If you ask the question, “could you do with more money?” I’m sure most of us would reply with a resounding “yes.” There are a couple of challenges with this though.

Firstly, most people live about one-third beyond their means. That is, most of us are in debt. So, for those who think their problems would be over if they simply had a pay rise, think again. Unless you modify your behaviour a pay rise is the last thing you need because you’ll simply put yourself into a higher debt level and still live one-third beyond your means.

Martin Luther put it this way, “Satan doesn’t care which side of the horse we fall off, as long as we don’t stay in the saddle.” Some people fall off the horse on the side of poverty.

The poverty gospel claims that money is inherently evil and avoiding it is the best policy. Believing this message, countless Christians over the centuries have taken a vow of poverty and submitted themselves to some bizarre practices. They believed that doing this made them more spiritual as well as more acceptable to God.

But if we follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion then:
• The poorer you are the more spiritual you are
• Sell everything and live under a bridge
• Don’t help the poor because you’ll make them unspiritual!

And yet the Bible teaches that poverty is a curse (see Deuteronomy 28). Over 2000 times in Scripture God tells His people to help relieve poverty – Why would He ask this if poverty was spiritual? Jesus said, “… do to others what you would have them do to you.” If you and your family were hungry what would you want prosperous Christians to do for you?

"Give me neither poverty nor riches." The other extreme to those who have a poverty mindset is people who hold to what has become known as the prosperity Gospel. This teaches that money is a sign of godliness as well as God’s favour on a believer’s life. But the Bible teaches that financial blessing is a sign of God’s goodness not ours …

Matt 5:45, “[God] causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” There are plenty of wealthy people who don’t care for God or others. The psalmist lamented this very thing when he observed, “… the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.” (Ps 73:12; cf. Psalm 37:35-36; Eccl 7:15; Jeremiah 12:1)

The poverty mindset views money as always evil. Prosperity teaching sees money as always good. But money is neither good nor bad. Things don’t have morality – people do! Think about that $20 note in your pocket. What has it been used for in the past? What will you use it for? What will it be used for in the future? For all we know it could have been used in a drug deal or to buy porn. You might use it to buy lunch. The next person could donate it to charity. It is the person who has the money that makes the money good or bad. It’s what resides in the person – their goodness or lack thereof.

The apostle Paul addressed this when he wrote, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim 6:10). Money isn't evil but the inordinate love of it is. “In the midst of prosperity, the challenge for believers is to handle wealth in such a way that it acts as a blessing, not a curse.”

The balance between these two extremes is generosity. I believe this is one of the signs of true spirituality, and generosity doesn’t depend on the amount of wealth you have but rather on what you do with what you have! One day Jesus was observing people putting money into the Temple treasury. All the wealthy people were putting in large sums of money but it was only a small percentage of what they had. Then a widow put in two small coins – everything she owned. Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything-all she had to live on." She was demonstrating generosity. In Matthew 27 we're introduced to Joseph of Arimathea, a rich man who was also a disciple (follower) of Jesus. He was wealthy and also demonstrated generosity by donating his tomb to the deceased Jesus.

The Bible is full of examples of both poor and wealthy people who lived lives of generosity (read 2 Corinthians 8:1-4; 9:8, 10, 11; 1 Kings 17:7-24; 2 Kings 4:1-7, 8-37). Over the years I've met generous poor people and stingy poor people. I've come across generous wealthy people and stingy wealthy people. I t's not how much or how little we have its whether or not we have a generous heart. And so it doesn't matter if you find yourself with plenty or little or somewhere in the middle, practice living a generous life.

The Book of Job in the Hebrew Scriptures is one of the most misunderstood books in the Bible. And yet, when we see the purpose of God in placing this book in Scripture, its rich meaning comes alive.

Jesus’ half-brother James summarises the story: “Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful” (James 5:7-11).

The word steadfast comes from the Middle English word meaning, “to be fixed in place.” That is, being steadfast is holding on when you feel like letting go. That’s what Job did and 4,000 years later we’re still talking about him and learning from his story. He was steadfast in the difficulties he faced and we consider him blessed as a result.

Job is probably the oldest book in the Bible. It could date back to the first part of the 2nd millennium B.C. The book contains some of the most difficult and archaic Hebrew in the Bible. Even the name Job is known to be an ancient name. Along with the failure to mention the Hebrew’s Covenants or Law, Job probably dates back to the time of the patriarchs, around 2100-1700BC.

