|
|
The Pastor\'s Page
|
|
|
Written by Matt Frost
|
|
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 22:53 |
|
Most of us will have been made very aware of the ongoing debate within the Anglican church worldwide focussed around the specific questions of the ordination of practising homosexuals and women as bishops (you're really in trouble if you're a practising homosexual and a woman!!).
In practice, these issues surrounding the ordination of bishops are only the things that have surfaced revealing the wide diversity of Christian beliefs and practices that exist in the Anglican communion. Robert Piggott, the BBC religious affairs correspondent, described it well, "In reality, the dispute centres on how strictly Anglicans should interpret the Bible, and whether, for example, it should be read as ruling out active homosexuality as a sin. Homosexuality is simply the presenting issue - the human behaviour that exposes radically different approaches to the Bible, and helps to make this such a fundamental dispute. Now, my own thoughts on the issues in question are to be positive about the ordination of women bishops (although I'd have a slightly different understanding of ordination than my Anglican friends) and negative about the ordination of practising homosexuals. These views are based on my understanding of the Bible, and my fairly 'Evangelical' interpretations of it. But that's not really what I want to write about hear. My concern with the Anglican debate is not so much with the debate in question, which I believe was inevitable at some point given the huge divergences in Anglican theology and the dramatic changes in the churches as two-thirds world churches are now in the majority, by a long way. My concern is the way it is being conducted - and this is not a particular dig at my Anglican brothers and sisters - every church group can fall into this.
The debate is being conducted in public. The media is being used as a tool of propaganda. Bishops are boycotting the current conference in Canterbury. The language of polemic abounds.
All this confirms to many who look on from outside is that Christian conduct their debates in the same way as everyone else - I.e. disagreeably.
I believe wholeheartedly that we need to define ourselves well in every church - what we think and how we are choosing to live. But the NT calls us towards doing this in such a different way to the society around us: “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.” (Ephesians 4:31)
I pray for every Anglican, whatever their position in these debates that they will be able to follow this. I pray for myself and my church that we will do the same too. |
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 09 October 2008 17:33 |
|
|
St Columba v Loch Ness Monster |
 |
 |
 |
|
Written by Matt Frost
|
|
Saturday, 03 May 2008 21:54 |
|
I discovered today (thanks to the talking wireless) that the first ever record of a monster in Loch Ness (the deepest lake in Scotland) was from an account of the life of St. Columba - "Vita Columbae" by Adomnán. According to Adomnan, Columba came across a group of Picts who were burying a "poor little man" who had been killed by the monster, and saved a swimmer with the sign of the cross and the imprecation "You will go no further", at which the beast fled terrified, to the amazement of the assembled Picts who glorified Columba's God. Whether or not the story is true (I'd like to think it is) - what it reflects is an idea rooted in the bible that God can exercise power over powerful, dangerous and chaotic forces that exist in our world. Many times in the Old Testament God is described as overcoming various 'sea-monsters'. For example in Psalm 74 - "12 Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.
13 You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.
14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness." These sea creatures (of which Leviathan is the most commonly mentioned in the bible) represent the forces of chaos in the world because the seas where seen as being uncontrollable in the ancient near-east. They also represent spiritual forces that are malevolent and difficult to control. But the bible is clear that God does battle with these creatures and ultimately defeats them - as can be seen from our passage in Psalm 74. Whilst this is an important piece of information in itself - God is more powerful than anything happening in the universe, and He does not become anxious at their activities. It is also of value to us individually when we are experiencing events that appear chaotic, malevolent, dangerous and even demonic - God can do to the forces around us the same as He did to "Leviathan". We are called simply to trust Him.
|
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 21:24 |
|
My thoughts on 1Peter 2:24-25 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Matt Frost
|
|
Tuesday, 29 April 2008 22:36 |
|
1Peter 2:24-25
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. Peter now gives us the substitutionary view of the atonement - that Christ died in our place.Why does he use the word "tree", rather than "cross" that Paul tends to use. Simply to remind his readers (many of whom are Jewish) that "cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree" (Duet. 21:23). He points out that the reason that He carried our sins onto the cross was in order that we would live a new life. What does it mean to "die to sin" - the only similar phrase in English is that we are "dead to the world". I suggest that it means that we are not interested in sin, have no connection with sin, sin has no power over us etc. This is what the death of Jesus can do in us. From experience, I would say that this is a process of dying to sin - it doesn't all happen at the moment of conversion. The opposites are therefore true of righteousness - we are interested in,have connection with righteousness, and it has power over us. What a great way to see it, the righteousness has a power over us - rather than sin having a power over us. We are being tempted to live righteously.
