001+10:00

I've posted up a few more chapters from this classic work

A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England

2011-06-13T11:40:00.001+10:00

Just added Chapter 4 - The Early Evangelicals

Forgotten Evangelicals #4: Henry Venn

2011-06-09T21:58:00.004+10:00

From 1754 to 1759 Henry Venn was curate of the village of Clapham, and four times a week he rode into London to lecture at St. Antholin's, St. Alban's, Wood Street, and St. Swithin's, London Stone. On going to Clapham he had written to Wesley for advice, and two years later he had been present at the Methodist Conference at Bristol, but up to this time his views were not quite settled. In the autumn of 1757 Lady Huntington invited him to undertake a preaching tour with Whitefield in the western counties, but at the end she was not satisfied with the doctrine that he taught. "O friend," she wrote, "we can make no atonement to a violated law; we have no inward holiness of our own: the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord our Righteousness. Cling not to such beggarly elements, mere cobwebs of Pharisaic pride, but look to Him who hath wrought out a perfect righteousness for His people." This letter seems to have made him seriously think out his position, and, after further intercourse with Whitefield, he obtained a firm grasp of the doctrines of Redemption. When Walker of Truro visited him a few months later, he described him as "a London clergyman, till of late a sort of dependent on John Wesley, but now brought to believe for himself. He is a man very desirable in his temper, humble and teachable." But his chief work was not done in London. In 1759 he was called to Huddersfield...

Modern writers have rather misunderstood his position: he certainly was not "the first evangelist of the modern slum," nor was Huddersfield then "a huge, dark, manufacturing town." The Gazetteer still ranked it with the villages: though the parish included a large country district and several outlying hamlets, the population was only four thousand. Venn's work resembled Grimshaw's in many ways. Much of his time was spent on horseback, hunting out obscure parishioners in lonely farms and cottages. He drew the same enormous congregations, so that often the church could not hold the people, and the sermon had to be preached in the open air. He took the same care to make the services real. He would begin with a short exhortation reminding the careless that they were standing in the presence of God: a few words of explanation accompanied the Psalms and Lessons: and when the time for the sermon came, he had the same gift of moving thousands to repentance and tears. But his best work was done outside his pulpit. "He was one of the most eminent examples," wrote Sir James Stephen, "of one of the most uncommon of human excellencies, the possession of perfect and uninterrupted mental health." His common sense was sensible and sanctified in the highest degree, and shepherds and weavers, saints and sinners flocked to his study for advice. But behind all the good advice that he gave about farms or quarrels or marriages, there was always the deep desire to win the soul for God. "I wish you had known your grandfather," wrote Simeon long afterwards - to one of Venn's grandsons; "the only end for which he lived was to make all men see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." But after eleven years the work broke him down. A hacking cough and spitting of blood made it impossible to preach, and his friends procured for him (1771) the little agricultural parish of Yelling, where the lighter work enabled him to recover his strength, and to labour on for twenty-six years more.

Meanwhile he had made his influence felt in every part of England by his pen, for his Complete Duty of Man became one of the most popular devotional books of the day. More than a century before, on the eve of the Restoration, there had appeared a treatise on The Whole Duty of Man. Its author's name was never known, but it sprang at once into a semi-official position. It was chained in churches for the people to read. It was made the basis of instruction in the charity schools. It was accepted as the recognized statement of sound and sober Church teaching. If we want to grasp the type of Churchmanship which prevailed in the eighteenth century, we can see it in all its strength and weakness in this rather unattractive little volume. It was written at the height of the reaction against the Puritan theology, and its author tries to reduce religion to its most prosaic elements. Everything emotional, everything speculative, all passionate yearnings after holiness and communion with the Unseen are relentlessly excluded as delusions. Every sensible person, we are told, ought to take care of his soul, for it is the most durable part of him, but to do so he must "act by the same rules of common reason, whereby he proceeds in his worldly business." He must go to church, pay his tithes, keep the fasts, avoid drunkenness, and seek to do his duty as a neighbour, a master, and a son. Whitefield may be pardoned his exaggeration when he said that its author knew no more about Christianity than Mohammed. The Evangelicals were always pointing out the deficiencies of this book. Venn did something better; he provided a substitute. The Complete Duty of Man is just as practical as The Whole Duty. In his parish work he had learnt most of the average Churchman's difficulties. He deals with the duties of husband and wife, parents and children, masters and servants, neighbours and friends, the use of money, the sins of the flesh, the details of everyday life, but he deals with them in a very different spirit. "Christ the Law-Giver will always speak in vain, without Christ the Saviour is first known. All treatises to promote holiness must be deplorably defective, unless the Cross of Christ be laid as the foundation, constantly kept in view, and every duty enforced as having relation to the Redeemer." - "Duty first" is the message of the earlier book; "Christ the beginning and the end of all" is the message of the later; and by their fruits the two systems must be judged. No one would deny that the older school trained many upright men, the school in which Nelson learnt his great Trafalgar signal, but morally, spiritually England was perishing, and no man could find the remedy, until the Evangelical teaching swept through the land, revealing how sin could be conquered and duty consistently done.

Extract from "A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England" (G.R.Balleine)

Forgotten Evangelicals #3: John Thornton

2011-06-07T21:45:00.001+10:00

Another generous friend of the movement was John Thornton, a director of the Russia Company, who was said to be the wealthiest merchant but one in Europe. Cowper has sung of his "industry in doing good," "restless as his who toils and sweats for food." "Few," said Venn, "have ever done more to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and help all that suffer adversity;" and this was no exaggeration, for he spent at least £10,000 on works of charity. Nor did he limit his care to the bodies of men. "He purchased," said Richard Cecil, "advowsons and presentations with a view to place in parishes the most enlightened, active, and useful ministers. He employed the extensive commerce in which he was engaged as a powerful instrument for conveying immense quantities of Bibles, Prayer Books, and the most useful publications to every place visited by our trade. He printed at his sole expense large editions of the latter for that purpose, and it may be safely affirmed that there is scarcely a part of the known world, where such books could be introduced, which did not feel the salutary influence of this single individual." The best known of these books was his English edition of Bogatzky's Golden Treasury, from which he removed all extracts which seemed to verge on Moravianism, and substituted short meditations written by himself and his friends. This rapidly became one of the most popular Evangelical books of devotion.