It’s likely that Moses discovered the book while he was in Midian (NW Arabia near the land of Uz where Job is said to come from) and sent it to the enslaved Hebrews in Egypt to bring them hope and encouragement in their suffering so they too would learn that “the Lord is compassionate and merciful.”

There is disagreement amongst Bible scholars as to whether Job tells a real story or a fictional one. There are good arguments for both. Some suggest the opening line of the Book of Job, “In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job,” is the ancient equivalent of, “Once upon a time, in a land far away…” Similarly, the declaration at the end of the book that God blessed the final 140 years of Job’s life is the equivalent of, “and they all lived happily ever after.” The fictional argument also draws upon the fact that most of Job (3:1-42:6) is poetic. Like Jesus’ parables Job may not be a true story but it is certainly a story that teaches truth.

Personally I lean towards Job being a fictional story. If it isn’t we run into the theological problems of Satan waltzing in and out of God’s presence and twisting God’s arm to let him firstly destroy all that Job has (including all of his children) and then destroying Job’s health (see Job 1:6-19; 2:1-9). This hardly teaches us “the Lord is compassionate and merciful.”

After the prologue of chapters one and two, most of the rest of the book is written as a dramatic cycle of speeches in Eastern poetry (Job 3:1-42:6). The dialogue is between Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar and later Elihu, and then finally between God and Job.

Eliphaz, Bildad & Zophar, Job’s three “friends” accuse Job that his suffering is God’s punishment because of his sin and his lack of faith. For the suffering to end Job needs to repent. Does that sound familiar? Have you ever had that said to you when you’ve been suffering? Or maybe you’ve said it to someone else. This constant condemnation led Job to utter the immortal words, “Miserable comforters are you all … If you were in my place” (Job 16:2, 4). We still use the saying “Job’s comforter”. It refers to a person who tries to console or help someone and not only fails but ends up making the other feel worse.

And that’s one of the lessons we take from this book. When a person is suffering they don’t need people around them trying to work out the reason for it. They need compassionate people who put themselves in the suffering person’s place. Suffering people need encouragement not condemnation.

Job often gets a bad rap from some preachers but the Bible only ever speaks well of him (see Job 1:20-22; 2:9-10; Ezekiel 14:14, 20; James 5:11). In Job 42:8 God says to Job’s four friends, “You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” In Job 3:25 he says, “What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me.” Some have taught that Job’s fear and dread are what led to his suffering. If that’s the case we’re all in trouble ~ who doesn’t fear things from time to time? If fear leads to God giving permission to Satan to destroy our property, family and health then none of us would fare well. Instead the Bible defends Job rather than accuses him.

As a result of his steadfastness Job experienced (and we experience) that:

1. Steadfastness Refines Character: “But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold” (Job 23:10).

2. Steadfastness Refines Relationship: “I had only heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes” (Job 42:5,). That is Job’s trials led him to a more intimate experience of God.

3. Steadfastness Refines Potential: Job found out firsthand “the purpose of the Lord – how the Lord is compassionate and merciful”. “So the Lord blessed Job in the second half of his life even more than in the beginning. For now he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 teams of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He also gave Job seven more sons and three more daughters…in all the land no women were as lovely as the daughters of Job…Job lived 140 years after that, living to see four generations of his children and grandchildren. Then he died, an old man who had lived a long, full life.” (Job 42:12-17). But that’s not to say that property and family can be replaced. It would be remiss to rejoice in a new family and think that the children who had been lost would not still hold a place in the hearts of Job and his wife. But certainly God demonstrates in this story that He is compassionate and merciful, and for those two qualities we can be eternally grateful.

With this in mind I thought I’d share “The Mum Phone Contract” with you. This is aimed at teenagers, but there is some timely wisdom here for adults too:

1. It is my phone. I bought it. I pay for it. I am loaning it to you. Aren't I the greatest?

2. I will always know the password.

3. If it rings, answer it. It is a phone. Say hello, use your manners. Do not ever ignore a phone call if the screen reads "Mum" or "Dad". Not ever.

4. Hand the phone to one of your parents promptly at 7:30pm every school night and every weekend night at 9:00pm. It will be shut off for the night and turned on again at 7:30am. If you would not make a call to someone's landline, wherein their parents may answer first, then do not call or text. Listen to those instincts and respect other families like we would like to be respected.

5. It does not go to school with you. Have a conversation with the people you text in person. It's a life skill.

6. If it falls into the toilet, smashes on the ground, or vanishes into thin air, you are responsible for the replacement costs or repairs.