Having already alluded to Isaiah 53, he then makes a direct quotation, but alters the tense. In Isaiah it says "By his wounds we are healed"; Peter says "By His wounds we were healed". Some have made a lot of this, and suggested that we should to be healed when we are not because this is in the past tense. Personally, I don't go along with that. I simply think that Peter is encouraging the Christians to remember that whatever we have been healed of already is the work of Christ on the cross - sickness, sin, hurts etc. The biblical image of God's people as sheep is returned to again here. We were wandering sheep (cf. Isaiah 53), we have got lost. The LORD is described as a shepherd, as in Psalm 23. He is looking over us, in a similar way that a leader looks over his people.
|
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 09 October 2008 17:33 |
|
|
Religious Joke of the Week |
|
|
|
|
Written by Matt Frost
|
|
Monday, 21 April 2008 21:16 |
|
A man hits on a ploy to make some cash. He buys a dog, and painstakingly teaches it to recite the Lord's Prayer, word-for-word, until the dog has it perfect. He takes the dog to the pub, and says, "I bet anyone here a fiver that this dog can recite the Lord's Prayer!" Quite a few people take up the bet. The dog is put up on the bar. "Well, go on, then," says the man. "Ruff! ruff!" says the dog. "Ruff! Ruff!", and starts licking himself. So the man loses all his money. On the way home, he says to the dog, "What flipping heck was that all about? I trained you to recite it perfectly!" "Yep," says the dog, "But just think what the odds'll be tomorrow night!" |
|
Last Updated on Thursday, 09 October 2008 17:33 |
|
My Thoughts on 1Peter 2:20-23 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Matt Frost
|
|
Monday, 10 March 2008 12:49 |
|
1Peter 2:20-21
20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. Being punished for sin is not godly and not a sign of persecution. We need to be careful that when we are opposed we ensure that it is because we are being godly, and not simply that our behaviour is wrong. Once again, Peter says that suffering because we do good is a gracious thing - it brings grace to us and demonstrates grace to the world.
We have been called to do good, and to suffer for it. What a remarkable statement. I know I have been called to do good, but I usually think that this will bring blessing into my life. Now, in the long term it does bring blessing, but in the short term we are promised that it may bring suffering. We must not do good only when people will appreciate it. Sometimes we need to do good when it will bring opposition.
Why should we expect this? Because it was Jesus' experience, and we follow in His footsteps. He suffered for us, even when we were rejecting him. We need to do the same for others.
This is an instance of the "example view" of the atonement - Christ's death was an example to us. This view was promoted by the 12th century theologian Abelard. Verses 22-23 describe how Jesus responded to suffering. Our normal response to injustice against us is to become angry, resentful or violent. Jesus did not sin and did not lie. Why does Peter mention lying specifically? Possibly because the Christians to whom he is writing are experiencing some persecution and are very tempted to lie and deny that they are Christians. This has always been a temptation under persecution, however mild. We can be frightened to tell people at work that we are Christians for fear of what they will think or say about us. Many first century Christians denied Christ when arrested by the Romans to save their lives, and then returned to the faith when they had been released. When Jesus was asked "Are you the Son of God?" He could have said "no" and saved His life. He did not - and we should follow His example.
When Jesus was reviled and when He suffered, He did not respond with retaliation which would be the common human response. This is one of the hardest things for us as Christians - to take persecution without fighting back. Why not fight back? Firstly, because we belong to a God who judges men & women justly. He will judge everyone who persecutes us - we simply need to be patient for His judgement. Secondly, we need to remember that we are also sinners, just like our persecutors - and we are only here because of God's mercy. And finally, our behaviour in front of our persecutors could be the thing that opens their heart to Christ - if we react like everyone else does it will no impact on them.
|
|
Last Updated on Saturday, 03 May 2008 21:38 |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 2 of 12 |
|
|