Extract from "A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England" (G.R.Balleine)

Shine Music Conference

2011-06-06T21:33:00.001+10:00

Should be a good time

Forgotten Evangelicals #2 - Lady Huntingdon

2011-06-05T11:38:00.000+10:00

Extract from "A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England" (G.R.Balleine)

Selina, Countess of Huntingdon... was an earnest, strong-minded, imperious lady, daughter of one earl and widow of another, who devoted her whole life and fortune to the spread of the new teaching. The London churches might be closed to Evangelical clergy, but her house was always open, and a countess might have as many private chaplains as she pleased, and, if she cared to build a chapel in her grounds, no one could say her nay. Romaine became her senior chaplain, and the Evangelical clergy in the country were always sure of a welcome, whenever they came to London. "Good Lady Huntingdon,” wrote Whitefield, “goes on acting the part of a mother in Israel. Her house is indeed a Bethel. We have the Sacrament every morning, heavenly conversation all day, and preach at night. For a day or two she has had five clergymen under her root." Her chief aim was to evangelize her own class in society, and her "spiritual routs,'' as the wits called them, soon became a recognized function in the fashionable world. No Hostess in London was able to gather a more brilliant company of guests: the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cumberland, Lord North and the Earl of Chatham, Horace Walpole and Bubb Doddington, Lord Chesterfield and Lord Bolingbroke, the Duchess of Marlborough and Lady Suffolk, and indeed all the most illustrious men and women of the time, used to meet in her drawing-room to listen to her preachers; and, though much of the seed fell in very thorny places, some did bring forth fruit. The most important of her converts was the Earl of Dartmouth, the President of the Board of Trade and later Colonial Secretary. He was one of the most enlightened and cultured men of the day, patron of Watt's inventions and President of the Royal Society, and, after his conversion in 1756, he made it his special work to help forward the movement by securing livings for Evangelical clergy: he it was who sent Venn to Huddersfield, Robinson to Leicester, Stillingfleet to Hotham, Powley to Dewsbury, and Newton to Olney.

Meanwhile Lady Huntingdon was extending her work to other fashionable centres. By the sale of her jewels she was able to add a chapel to her house at Brighton. Later she bought a house at Bath, so that she might be able to build a chapel there— that chapel with the famous "Nicodemus corner" heavily curtained off, where bishops and other retiring persons might hear without being seen. Then her house at Tunbridge Wells was supplied with a chapel also, and all these were served by her chaplains in rotation. Her plan was to invite the Evangelical clergy to minister for a month at a time, while she supplied a substitute for their own parishes. But, as the number of chapels increased, the time came when this was no longer possible, and she, like Wesley, had to fall back upon lay preachers. To train these she established a theological college at Trevecca, but this never became a help to the Church: for in her old age Lady Huntingdon passed over into the ranks of dissent. The trouble arose over the Conventicle Act, which was always a thorn in the side of the Evangelicals — fifty years later it prevented Simeon from opening his Cambridge Bible-class with prayer. A large theatre surrounded by pleasure gardens had been opened in Clerkenwell for Sunday entertainments, and to stop this Lord Dartmouth and others bought the whole building, and determined to use it for mission services. They presented it to Lady Huntingdon in order that her chaplains might officiate; but this was on quite a different footing from a chapel in a private house, and the law at once interfered. The only way to make the services legal was to license the building as a dissenting chapel, and Lady Huntingdon, whose weakest point was inability to brook the smallest interference with her plans, rather than stop the services, chose this alternative (1782). All the Evangelical clergy resigned their chaplains' scarves, and she and her lay preachers became a separate body, which still survives as Lady Huntingdon's Connexion: but for thirty critical years her help and influence had been invaluable to the Evangelicals.

William Romaine - a forgotten Evangelical hero

2011-06-04T23:05:00.002+10:00

Extract from "A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England" (G.R.Balleine)

In London the Evangelicals at first were very weak. The Methodists were well provided with buildings. Whitefield had his tabernacle at Moorfields and his chapel in Tottenham Court Road. Wesley had the Foundry and many chapels in other quarters of the city. But for long the Evangelicals had not a single church. Their leader was William Romaine, a grave, scholarly man, who, while in his first curacy, had brought out a revised edition of Calasio's Hebrew Lexicon, a work of enormous labour, which was subscribed for by all the crowned heads of Europe. On the strength of this he had come to London looking for honours and promotion, "a very, very vain young man" — so he described his condition — "who knew almost everything but himself, and met with many disappointments to his pride, till the Lord was pleased to let him see the plague of his own heart." Here in some way that is not recorded the Revival touched him, and he gave the best possible proof of his conversion by taking his stand openly with the despised Evangelicals, though he knew that this meant the renunciation of all his hopes of preferment. His only regular appointment at this time (1749) was an afternoon Lectureship at St. Dunstan's, the famous old church in Fleet Street, where Tyndale had proclaimed the doctrines of the Reformation. Here for nine years he preached without interruption; but in 1758 the vicar died, and Alexander Jacob, his successor, strongly disapproved of the lecturers doctrine. The churchwardens also had a grievance. "Great crowds of people," they declared, "not parishioners, have been accustomed to assemble about the church every Sunday afternoon more than an hour before the opening of the doors, when Mr. Romaine was expected to preach, and to fill the aisles and pews as soon as the doors were opened, preventing the parishioners getting to their seats, and this crowd for two years past has been continually increasing." So the vicar and wardens determined to make an attempt to silence him. On consulting the founder's will they discovered that the money had been left for Lectures to be given while the courts were sitting; so on the first Sunday of the Long Vacation they met Romaine at the door, and informed him that he could not preach. On the first Sunday in the Michaelmas term a fresh surprise awaited him: he found the pulpit door locked, the vicar sitting in the pulpit, and the beadle sitting on the stairs, and he was told that the time of his Lecture had been changed to seven in the evening. His friends then took the case before the King's Bench, asking for a mandamus to restore the Lecture to its usual hour, and to allow it to continue all the year round, but the court decided that the vicar had acted within his legal rights. The churchwardens then declined to light or warm the church, or to open the doors a minute before the hour of the service, and preacher and congregation had to wait in the street, till the wooden giants on the tower had beaten out the hour of seven, and then grope their way cautiously to their seats. This was the only Evangelical service in any of the city churches, and very solemn and impressive it must have been, the crowded congregation sitting or standing in perfect darkness, while Romaine preached by the light of a taper, which he held in his hand. This continued for several years, till at last the Bishop interfered, and compelled the churchwardens to make proper arrangements. For forty-six years Romaine held this lectureship, and St. Dunstan's became "the rallying-point for Evangelicalism in London; but though he was now acknowledged to be the leading preacher in the city — people came from the country "to see Garrick act and hear Romaine preach" — though his manner was very grave and decorous, and his character above reproach, yet for seventeen years he failed to obtain any other permanent appointment. For a short time he was morning preacher at St. George's, Hanover Square, then at St. Olave's, Southwark, then at St. Bartholomew-the-Great, but in each case the prejudice against his teaching and against the "ragged, unsavoury multitude" who flocked to hear him was so strong that he could not stay. To attract the poor to church was an unpardonable offence. Friends urged him to give up the struggle; he was offered important churches in America, but he would not go. "Here my Master fixed me," he said, "and here I must stay. I am alone in London, and, while He keeps me there, I dare not move." At last, when he was fifty-two (1764), his patience was rewarded. The parishioners of St. Andrew-by-the-Wardrobe with St. Anne, Blackfriars, had the right of electing their rector, and, though he declined to canvass, the choice fell upon him. Here he worked for the last thirty years of his life, holding his own Sunday services in the morning and afternoon, and still walking to St. Dunstan's for the evening lecture. Meanwhile his three best-known books — The Life of Faith (1763), The Walk of Faith (1771), and The Triumph of Faith (1795) — were influencing thoughtful men in all parts of the country; and this influence was due quite as much to his life as his words. "He lived," wrote his first biographer, "more with God than with men, and to know his real history, or the best part of it, it would be requisite to know what passed between God and his soul." He died in 1795, and was succeeded by his curate, William Goode, who held the living till his death in 1816.