7. Do not use this technology to lie to, fool, or deceive another human being. Do not involve yourself in conversations that are hurtful to others. Be a good friend first or stay the hell out of the crossfire.

8. Do not text, email, or say anything through this device you would not say in person.

9. No porn.

10. Turn it off, silence it, or put it away in public. Especially in a restaurant, at the movies, or while speaking with another human being. You are not a rude person; do not allow the iPhone to change that.

11. Do not send or receive pictures of your private parts or anyone else's private parts. Don't laugh. Someday you will be tempted to do this despite your high intelligence. It is risky and could ruin your teenage/college/adult life. It is always a bad idea. Cyberspace is vast and more powerful than you. And it is hard to make anything of this magnitude disappear — including a bad reputation.

12. Don't take a zillion pictures and videos. There is no need to document everything. Live your experiences. They will be stored in your memory for eternity.

13. Leave your phone home sometimes and feel safe and secure in that decision. It is not alive or an extension of you. Learn to live without it. Be bigger and more powerful than FOMO – fear of missing out.

14. Download music that is new or classic or different than the millions of your peers that listen to the same exact stuff. Your generation has access to music like never before in history. Take advantage of that gift. Expand your horizons.

15. Play a game with words or puzzles or brainteasers every now and then.

16. Keep your eyes up. See the world happening around you. Stare out a window. Listen to the birds. Take a walk. Talk to a stranger. Wonder without Googling.

17. You will mess up. I will take away your phone. We will sit down and talk about it. We will start over again. You and I, we are always learning. I am on your team. We are in this together.

Now, there’s some wise advice. Now, where’s my iPhone?

Recent studies have concluded that the expression of gratitude can have profound and positive effects on our health, our moods and our relationships.  As doctors Blaire and Rita Justice reported for the University of Texas Health Science Centre, “a growing body of research shows that gratitude is truly amazing in its physical and psychosocial benefits.”

Out of recent studies where group one was encouraged to focus daily on things they were grateful for, and group two focused on things that displeased them, the “gratitude” group:

* Felt better about their lives
* Were 25% happier
* Reported fewer health complaints
* Exercised, on average, one and a half hours more
* Were more likely to offer emotional support or help others who were facing a personal problem (i.e. gratitude increased their goodwill towards others)
* Reported more hours of sleep each night and were more refreshed when they awoke.
* Experienced more satisfaction with their lives as a whole, were more optimistic about the future, and were more connected with others.
* Were less likely to feel depressed (several studies have shown depression to be inversely correlated to gratitude)

Dr John Gottman at the University of Washington has been researching marriages for two decades. The conclusion of all that research is that unless a couple is able to maintain a high ratio of positive to negative encounters (5:1 or greater), it is likely the marriage will end.  The formula is that for every negative expression (a complaint, put-down, expression of anger) there needs to be about five positive ones (smiles, compliments, laughter, expression of appreciation and gratitude).  Now there’s something to practice!

“If you’ve forgotten the language of gratitude, you’ll never be on speaking terms with happiness,” so here are three simple things you can start practicing in order to develop an attitude of gratitude:

1. Keep a daily journal of three things you are grateful for. This works really well just before you go to bed.
2. Make it a practice to tell your spouse, partner or friend something you appreciate about them every day.
3. Look in the mirror while you’re brushing your teeth and think about something you have done well or something you like about yourself.

When you cultivate an attitude of gratitude things don’t just look better – they actually get better.  Thankfulness feels good, it’s good for you and it’s a blessing for the people around you too.

With growth come many benefits.  With the benefits come countless responsibilities and complexities.  And it is these things that sometimes make us look back with longing for the simpler, less complex days.  And here lies the challenge as we grow to Christian adulthood – what was once simple and uncluttered becomes complex and chaotic.

It was this dilemma that the apostle Paul addressed when he wrote these words to the Corinthian Christians who had complicated their faith: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).  I love those words: “the simplicity that is in Christ.”  The simple message that even a child can understand.

That’s why, when Jesus was asked by His disciples, “who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”  Jesus called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”  Jesus’ disciples were jostling for position – grown men acting in a childish way.  Jesus reminds them that even as they grow into maturity they are never lose their childlike qualities.

I have been studying the Bible for over 30 years.  It’s an amazing and life-changing book but it’s not all easy to understand. One of Jesus’ disciples acknowledged this in his second epistle referring to the writings of Paul, “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand…” (2 Peter 3:16)

I love the story of Karl Barth who is often regarded as the greatest Protestant theologian of the twentieth century.  His prolific theological studies and writings shaped a century and were instrumental in combating liberal theology.  His commentary, “The epistle to the Romans” is considered by many to be one of the most important theological treatises of all time.  Barth’s theology found its most sustained and compelling expression through his thirteen-volume magnum opus, the Church Dogmatics that is widely regarded as one of the most important theological works of the century. The Church Dogmatics runs to over six million words and 8,000 pages and is one of the longest works of systematic theology ever written.

And yet when Karl Barth was at Rockefeller Chapel on the campus of the University of Chicago during his lecture tour of the U.S. in 1962, after his lecture, during the Q & A time, a student asked him if he could summarize his whole life’s work in theology in a sentence. Barth responded, “Yes, I can. In the words of a song I learned at my mother’s knee: ‘Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”

Karl Barth, a man of great learning, understanding and maturity had not lost touch with the simple gospel – a message so simple that even a child can understand it.

 

Both men – Andrew and Myuran have had a total life-change since their sentence. Myuran has turned to education and is running art classes in the prison and a few years ago Andrew became a Christian and is running the church services within the prison and is often called upon to help those who are struggling. Both men admit guilt and are deeply sorry for what they did. Andrew expressed to me he isn’t looking for a “get out of jail free” card. He is simply asking that the death penalty be commuted to a life sentence. His desire is to live so that he can continue to help other people in the jail – something that he is currently doing and is making a huge difference to many people.

I know there are those who disagree with the appeal for clemency. Their view is “done the crime, do the time.” I’ve heard people on talkback radio say as much over the past few days. My question is simple: How would you feel if this was your son? Would you want others to demonstrate mercy and lend a hand?

We also need to understand that we live in a country that is opposed to the death penalty, and in fact it has been forever abolished in Australia by the passing of The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill. Even though no Australian State or Territory has the death penalty, this law ensures none can ever reintroduce it.

As a Christian I fully supported this move by the Australian Parliament – even though some parts of the Bible endorse the use of the death penalty especially for first-degree murder (see Genesis 9:6; 6:5-6; Exodus 21:12-29; Romans 13:1-4). But just because something is permissible does not mean it is beneficial or constructive (1 Corinthians 10:23).

God did not see it as beneficial to take Cain’s life even though he had murdered his brother (Genesis 4:10-16). Jesus didn’t see it as constructive to allow the Jewish religious leaders to stone the adulterous woman to death – even though the Law permitted such action (John 8:1-11)

In the case of Andrew and Myuran who are repentant and rehabilitated, I don’t believe it would be constructive to end their lives and for that reason I am encouraging as many people as possible to support their plea for clemency. You can support them by signing the petition at www.amnesty.org.au and at the Mercy Campaign: www.mercycampaign.org.

This is YOUR opportunity to do a little good! Do it now before something else grabs your attention – their lives depend on it.

To read more on the death penalty, read my blog “Capital Punishment” at this link: https://baysidechurch.com.au/content/view/393/243/

 

According to Monday’s Herald Sun, by refusing to provide a referral for a patient on moral grounds or refer the matter to another doctor, Dr Hobart admits he has broken the law and could face suspension, conditions on his ability to practice or even be deregistered. But he was willing to risk punishment in pursuit of principles. He said he did not believe any doctor in Victoria would have helped a couple have an abortion just because they wanted a boy. Another doctor who was brought before the Medical Board in January for airing his views against abortion was cautioned and warned he could be deregistered if it happened again.

Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 specifies the obligations of registered health practitioners who have a "conscientious objection" to abortion. Under the Act, if a woman requests a doctor to advise on a proposed abortion and the practitioner has a conscientious objection, he or she must refer the woman to a practitioner who does not conscientiously object.

But this incident highlights a much bigger problem regarding abortion. The Law states that "the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances” need to be considered when proposing an abortion (especially after 24 weeks). I agree with the first two conditions: if a woman’s physical or psychological health and wellbeing are threatened by the pregnancy then a higher law comes into play. But what we’re seeing in society today goes far beyond this. Abortion is being used as a form of contraception because a baby would interfere with lifestyle or career, or, as in this instance, because the couple wants a boy not a girl. So, what happens if they become pregnant with a girl next time? Abort? What if they keep having girls? How many babies die until these people get the son they want?