A History of the Evangelical Party in the Church of England

2011-06-03T18:22:00.001+10:00

Slowly reformatting this old classic for HTML... Hopefully I'll see it through to the finish!

Why I am a monarchist

2011-05-22T23:23:00.000+10:00

In Australia's republic referendum in 1999, I voted "yes" to become a republic. But over the last 12 years I've swung completely around on the question, and I am now a confirmed monarchist. What has changed? It's not through any particular affection for the royal family. But I've read a lot of history over the last decade, and I've come to realise that a stable system of government is not something you should take for granted. Look through history, and you will see that people are inventing new governments all the time. Most of them fail, and the ones that succeed only do so after a lot of pain. Australia is lucky - we inherited a good working system from Britain, a system which had been refined over the course of hundreds of years. I can't see any reason to substantially changed a constitution that has worked so well for over a hundred years. Nothing to gain - and lots to lose if we get it wrong...

William Wilberforce on Idleness

2011-05-08T13:20:00.001+10:00

"No man has a right to be idle. Where is it that in such a world as this, that health, and leisure, and affluence may not find some ignorance to instruct, some wrong to redress, some want to supply, some misery to alleviate?"

Genesis 1 and Poetry

2011-05-02T23:40:00.001+10:00

And... just to prove that Sydney Anglicans are not monochrome on this issue, here is a piece by Scott Newling on the Sola Panel asserting the historicity of Genesis 1. The fascinating thing about Scott's piece is that he manages to hold his position while treating those who disagree with him with respect. I hope certain other young earthers will follow his example...

Still here!

2011-05-02T23:06:00.001+10:00

Haven't posted much lately - been a bit tired with some sickness going around the house, lots on at work, and preparing to host a substantial ministry in our house over the next 3 months. Followers of recent discussions will be interested to know that I have just purchased this book - Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. As far as I can see, it is the most comprehensive and scholarly book available on this subject. There is certainly some interesting info in there, and I'll be posting up some quotes and comments in due course.

"There are three certainties in this life. Death. Taxes. And horrible Christian art."

2011-04-21T06:31:00.001+10:00

More here

The KJV turns 400

2011-04-19T20:49:00.001+10:00

A conference to celebrate

Simone's Exodus Map

2011-04-19T20:48:00.001+10:00

I like it

Science and Genesis

2011-04-17T17:23:00.001+10:00

Barry Newman is blogging extensively on this subject.

News & Views

2011-04-17T15:43:00.001+10:00

If there is a blog or RSS you think I should have in my "News & Views" feed, PM me on FB and I will add it in...

James 3

2011-04-16T09:06:00.002+10:00

For every creature—animal or bird, reptile or fish—is tamed and has been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men who are made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things should not be this way. Does a spring pour out sweet and bitter water from the same opening?

A bunch of Oz church leaders praise the Holman

2011-04-16T09:01:00.003+10:00

See here

Congregationalism?

2011-04-12T05:59:00.001+10:00

A helpful post by Mark Thompson

fishpond.com.au

2011-04-11T22:46:00.001+10:00

This is now one of my favourite websites. It's much better than it used to be, both in price and range. Free delivery anywhere in Oz, and prices are very good at the moment, thanks to the high exchange rate...

PCA Geologists and the Antiquity of the Earth

2011-04-11T21:55:00.002+10:00

"If the earth is old and Christians insist it is young, we risk becoming a tragic obstacle to faith for those both inside and outside the church. Non-Christians who logically understand geology conclude that the path to Christ requires belief in an intentionally deceptive god and choose to place their faith elsewhere. Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth's antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!"

Well argued, gentlemen

The Reformation and the Age of the Earth

2011-04-11T21:50:00.002+10:00

"Hmmm... St Augustine
or Henry Morris?"

The young earthers certainly show some imagination and flexibility when prosecuting their case. I noticed this years ago with the original creation science movement - as quickly as the old arguments had been torn to ribbons by plain reason, they erected new, more obscure and more convoluted arguments. Indeed, the entire creation science movement was, and is, a conclusion looking for a justification.

One especially fanciful charge recently laid at the door step of old earth Calvinists like myself is that we effectively deny the essence of the Reformation if we deny a young earth. Now, anyone with a passing aquaintance with Reformation history will be pretty puzzled by that statement, as the age of the earth simply was not a topic under debate at the time.

Now, I don't deny that Calvin and Luther were (most likely) young earthers themselves - just like most of their contemporaries. Yet it was not an issue of pressing concern for them - you will find scant references to the matter in their works. To claim it is somehow at the heart or of the essence of the Reformation is to display ignorance of the era.

It's also worth pointing out that both Luther and Calvin were geocentrists (that is, they believed the earth was at the center of the universe). In this they were no different to most of their contemporaries. Now, very few modern young earthers hold to geocentricism. The question then becomes - why does denying a young earth amount to a denial of the Reformation, when one can deny geocentricism without (apparently) imperiling one's soul? The inconsistency is glaring.

No, this is simply another argument that the militant young earthers have picked up, almost at random, in an attempt to bolster their position. It is clearly a nonsensical argument, and I have no doubt they will abandon it as quickly as they apprehended it, and will continue to scrabble about, looking for something, anything, they can use to prosecute their beliefs.

Sydney and Anglican - A fresh look at mission

2011-04-11T21:08:00.001+10:00

Looks like a good conference

The Genesis of Everything

2011-04-09T15:54:00.001+10:00

An interesting paper by John Dickson. I'm in general agreement with his conclusions...