One in six Australian couples cannot have children. Why don’t people choose to adopt their “unwanted” babies to people who’d love and care for them? But it’s just a fetus, an unwanted pregnancy, just a lump of disposable epithelial tissue right? The word “fetus” comes from Latin and means “offspring”, “bringing forth”, “hatching of young.” When a couple are happy to find out they are pregnant you don’t hear the words, “we’re expecting a fetus.” No, they’re expecting a baby. Maybe our “throw-away” society has just gone too far.

A belief in life after death is important for two reasons. Firstly, it gives meaning to this life, to our often-boring routine, to the predictability of life. Think about it: you’re born, you get an education, you work, you get married (maybe), you have children, then grandchildren, you retire, you die. Even a sceptic like Woody Allen admits, “It’s all meaningless if physical death is the final curtain.” A belief in life after death gives meaning to the personal development of our character and knowledge. The things we work on for a lifetime do not cease at death but we take them with us into the next life. It also gives meaning to our relationships. Not one of us wants to think when we attend the funeral of a loved one that that’s the last time we’ll see them.

Secondly, a belief in life after death brings hope into this life. It deals with the problem of injustice – what about those who seem to get away with gross wickedness in their lifetime? The Christian belief in an ultimate reckoning means that every injustice will be corrected – if not in this life then certainly in the one to come. It also deals with the problem of inequality. It seems so unfair that some people have such terrible lives, have more than their fair share of suffering, are born in places of extreme poverty or in a Caste from which they cannot escape. Life after death means that God has all of eternity to make up for the inequalities of this life (Luke 16:19-31). The Bible speaks of a life after death in which God “will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

The Bible describes death as an enemy that Jesus defeated when He was resurrected. Many people fear death because of the unknown, so there’s nothing like being the friend of One who’s been there and come back! This is clearly illustrated by looking at the last words of some famous people:

Some are tragic: Elizabeth 1 who reigned for 45 years and cruelly persecuted Christians, “All my possessions for a moment of time.” Confucius said, “No wise ruler comes, no prince invites me to be his counsellor; it is time to die.” Napoleon Bonaparte said, “What an abyss lies between my deep misery and the eternal kingdom of Christ.” The French philosopher Voltaire who said Christ was powerless and who boasted that within 100 years of his death the Bible would be obsolete. At his death in 1778 he was overpowered with remorse and signed a recantation of his philosophy with these words, “O Christ, O Lord Jesus. I must die abandoned of God and man. I wish I had never been born.” Incidentally, 100 years later Voltaire’s residence was being used by the Geneva Bible Society to print Bibles. T.H. Huxley, a friend of Charles Darwin who coined the term “agnostic,” on his death bed suddenly looked up at a sight invisible to mortal eyes, after staring a while he whispered, “So, it is true.” And Joseph Stalin’s daughter Svetlana wrote, “My father died a difficult and terrible death. God grants an easy death only to the just. At what seemed the very last moment he opened his eyes and cast a glance over everyone in the room. It was a terrible glance, insane, full of anger and fear. Then he lifted his left hand as though pointing to something above and bringing a curse down on us all. The gesture was full of malice. The next moment the spirit wrenched itself free of the flesh.”

Contrast this with the last words of people like Mother Teresa: “Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you.” Michelangelo (written in his will), “I commit my soul to God, my body to the earth, my possessions to my nearest relatives. I die in the faith of Jesus Christ and in the firm hope of a better life.” William Shakespeare in his last will and testament one month before death, “I commend my soul into the hands of God, my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing only through the merits of Jesus Christ my Saviour, to be made partaker of life everlasting.” Sir Michael Faraday, the greatest experimental scientist of all time. As he laid dying journalists questioned him regarding his speculations of life after death. “Speculations, I know nothing of speculations. I am resting on certainties. I know that my Redeemer lives and because he lives I shall live also.” Martin Luther: “O my heavenly Father, my eternal and everlasting God. Thou hast revealed to me your son, our Lord Jesus Christ. I have preached him, I have confessed him, I love him and worship him as my dearest Saviour and Redeemer. Into thy hand I commit my spirit.” Dietrich Bonheoffer, the German theologian hanged in Nazi Germany during the Second World War. On his way to the gallows he said, “This is the beginning of a new life, eternal life.” And the evangelist D.L. Moody: “Earth recedes and heaven opens before me. It is beautiful. It’s like a trance. There’s no valley here, and God is calling me and I must go. This is my triumph, this is my coronation day, it is glorious. I’ve been looking forward to it for years. No pain, no valley. If this is death it is not bad at all, it’s sweet.”

Finally, just in case this blog is too serious, let’s here some of the funny last words people have spoken: Roman Emperor, Gaius Caligula, who was stabbed by his own guards said, “I’m still alive!” Of course his guards made sure he wasn’t moments later! General John Sedgwick, who was killed in battle during US Civil War said, “They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist…” Author H. G. Wells, “Go away. I'm all right.” Writer Oscar Wilde, “Either that wallpaper goes or I do.” And my all time favourite is from Mexican revolutionary, Pancho Villa, “Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something!”

But in all seriousness, there is life after death. Jesus has experienced death for you – and defeated it – why not place your faith and trust securely in Him?

 

The question of who Jesus is isn’t new to our day and age. Even while Jesus walked the planet, people were debating this question. Listen to what the Bible says:

“Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people” (John 7:12).

“Once Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do the crowds say I am?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.” Then Jesus asked, “But what about you? Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah” (Luke 9:18-20).

Even people who believe in Jesus have all kinds of opinions and portrayals of him. There's hippy Jesus who teaches everyone to give peace a chance, imagine a world without religion, and helps us remember all you need is love. He walked around Galilee sporting Hebraic dreads and eating mysterious-yet-kosher plants that gave him moments of groovy wisdom. “Man, you should totally give stuff to the poor”

There's Macho Jesus who was all man all the time – wild at heart, some might even say. He was rugged, worked a job in construction, and man-ish to the extreme. Fundamentalist Jesus is macho Jesus after drinking several gallons of Hater-aide. This is the Jesus you see picketing at inappropriate events and holding up unkind signs that marginalise the already marginalised.

There's pop Jesus. Yes, you guessed it: Jesus is your homeboy. He’s a hipster who wants to “kick it” with you. He walked around two thousand years ago and tried to show people a good time. When you feel down, his goal is to give you a hug of optimism. When times are tough, he’s conveniently the name that you can call upon (sometimes via the curse word) to make sure everything is gonna be alright. When times are good, he’ll keep his distance and not interfere too much with your life. This Jesus exists to make sure we’re all happy campers.

There’s Starbucks Jesus who drinks fair trade coffee, loves spiritual conversations, drives a hybrid and goes to film festivals.

Open-minded Jesus loves everyone all the time no matter what, except for people who are not as open-minded as you.

Sporting Jesus determines the outcome of football games and helps Christian athletes run faster and jump higher than non-Christians.

Gentle Jesus is meek and mild, with high cheekbones, flowing hair, and walks around barefoot, wearing a sash.

There’s Yuppie Jesus who encourages us to achieve our full potential, reach for the stars, and buy a boat.

Spiritual Jesus hates religion, churches, pastors, priests, and doctrine; and would rather have people out in nature, finding the god within and listening to mystical musical.

Cliche Jesus is good for Christmas and Easter services and greeting cards; he inspires people to believe in themselves, and lifts us up so we can walk on mountains.

Revolutionary Jesus teaches us to rebel against the status quo and blame things on the “system.”

Guru Jesus is a wise, inspirational teacher who believes in you and helps you find your center.

Then there's Judge Jesus who gave us a list of rules and then left us to try and keep them and punishes us when we don't.

Last, but not least, is good-example Jesus who shows you how to help people, change the planet, and become a better you.

I heard it said once that in the beginning God made people in His image – and ever since we've tried to return the compliment. It certainly seems that way with all of these "images" of Jesus. But what is Jesus really like? Who is he really? One of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis, explains the answer in the best way.

Lewis was raised in a religious Irish family, but became an atheist at a young age when he came to view his faith as a chore and a duty. He later described his young self as being ironically “very angry with God for not existing.”

Lewis's interest in the works of Scottish author and Minister George McDonald was part of what turned him from atheism. He slowly re-embraced Christianity, influenced by arguments with his Oxford colleague and friend J. R. R. Tolkien (author of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings). He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion, noting that he was brought into Christianity like a prodigal, "kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape."

He says, “You must picture me alone in my room, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England."

After his conversion to theism in 1929, Lewis converted to Christianity in 1931, following a long discussion and late-night walk with his close friend Tolkien. He records making a specific commitment to Christian belief while on his way to the zoo with his brother. He became a member of the Church of England – somewhat to the disappointment of Tolkien, who had hoped that he would join the Catholic Church.