Fresh Songs

2011-04-07T07:34:00.001+10:00

Check these guys out

Hebrew Scholars and the Age of the Earth

2011-04-06T23:50:00.001+10:00

The interpretation of Genesis 1 (and Exodus 20) is certainly controversial. My own view is that the Bible gives no definitive position on the age of the Earth, and therefore belief in an old Earth or young Earth is a matter of freedom for Christians, who will each follow their conscience.

Genesis and Exodus, of course, were written in Hebrew. So it's natural to ask whether Hebrew scholarship has anything to say on the matter. After all, if every Hebrew scholar says that Genesis/Exodus = young Earth, then the old Earth position would lack credibility. As it happens, there are a number of Hebrew scholars, from world class seminaries, who believe Genesis/Exodus may be interpreted in a way that is consistent with an old Earth. I'll discuss three in this post.

I'll start with Gleeson Archer, former Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity school (probably the finest evangelical seminary on the planet), and former Professor of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theological Seminary. His credentials make for impressive reading.

Writing of Exodus 20:10-11, Professor Archer states, "By no means does this demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days." With regards to Genesis 1, he says, "...it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam's experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day."

Another relevant scholar is John C. Collins, Professor of Old Testament at Covenent Theological Seminary, and also the Old Testament chair for the English Standard Version of the Bible. Speaking of the "day/age" theory, he contradicts a number of arguments that young earthers use -

Let's dispense with a few arguments that some have offered to support the ordinary day position. The first is the claim that since the 'vast majority' of readers in the history of the church have held that the days are ordinary, so should we - to do otherwise would be unbearable arrogance. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the 'vast majority' are right, regardless of the reasons that led to their reading. After the first century, very few Christians read Hebrew at all, until about 1500; this means that this 'vast majority' arrived at their reading of Genesis on the basis of the Greek Old Testament in the Eastern church, and the Latin Old Testament in the West. These translations are good in some places and bad in others, and our 'vast majority' didn't have the resources to know which is which...

[Another] faulty argument is the claim that the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture is at stake. That is, the Bible must be transparent in its meaning, and this favors the 'simple' reading. This argument is faulty because it actually misuses the doctrine it is supposedly upholding. I know of no responsible statement of this doctrine that claims that all parts of the Bible are equally easy to understand, or that we should prefer a 'simple' reading no matter what...

[Another] false claim is the idea that Christians changed their interpretation of the days in order to make peace with Darwinism. As a matter of fact, most of the interpretive options came into play before 1850 - and Darwin¹s Origins of Species came out in 1859. The big factor for many in the church was the new geology that began in the 1700s which seemed to most to prove that the earth was much older than a few thousand years. And if someone wants to make the counterclaim, 'You see, that just proves that geology is naturalistic, too,' he has to come to grips with the simple fact that most of the early geologists were devout Christians who were far from being naturalistic...

I'll finish with Walter Kaiser, former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and the Colman M. Mockler Distinguished Professor of Old Testament. Talking about Genesis 1, he states, "I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth "day" according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine."

Three highly distinguished Old Testament professors, all experts in Hebrew, all from world-class seminaries, and all open to an old earth interpretation of Genesis. It's a powerful witness to the intellectual credibility of the old Earth position. It also clearly contradicts those who, probably from ignorance, wish to claim that all credible Hebrew scholars support a young Earth reading of Genesis/Exodus.

Geek Times

2011-04-01T01:12:00.001+11:00

Mucking around with the data files for the original Colossal Caves Adventure

Church Governance

2011-03-31T08:01:00.001+11:00

Interesting post from Michael

The Sydney Family Album

2011-03-30T19:17:00.001+11:00

A fascinating series of posts on Mark Thompsons blog, tracing the clerical history of the Sydney Diocese.

Reasons to Believe

2011-03-30T18:19:00.001+11:00

A very helpful site for Old Earthers who have a high view of Scripture

Apple Pulls 'Anti-Gay' App after pressure

2011-03-30T00:30:00.001+11:00

Click here. (ht: Andre)

Labor 'cooked the books'

2011-03-29T07:16:00.001+11:00

BOF finds a black hole

Comments Off

2011-03-28T13:31:00.001+11:00

Turning comments off for the time being. Apologies for the inconveniance. Will cross-post on Facebook, feel free to comment there.

James Cook on the Aborigines

2011-03-27T10:52:00.002+11:00

"From what I have said of the Natives of New Holland they may appear to some to be the most wretched People upon Earth; but in reality they are far more happier than we Europeans, being wholly unacquainted not only with the Superfluous, but with the necessary Conveniences so much sought after in Europe; they are happy in not knowing the use of them. They live in a Tranquility which is not disturbed by the Inequality of Condition. The earth and Sea of their own accord furnishes them with all things necessary for Life. They covet not Magnificent Houses, Household-stuff, etc.; they live in a Warm and fine Climate, and enjoy every wholesome Air, so that they have very little need of Clothing; and this they seem to be fully sensible of, for many to whom we gave Cloth, etc., left it carelessly upon the Sea beach and in the Woods, as a thing they had no manner of use for; in short, they seemed to set no Value upon anything we gave them, nor would they ever part with anything of their own for any one Article we could offer them. This, in my opinion, Argues that they think themselves provided with all the necessaries of Life, and that they have no Superfluities."

The Christian and the Cosmos (part 1a)

2011-03-21T20:05:00.013+11:00

The Fathers and the Flat Earth

In the first part of this series, I remarked that belief in a flat earth was relatively common in the early church, though it had pretty much died out by the middle ages. I thought this was a fairly uncontroversial statement, but a number of people stated that I had fallen for "The Myth of the Flat Earth".

According to some, from as early as the period of late antiquity, pretty much no-one believed in a flat earth, especially in the church. This seemed to me a surprising thing, especially given how influential semitic culture (which was definitely flat earth) was in the early church.

Rather than take anyone's word for it, I've done my own research and gone back to the primary sources. And it turns out that, yes, there were quite a number of early Christians who rejected the idea of a spherical earth, suspended in a void, and embraced some form of flat earth cosmology. I'll provide the quotes and references I found here.

Three further comments. First, I think there was no shame whatsoever in believing in a flat earth at that particular time and place - spherical earth cosmology was only slowly permeating the general consciousness. Second, there is no evidence that flat earth cosmology was ever an official teaching of the church, as it is not mentioned in any creed or council that I can find.

Lastly, I've done a little bit of reading on "The Myth of the Flat Earth". The myth concerns the beliefs of people in the middle ages - I was only ever concerned about late antiquity, and I made that clear in my first post. The critics have misunderstood both the myth and my post! Still, it's helpful to have the sources assembled in one place, so I don't regret the exercise. Here goes...