During the Second World War, C.S. Lewis gave a number of lectures on BBC radio, talks that later became the source of his book, “Mere Christianity.” In one of those lectures he said this:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about [Jesus]: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. … Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.”

Then Jesus asked, “But what about you? Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah." What is your answer to that question? Who do you think Jesus is? Eternity hangs upon your correct response.

 

“To you, the mothers who were betrayed by a system that gave you no choice and subjected you to manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice, we apologise.  We say sorry to you, the mothers who were denied knowledge of your rights, which meant you could not provide informed consent.  You were given false assurances. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal." 

The apology also acknowledged "the profound effects" on fathers and the sons and daughters who grew up not knowing how much they were wanted and loved.

In the apology, Julia Gillard said, "no collection of words alone can undo all this damage.  But by saying sorry we can correct the historical record.  We can declare that these mothers did nothing wrong.”

Some of the submissions to the report into the practice of forced adoptions are heartbreaking:

My mother became hysterical, when she realised I was pregnant, she was bereft about the neighbours, the relatives, and the church members, finding out her daughter was pregnant out-of wedlock … I had to hide in the house, she had contempt for me … It was decided that I go to a home for unmarried mothers, “for a few weeks” so I would not been seen by others who would make judgement (Ms Marilyn Murphy, Submission 150, p. 2).

In 1965 I was sent to “Carramar” Church of England Home for Unwed Mothers … I did not go there on my own freewill.  I was woken that morning apparently, I must have been drugged by my mother with a sleeping pill or similar, as I did not come around till I was shaken awake by a Preacher … As we were parked in the driveway facing a two-storey older style building I asked him, “Where are we?” and he said, “This is a home for girls who are pregnant like you to stay till they have their babies”. I was terrified as he led me to the door to be met by a stern looking woman who led me inside (Mrs. Beverley Redlich, Submission 112, p. 1).

If we went into the shops for personal items we were only allowed to go in twos, so as not to upset the home owners in the area who had complained about us ‘walking the streets in our state’, we were a large blot on their pleasant society and the church did not want any trouble. Shopkeepers commented that we were from the local ‘baby factory’ (Ms. Angela Brown, Submission 402, p. 1).

The following is an excerpt from an adopted child.

I remember a time after returning to Australia at age 14. I was being belted so hard and so many times, I remember the belt wrapping around my neck once. During my adoption I still spent most of the time in boarding schools and church hostels (Mr. Wayne Lewis, Submission 408, p. 3).

Christine Cole, the head of the Apology Alliance who lost a child through forced adoption, told ABC television the words were long overdue: “I had my baby taken from me in 1969, and I think the use of the term forced adoption polarises the actual phenomena of what was going on.  What was going on was kidnapping children, kidnapping newborn babies from their mothers at the birth, using pillows and sheets to cover their face, drugging them as I was drugged, with drugs like sodium pentothal, chloral hydrate and other mind-altering barbiturates.  It was cruel, it was punitive and then often the mother was transported like I was away from the hospital so you had no access to your baby.”

What can we learn from this blot on Australia’s history?  Firstly, to make sure the Prime Minister’s promise is kept: “We can promise that no generation of Australian will suffer the same pain and trauma that you did.”  And yet the direction Australia is moving in with surrogacy laws will break the promise – future generations will grow up not knowing who their biological father or mother is.

Secondly, the Australia of the 1950s to 1970s is described as “a conservative and predominantly Christian nation and religious groups largely drove the adoptions.” This is something that Christians and churches need to understand because it was often church groups and church-run hospitals, hostels and care facilities that were directly involved in the injustices.  Recognising this the Catholic Church apologized in July 2011.  The Uniting Church has also accepted responsibility for this practice.  Anglicare says it apologised in the 2000 “Releasing the past” report for abuse at the Carramar maternity home.

It seems to me (as a conservative Christian) that conservative Christianity has much to apologize for.  In fact one pastor in the USA taught a series called “Confessions of a sinful church”.  They included:

Apology #1 – We’re sorry for our self-righteousness and hypocrisy

Apology #2 – We’re sorry for our endorsement of slavery

Apology #3 – We’re sorry for our mistreatment of homosexuals

Apology #4 – We’re sorry for the Medieval Crusades

Apology #5 – We’re sorry for saying the earth is flat

We could add to these apologies: we’re sorry for our oppression of women; for our refusal to recognise marriage between different races; for treating divorced people as second-class Christians; for saying that we’re all sinners saved by grace and yet showing contempt for those who are still in sin.

Christians have done a lot of good though the centuries and added great value to the world in which we live, but we’ve also got it wrong on more than one occasion.  This has been highlighted by last week’s apology by our Prime Minister.  We are sorry for the things we’ve got wrong.  I’m just hoping – and praying – that we don’t have too much more to apologise for in the future.

Why are women allowed to speak in the church when the Bible says they should be quiet?  There are two passages of Scripture that teach this very clearly: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

The word “silent” refers to “The quietness of the disciple who receives instruction.”   “To have authority over,” means, “to domineer or usurp/seize authority”.

On closer inspection of the context and culture of these verses, it becomes clear exactly what the apostle Paul was addressing.  The Corinthian church was out of control.  They were gripped with carnality, lawsuits, immorality and false teaching.  People were getting drunk during the Lord’s Supper and their church meetings were a mess with everyone competing for a chance to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  It’s with this in mind that the verses in 1 Corinthians are to be understood: “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home.”  It seems that the women of the church were asking their husbands questions during the teaching of the Word and, this too, was disrupting the worship service.

The first letter of Paul to Timothy was written to prevent the spread of heresy in the church.  It appears that women were the main culprits of spreading the false teaching and so Paul temporarily prohibits them from teaching until they had been instructed in the Word thus correcting the error that was being taught.  Professor David Sholer puts it this way, “These injunctions are directed against women involved in false teaching, who have sought to abuse proper exercise of authority in the church, not denied by Paul elsewhere to women, by usurping and dominating the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus”.

One of my lecturers in Bible College in the 80s, Spencer Gear, said, “1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not a command to prevent all women from teaching in the church at all times.  Paul’s intention was not to place a permanent limitation on women in the ministry. Rather, these verses were addressed to a problem situation in Ephesus where women were teaching heresy”.

The culture in which a church finds itself also has a large bearing on the matter.  Tony Campolo in his book “20 hot potatoes” says, “If the existence of women preachers created a barrier to non-Christians coming into faith, then it was right for women to refrain from being preachers.  In today’s world … keeping women out of pulpits is having a negative effect upon the propagation of the gospel throughout the outside world, and therefore the policy on the matter which was in place in the past should be set aside” (Pg.39).

If we were to take these passages literally today we would disqualify all women from any vocal ministry in the church.  That would include Sunday school teaching, youth leadership, speaking at women’s meetings, missionaries, singing in the church in any way, praying in prayer meetings and so on.  This would also contradict what Paul wrote a few chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:5, “And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved.”  So, women ARE allowed to speak in the church then!  The “church” being wherever believers are gathered together.

If we were to take these passages literally for all situations we would also contradict the rest of the New Testament, which clearly permits women to minister.  Women ministers include: Anna the Prophetess (Luke 2:36), Dorcas (Acts 9:26), the woman of Samaria (John 4:7), the four daughters of Phillip (Acts 21:9), Priscilla (Acts 18:24-26), the older women (Titus 2:3-4), Phoebe (Rom 16:1, 2), Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2,3), Tryphena and Tryphosa (Rom 16:12).

In general, the gifts of the Spirit, many of which are vocal gifts used in the church, are available to all believers regardless of gender (Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:8-10; Eph. 4:11; Col. 3:16).  Acts 2 also makes it clear that God supports women in ministry: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. 
Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.”

John Stott says, “If God endows women with spiritual gifts (which He does), and thereby calls them to exercise their gifts for the common good (which He does), then the church must recognise God’s gifts and calling, must make appropriate spheres of service available to women, and should ordain (that is, commission and authorise) them to exercise their God-given ministry …”

Finally, if we were to take these passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy literally today we would nullify Christ’s work on the cross.  The Old Testament Temple was divided into three sections: The Holy of Holies where the High priest entered once a year.  The Holy Place – reserved for Jewish men only, and the outer court – for Jewish women and gentiles.  This all changed at the crucifixion when the veil that separated the Jewish men from the Jewish women and gentiles was torn from top to bottom (Luke 23:45).  The New Testament allows open fellowship of ALL people who come to God through Christ, whether male or female: “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26-28)

I am so grateful to God for the incredible women that He has called into leadership at Bayside Church – not least my amazing wife, Christie.  The church community would be so much the poorer if we commanded them to remain silent ~ and I don’t like the chances of that happening anyway.