Irenaeus (d. 202)

Irenaeus refers to the four corners of the earth. There is no evidence to suggest that he really believed the world was round, and was using the words figuratively.

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones [corners] of the world in which we live, and four principal winds..." (Against Heresies, 3.11.8)

Lactantius (245-325)

Lactantius was an influential Christian writer from the 3rd century, and an advisor to Constantine I. He was contemptuous of those who believed in a spherical earth -

"But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended antipodes.

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another..." (The Divine Institutes, Book III, Chapter XXIV)

Athanasius (d. 373)

Athanasius, one of the greatest theologians from the churches history, believed in a very literal reading of Genesis 1. He saw the earth as a great slab of land which was somehow fixed in place atop the primordial waters.

"...but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the centre of the universe...

Who that sees the clouds supported in air, and the weight of the waters bound up in the clouds, can but perceive Him that binds them up and has ordered these things so? Or who that sees the earth, heaviest of all things by nature, fixed upon the waters, and remaining unmoved upon what is by nature mobile, will fail to understand that there is One that has made and ordered it, even God?" (Against the Heathen, chapter 27, chapter 36)

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386)

Cyril also took Scripture very literally. He believed the sky to be a dome that arched over the lands beneath. Following Genesis 1, he believed the heavens above the firmament of the sky to actually be water, in which the sun and other heavenly bodies move.

"For what fault have they to find with the vast creation of God?--they, who ought to have been struck with amazement on beholding the vaultings of the heavens: they, who ought to have worshipped Him who reared the sky as a dome, who out of the fluid nature of the waters formed the stable substance of the heaven. For God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water. God spake once for all, and it stands fast, and falls not. The heaven is water, and the orbs therein, sun, moon, and stars are of fire..." (The Catechetical Lectures, 9.5)

Diodorus of Tarsus (died 394)

We only know of Diodorus's views through the writings of another man, Photius. Unfortunately these writings are not online, so I couldn't quote them verbatim. Instead, I've had to rely on a secondary reference. He saw heaven as a kind of "tent or vault" which encompassed the land beneath -

"The tabernacle shape of the universe was from that time generally accepted by patristic writers; thus by Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus (died 394), who in his book Against Fatalism declaims against those atheists who believe in the geocentric system; and he shows how Scriptures tells us that there are two heavens created, one which subsists with the earth, and the one above that again, the latter taking the place of a roof, the former being to the earth a roof but to the upper heaven a floor. Heaven is not a sphere but a tent or a vault." (J.L.E Dreyer, A History Planetary Systems, 2007, p. 212)

John Chrysostom (344–408)

Like Athanasius, the great preacher John Chrysostom believed that the earth was a great mass of land, floating somehow upon primordial waters.

"When therefore thou beholdest not a small pebble, but the whole earth borne upon the waters, and not submerged, admire the power of Him who wrought these marvellous things in a supernatural manner! And whence does this appear, that the earth is borne upon the waters? The prophet declares this when he says, “He hath founded it upon the seas, and prepared it upon the floods.” And again: “To him who hath founded the earth upon the waters.” What sayest thou? The water is not able to support a small pebble on its surface, and yet bears up the earth, great as it is; and mountains, and hills, and cities, and plants, and men, and brutes; and it is not submerged! What do I say? Is not submerged? ... Iron, forsooth, is softened, and wood is rotted, and stones are worn away by the nature of water; yet so great a mass as the earth hath remained such a length of time lying upon the waters, without being either submerged, or dissolved, and destroyed!" (Homilies Concerning the Statutes)

Severian of Gabala (d. after 408)

Severian, the Bishop of Gabala in Syria, explicitly rejected the hellenistic teaching on the spheres, and believed that the heavens were a kind of tent that stretched over the earth beneath. Interestingly, he believed that the Sun at night did not pass beneath the earth at night, but rather went to the "northern regions" of the world, and passed beneath the edge of the waters before emerging in the east again.

"[God] did not create heaven as a sphere, as the idle talkers claim; he did not make it as a sphere moving on it's axle. Rather, as the prophet asks, what course does the sun follow? "He arches the heaven like a curved roof and extends it like a tent." None of us is so impious as to be convinced by the idle talkers. The biblical author says that heaven has a beginning and an end...When the Sun rises and is destined to set, instead of setting under the earth it proceeds to the ends of heaven, travels to the northern regions, concealed as it were by a wall since the waters prevent its course being visible, traverses the northern regions and reaches the east." (Third Homily on Genesis)

Cosmas Indicopleustes (d. after 550)

The most famous of all Christian flat-earthers, Cosmas wrote an intriguing work known as the "Christian Topography". In it he strongly rejects the Hellenistic cosmology, and claims that the world is a kind of box, with the earth on the bottom, and the heavens as the sides and roof.

"It is written: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. We therefore first depict along with the earth, the heaven which is vaulted and which has its extremities bound together with the extremities of the earth. To the best of our ability we have endeavoured to delineate it on its western side and its eastern; for these two sides are walls, extending from below to the vault above. There is also the firmament which, in the middle, is bound together with the first heaven, and which, on its upper side, has the waters according to divine scripture itself. The position and figure are such as here sketched. To the extremities on the four sides of the earth the heaven is fastened at its own four extremities, making the figure of a cube, that is to say, a quadrangular figure, while up above it curves round in the form of an oblong vault and becomes as it were a vast canopy. And in the middle the firmament is made fast to it, and thus two places are formed.

And how again was it possible for the earth, which according to you is placed in the very middle of the universe, to have been submerged by the deluge in the time of Noah? or how can it be believed that on the first and the second day it was covered by the waters, and on the third, when the waters were gathered together, that it made its appearance, as is recorded in Genesis? But with even greater wisdom ye suppose that there are men walking all the earth over with their feet opposite the feet of other men. We therefore depict according to your view the earth and the Antipodes,24 and let each one of you who has sound vision and the power of reasoning justly turn the earth round whatever way he pleases, and let him say whether the Antipodes can be all standing upright in the same sense of the expression. But this they will not show even should they speak unrestrained by shame. Such then is our reply to your fictitious and false theories and to the conclusions of your reasonings which are capricious, self-contradictory, inconsistent, doomed to be utterly confounded, and to be whirled round and round even more than that unstable and revolving mythical sphere of yours." (Topographia, Book IV)

Basil the Great (d. 379)

Basil the Great, a bishop of Cappadocia, was agnostic with regards to the shape of the world. But he is interesting because his writings show there *was* some debate about this topic in Christian circles at the time. It was clearly not a first order issue (like the Arian debate, for example), but it certainly was somewhat contentious.

"Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?" (Hexaemeron, Homily IX)

Conclusions

From all this evidence, I draw the following conclusions -

Significant numbers of early Christians believed in various kinds of flat earth cosmologies, and
These beliefs were largely a result of a literal reading of Scripture, and
The shape of the earth was a source of minor controversy, but
Flat earth cosmology was never an offical teaching of the church, and
It had largely died out by the start of the middle ages, replaced by a belief in a spherical earth cosmology - presumably due to the influence of Greek philosophy and science.

Thinktank

2011-03-20T22:29:00.002+11:00

This is the Moore College Faculty blog. Some very sharp guys, there. They've posted up a couple of good pieces already. Keep 'em coming, guys...

The Christian and the Cosmos (part 1)

2011-03-20T15:23:00.011+11:00

Walk out of your front door - how far can you see? Just a few metres if you are in the city, but if you are in the country, perhaps a few kilometres. Based on what you see, what shape would you conclude the world to be? Of course, we all know that the earth is spherical, but this is not intuitive to most. Historically, belief in a flat earth was very common, right up to the start of the middle ages.

What did the church teach about this subject? Belief in a flat earth seemed very common in the early church, as it was in society at large. One famous flat-earther from the early church was a monk named Cosmas Indicopleustes. He wrote a geographical survey called the Christian Topography, which argues for a flat earth on theological grounds. Other theologians from the era, such as John Chrysostom, also used Scripture to argue that the earth was flat.

Hard as it is to believe, flat-earthers survive to the modern era. Samuel Birley Rowbotham is the founder of the modern flat earth movement. In his (19th century) book "Zetetic Astronomy: The Earth Not a Globe", he cites 76 scriptures that he says teach the earth is flat, including quotes from Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.

Some of the other scriptures used by flat-earthers are -

"After this, I saw four angels stationed at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds..." (Revelation 7:1)

"[God] brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses" (Jeremiah 51:16)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)

"[the king] saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." (Daniel 4:10-11)

"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory." (Matthew 4:8)

To those Christians who believe in a spherical earth, Rowbotham has a stern warning -

To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God Himself has stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach things which are utterly false... Call Scripture the Word of God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, and the Fountain of all truth; and call the Newtonian or Copernican system of astronomy the word and work of man... Is God a deceiver? Has He spoken direct and unequivocal falsehood... Let Christians...determine to uproot the deception which has led them to think that they can altogether ignore the plainest astronomical teachings of Scripture, and yet endorse a system to which it is in every sense opposed.

These words are remarkably similar in tone and content to those used by the militant young earthers to condemn old earthers (such as myself).

Of course, educated Christians have always known that the earth is spherical, even from the earliest times. This knowledge became widespread by the middle-ages, and it seemed to cause little concern. The "flat earth" language of the Bible is seen to be contextual to the cosmology of the era, and is interpreted idiomatically and figuratively. Indeed, some phrases such as the "four corners of the earth" are still used today in an idiomatic way.

The point is that it is foolish to use the Bible as a cosmological textbook, and to compare it's language to the findings of modern science. With regards to "flat earth" geography, most Christians have recognised this. The Rowbotham's of the world have been the rare exception. Some other cosmological findings have been more controversial, however, and I'll look at those in the subsequent parts.

Power Hour

2011-03-20T11:19:00.001+11:00

From Facebook - Join in with me to celebrate "Power Hour". This event celebrates the discovery of electricity and the profound influence it has had on our lives. Please turn on all the appliances in your house for one hour. Electricity was certainly a profound discovery, and it should be celebrated. I can't turn on all of my appliances without blowing a fuse, but I'll be celebrating "Power Hour" in spirit.

Casey the Punisher

2011-03-18T21:58:00.002+11:00

I guess you've seen this - it went viral. What did you think?

Young Earth, Bad Theology

2011-03-18T19:32:00.005+11:00

Well, I've just come to the end of another stoush with the militant Young Earth mob. Some will say it's my own fault for "grabbing the dog by it's ears". A number of local bloggers wont touch this subject any more, as they know the response they will get from the militants. To my mind, that is conceding too much ground. If we let our opponents dictate the battlefield, we are in great trouble. This is a troubling issue for new Christians and seekers, so we need to nail our colours to the mast.

If I may say, I did try hard this time to be patient. One fellow responded by repeating the same question over and over again, ignoring everything I said. This is a form of passive aggressive behaviour. The other fellow swung between patronising earnestness and violent ad hom. Hard to carry on a conversation under such circumstances, and not surprising that they scared away other commenters.

I regret some of my comments now - I feel I got sucked into the bickering. Proverbs 26:4 says, "Don't answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you'll be like him yourself." And so I don't plan to respond to any more of their comments, though they will doubtless post here, and also on their own website. Oh, I should mention that one fellow, Eric, was consistently courteous.

Is this all that big a deal? As I said above, it's still a live wire issue for some, so it's worth discussing. But I also think we need to challenge the militant wing of the Young Earth movement, because I believe they have genuinely bad theology. This was brought home again to me in the recent debate. If you want a fully-orbed critique of their theology, you need to read a ten part series written by Mark Baddeley several years ago. You can find it here - part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, part 8, part 9 and part 10.

Mark really took them to task, and the militants had no response. They retired from the field, desperately hoping that his blog would get minimal exposure.

I want to briefly highlight a troubling part of the militant's approach that was abundantly clear in my recent debate. What I'm referring to is the way they make belief in a young earth a shibboleth, a test of true Christianity. For rejecting their particular scientific theory, the militants have branded me a heretic, a liberal, compared me to an atheist and an adulterer, and have told me that Christ does not live in me.

It seems plain to me that they think belief in a young earth is a mark of a "genuine" Christian. Back in my younger days, people would refer to this as a "gospel+" situation - that is, someone is stating that you need to believe in the "gospel+something else" in order to be saved. But the gospel+ anything is not the gospel at all. Paul dealt with this in Galatians 1, where he declares than anyone who changes the gospel, for any reason whatsoever, is accursed.

Now, I'm not saying all Young Earthers are accursed! Far from it. I think the majority that I've known have expressed the appropriate charity when it comes to this point. But regarding the particluar group of militants I'm talking about - it seems to me that they have strayed outside of the bounds of evangelical orthodoxy in their approach to this issue. I hope they will wake up soon. And in the mean time, I believe they are best avoided - especially by new Christians and seekers.

Letter to the Editor, 1786

2011-03-16T20:40:00.001+11:00

Mr. Editor,

I can scarcely think it possible, though our newspapers have repeatedly announced it as a fact, that the King's Minister can have it seriously in their intention, to transport so large a body as six or seven hundred convicts to New Holland, in the South Seas. I observe your correspondent Sylvanues takes the point so much granted, that he has amused himself, and the readers of your paper, with no pleasantry, by proposing by way of impovement to this most sagacious plan, to augment the new colony by an accompanyment up0on the expedtion, of all the poachers throughout the kingdom.

Sportively as this gentleman has treated the subject, I am inclined to consider it as a matter well intitled to a very grave and solemn discussion. For it appears to me an affair in which the national honour and character are deeply involved. According to the accounts we have received of the distant country, in which it is proposed to establish so extraordinary a colony, it is but thinly peopled. A circumstance os some consolation with respect ot the few saveages who may approach the confines of a society of English banditti. For that the manners and morals of even the natives of New Holland, could escape being rendered worse than they now are, by the contagion of such a neighbourhood, is next to imposible. I am afraid it would be altogether superflous, to take religion into the consideration: for if its interests are to be as little regarded upon this occasion, as I understand it unformly to have been on board the ballast-lighters, it is no unreasonable presumption to suppose, that this formidable emigration is to be unattended by a chaplain of any denomination whatsoever.

I am at a loss to conceive the degree of horror, which a plan of this kind must excite in the minds of the foreign societes, pro propaganda fide: - will they not most naturally, with uplifted hands, exclaim against it, and bestow upon it, the appellation of a plan formed by some English society, pro proagandis vitiis Anglicanis? And, howver, in excuse, it may be alleged, that the propogation of vice upon the coast of New Holland, or, as it is generally called Botany Bay, is not likely to be very extensive amongst the New Hollanders, on account of the scantiness of their numbers: yet I am afraid such will be the zeal of these English Missionerists?, that this excuse will not be of any very long duration. Many of the islands in the South Seas, as we are assured by our late circum navigators, are exceedingly populous; - but they are not only populous, they are also extremely fertile; and they are inhabited by the some of the handsomest women in the known world. Can any thing therefore be more probable than that parties of these abandoned wretches, will, after a while, be formed for a fresh transportation of themselves to better climates and more cultivated regions? The inevitable consequence of which will be, that the contagion of English vice, and English Villainy, will be diseeminated in the space of a few years, throughout every country, situated within the South Seas.

For the honour of the Christian religion, for the honour of humanity, and for the honour of my country, I very anxiously hope that a scheme so injurious to the interests of mankind in general, will not go forward; or if it does, that all imaginable care will be taken to prevent, as much as possible, the national disgrace, which will follow so probably wide a diffusion of national iniquity, without some means to counteract its effects to this salutary end; it ought surely to be held indispensibly necessary, that every gentle method be employed of reclaiming, at least, in some degree, the intended exiles before they embark for the place of their destination. And in order to bring them to some sense of moral and relious duties, surely Government will take care that they be attended on their voyage by a clergyman of irreproachble character; for whom should be made a very ample provision, upon express condition, that he make New Holland his residence, as chaplain to this convict colony for the remainder of his days.

A Plain Englishman
English Chronicle (London, England), Saturday, October 7, 1786; Issue 1107

Please keep comments to the relevant threads

2011-03-16T18:35:00.001+11:00

Off-topic comments will be deleted

Spurgeon...on management

2011-03-16T12:05:00.001+11:00

I enjoyed this...very true as well

Ten things that need answers

2011-03-16T08:55:00.001+11:00

Helpful questions for the state government, by Karin

Thinktank

2011-03-14T15:45:00.002+11:00

This is the official blog of the Moore College Faculty. Check it out.

Japan

2011-03-12T08:23:00.001+11:00

Thoughts and prayers to those affected by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. There is some extraordinary footage of the event. The latest predicted death toll I've heard is at least 1,000. Frightening...

Posting...

2011-03-08T00:18:00.001+11:00

I've not posted as much as I would have liked in the last week. I've started a new job at work, which has taken up some energy, and I've also been busy in the evenings. On the positive side, I got back into writing my book (a biography of Richard Johnson) this evening. I haven't done any serious work on this since we started planning the wedding, about five months ago. It's good to get going again.

Interpreting Genesis 1

2011-03-05T07:32:00.010+11:00

Then God said, "Let there be light..."

Few chapters of the Bible have seen as much commentary as Genesis 1. My own view, expressed in a recent debate, is that this chapter may be interpreted in a poetic or figurative manner.

An important part of Hebrew poetry is parrallelism (this is also present in some English poetry). The account in Genesis 1 contains at least two instances of this. Firstly, there is the obvious parrallel between each of the six days. The text is highly stylized, following a set pattern - "Then God said, 'Let there be...' it was good... Evening came, then morning..."

There is also a second, less obvious pattern in the text. The first three days concern the creation of space, ocean and land. The final three days see each of these spheres filled in turn - the celestial bodies for space, fish for the ocean, and animals for the land.

The presence of poetic elements by themselves don't necessarily mean that a text must be interpreted figuratively. After all, a poem can be made about a literal event. However, metaphorical and figurative elements have a much higher incidence in poetry than in other forms of literature. For this reason, it is unwise to insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1.

There is a further consideration, one which appals the defenders of a literal Genesis 1. The consideration is this - what do we know about the world around us, and how does that influence our understanding of the text? What we know about the world from other sources will affect how we understand the scripture. Only a deluded person would claim otherwise.

There are a couple of areas where science has, inevitably, affected our understanding of the bible. One simple example is to do with the sun. The bible speaks of the sun "rising". Now, we know that the sun doesn't really rise - rather, the earth rotates and this gives the illusion of the sun rising. But our astronomical knowledge, unavailable to the ancients, does not materially affect our understanding of any of these passages, even though we read the phrase "the rising of the sun" as figurative rather than literal.

There are other similar examples. One might look at the Copernican debate, or the shape of the planet. In all these instances, our scientific knowledge have affected how we understand the scripture. Regarding Genesis 1, we know now that the earth is extremely old, and that the universe is even older.

Any interpretation of Genesis 1 that denies the known age of the world is, for myself at least, simply not credible. You might as well ask me to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. You might as well ask me to believe that the sky is yellow with pink polka-dots.

Regardless, I only have so much energy for this debate, and my two recent posts have exhausted my enthusiasm for the time being. The young earth evangelists who occasionally stalk my blog should write me off as incorrigible, and go seek an easier mark.

The Next Archbishop

2011-02-28T07:29:00.004+11:00

Sometime over the next couple of years, Synod will vote for a new Anglican Archbishop for Sydney. Whoever takes that role will have enormous shoes to fill. The recent financial troubles of the diocese have overshadowed a little the generally excellent job PJ has done in an extremely difficult role. Externally, he has been a tremendous public face. Internally, he has put in place many necessary reforms, while generally maintaining good will and respect. He will be a tough act to follow.

Currently, there appears to be a split in opinion regarding the next man for the job. The older generation, currently in power, seem to think we need to look externally for someone. The next generation are arguing strongly that we should be raising up someone from within our own ranks. I've seen a few names tossed around so far - more on that later. Will be fascinating to see how this plays out.

Wisdom, Courage and Temperance

2011-02-25T01:00:00.000+11:00

Speaking of virtue and philosophy, I've been re-reading "Sophie's World" recently. Terrific book. In one part, the author describes Plato's take on virtue. He believed that humans consisted of three parts - reason, will and desire. Each of these had a corresponding virtue - wisdom for reason, courage for will, and temperance for desire. The truly virtuous person would attempt to develop all three.

Got me to thinking - how do we become more virtuous? How do I grow in wisdom? How do I get more courage? How do I develop temperance? Serious questions.

A Virtuous Sport

2011-02-24T13:14:00.006+11:00

I'm heading off to UFC 127 one the weekend - can't wait! I enjoyed this article by philosopher Damon Young on the beauty of the sport. "Anyone who perceptively follows this sport, or who participates, quickly realises this is not a free-for-all. It is not a brawl. It is two well-trained, disciplined athletes trying to win a match through skill, guile and endurance." (more here)

On Leadership

2011-02-23T12:43:00.006+11:00

I recently got a promotion at work, and I'm well and truly ensconced in middle management now. When I first entered management, some time ago, I asked a friend, an experienced manager for his leadership tips. He had only two -

Give people the dignity and respect that you expect from them
Treat people like competent professionals who know what they are doing

These have proven to be excellent principles, and I commend them to anyone in leadership.

Why I don't believe in Creation Science

2011-02-22T20:44:00.006+11:00

Back in the old days, the SA forums were a little less genteel - indeed, at times they resembled the wild west. And nothing was surer to start a virtual gun fight than a discussion about Creation Science. Passions ran high, patience ran low, and the arguments flew back and forth like stray bullets. In these more civilised times, we tend to avoid the topic.

But I've decided to dust off my six-shooters and venture into the fray once more - not on the SA forums, but on my blog. This subject, straddling the intersection between faith and science, is always of interest to Christians. So today I will share my own position, and explain why I do not believe in Creation Science (CS).

I was first exposed to CS around 1990. I was immediately captivated by the movement, and I bought and borrowed all of the CS books I could find. For a time, I was a fierce advocate of the creationist position, and I can recall having many arguments on the subject.

But my conviction began to slip. As I delved deeper into the literature, the creationist position seemed less and less viable. I kept coming across convincing rebuttals from credible sources. Claim after claim fell apart upon closer examination. Recently, one CS institute created a web page called "Arguments creationists should NOT use". Yet these arguments were the bread and butter of the creationist literature I read in the early 90s.

I was forced, reluctantly, to conclude that CS had no scientific credibility. It was poorly argued, unsupported by research, and frequently quoted serious sources out of context. More and more, the CS apologists looked like men who were ideologically driven, and who would grab hold of any piece of "evidence" that could be pressed into service. Creation science is a conclusion looking for an argument.

My flirtation with CS occurred nearly 20 years ago, and I've come across nothing in the intervening years to make me reconsider my conclusion. Indeed, my concerns have grown, and I am now convinced that creationism perpetrates not just bad science, but bad theology as well.

Is the topic worth raising, given that it so often starts a fight? I believe it is. Many Christians continue to struggle with this issue, so it's important for those who have worked through the matter to nail our colours to the mast.

There is another consideration. In seeking to reach outsiders, it's very unhelpful to have our faith attached to a discredited movement like Creation Science. It may very likely tarnish the truth of the gospel in their eyes. This is hardly a new problem. St Augustine struggled with something very much like it 1500 years ago. I'll finish with an apt quote from his work, De Genesi ad litteram -

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Stay tuned...

2011-02-22T20:42:00.001+11:00

Hey friends, stay well...

2011-02-18T21:05:00.001+11:00

Move along, people, move along...

2010-12-18T08:58:00.001+11:00

Nothing to see here...

2010-12-14T07:25:00.001+11:00

[Tumbleweed rolls lazily by...]

2010-12-13T06:16:00.001+11:00

Friend me!

2010-12-10T23:07:00.002+11:00

If you've wandered over here from Eternity newspaper, feel free to friend me on Facebook. I'm doing more links and updates from there these days...

Blog winding down..?

2010-11-25T06:46:00.001+11:00

I've found myself posting many more links on FB recently than up here... Not sure what the future of this blog is...

People learn what the teacher is excited about

2010-11-22T06:36:00.001+11:00

Very true

Sydneyanglicans.net

2010-11-22T06:31:00.000+11:00

Top 5 News Review

In the footsteps of Wilberforce

2010-11-17T12:33:00.001+11:00

My latest post for SA

Congrats to St Stephens, Newtown...

2010-11-17T07:08:00.001+11:00

...for participating in the Newtown Festival by allowing various activities in their church grounds...

Beyond Big Billy

2010-11-17T07:07:00.001+11:00

An insightful analysis of the last 50 years of the diocese by MJ

Songs this morning...

2010-11-14T15:09:00.001+11:00

This Life I Live

All the Nations

Blessed Be Your Name

I Come By the Blood

$1000 homes

2010-11-14T07:29:00.001+11:00

The mind boggles

Aung San Suu Kyi released

2010-11-13T22:07:00.001+11:00

Early report

MJs new book

2010-11-13T07:23:00.001+11:00

Click here

A List of Important Sermons and Articles That Are Worth Reading

2010-11-11T07:12:00.001+11:00

A really great looking list from Justin Taylor. Some real gems...

Japan - more than 30,000 suicides a year

2010-11-11T07:04:00.001+11:00

What's going on there?????

Sing a new song(list) - reprise

2010-11-10T07:50:00.001+11:00

Click here

Constitutional Change to recognise Aborigines

2010-11-08T18:41:00.001+11:00

More here

Archbishop Jensen

2010-11-08T18:36:00.003+11:00

"But we all drag around the ball and chain of original sin. Dr Karskens reminds us that, 'The city of Sydney is predicated on the dispossession of Aboriginal people - their loss underpins the city's foundation and growth as it expanded over more and more of the country.' The first people were sinners too, of course, but they possessed the resources on which this town was built.

In the earliest years of Sydney the Aboriginal presence was welcomed and visible. English and Aboriginal place names sit side by side in Sydney as did the people: Parramatta, Wilberforce, Woolloomooloo, Camperdown. But there is no hiding the truth. As Sydney grew and gained pretensions, it became a white town and Aboriginal people were marginalized and despised. Men began to ask whether they were really human and there began a shameful story which has not yet been resolved." (Presidential Address, 2010)