Polyamory -- The Perfectly Plural Postmodern Condition

By Albert Mohler.

Once a sexual revolution is set loose, it inevitably runs its course through the culture. While the current flashpoints of cultural conflict are focused on same-sex marriage and gender issues, others are biding their time. As Newsweek magazine makes clear, some new flashpoints are getting restless.

Polyamory, reports Newsweek, is having a "coming-out-party." Polyamory is the current "term of art" applied to "families" or "clusters" comprised of multiple sexual partners. As Newsweek explains, this is not exactly polygamy, because marriage is not the issue. Advocates of polyamory argue that their lifestyle is not "open marriage." Indeed, they define their movement in terms of the moral principle of "ethical nonmonogamy," defined as "engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person -- based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved."

Legal theorists and opponents of same-sex marriage routinely (and rightly) make the argument that the legalization of homosexual marriage will, inevitably, lead to the legalization of polygamy. Once marriage is redefined to allow for same-sex unions, any determination to maintain legal prohibitions against polygamy will be seen as merely arbitrary. At the same time, once strictures against adultery were eliminated in the culture and in the law, something essentially like polygamy was inevitable.

The article in Newsweek, written by Jessica Bennett, presents polyamory as a growing movement that now involves persons in the cultural mainstream. As the magazine reports: "Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city."

The movement now claims a number of recognized books, blogs, podcasts, and even an online magazine entitled "Loving More." According to Newsweek, actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the First Lady of France, have emerged as prominent spokespersons for nonmonogamy. As should be expected, the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University now features a "polyamory library."

Jessica Bennett suggests that the contemporary polyamory movement has roots in utopian movements of the 19th century:

The notion of multiple-partner relationships is as old as the human race itself. But polyamorists trace the foundation of their movement to the utopian Oneida commune of upstate New York, founded in 1848 by Yale theologian John Humphrey Noyes. Noyes believed in a kind of communalism he hoped would fix relations between men and women; both genders had equal voice in community governance, and every man was considered to be married to every woman. But it wasn't until the late-1960s and 1970s "free love" movement that polyamory truly came into vogue; when books like Open Marriage topped best-seller lists and groups like the North American Swingers Club began experimenting with the concept. The term "polyamory," coined in the 1990s, popped up in both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries in 2006.

In one sense, the polyamorous defy easy categorization. The movement includes couples who openly and with full knowledge of each other engage in sexual relationships with others. Some are involved in group sex and others experiment with bisexuality. The Newsweek article introduces readers to a new vocabulary. The most revealing word is "polyfidelitous" -- which means that the multiple partners keep sexual activity within their own self-identified cluster.

Interestingly, Bennett observes that the movement "has a decidedly feminist bent." If men can have multiple wives or female partners, then, the logic goes, women must have the same in order to achieve "gender equality." Bennett quotes Allena Gabosch, director of an organization known as the "Center for Sex Positive Culture," suggesting that polyamory sounds scary to people because "it shakes up their worldview." But, she insists, polyamory might well be "more natural than we think."

Perhaps the best way to understand this new movement is to understand it as a natural consequence of subverting marriage. We have largely normalized adultery, serialized marriage, separated marriage from reproduction and childbearing, and accepted divorce as a mechanism for liberation. Once this happens, boundary after boundary falls as sexual regulation virtually disappears among those defined as "consenting adults."

The ultimate sign of our moral confusion becomes evident when virtually no one appears ready to condemn polyamory as immoral. The only arguments mustered against this new movement focus on matters of practicality. Polyamory is certainly not new, but this new movement is yet another reminder that virtually all the fences are now down when it comes to sex and sexual relationships. What comes next?

SERVING GOD THROUGH OPPOSITION

Exodus 5.

INTRO
Even when God sends us to do a task, there will always be opposition against us. This should not make us feel defeated, rather, as with Paul in II Cor. 13, we should see our setback as bringing out the glory of God even greater. When facing opposition, sometimes the last thing we think is that God has a plan, but as with Moses, and in the New Testament, Jesus, we should always trust in our Father’s greater plan.

Explanation Vss. 1-9: Moses passes the Lord’s message to Pharaoh, what the Lord requires of his people. He calls “the Lord” in the singular, since Egypt was a polytheistic society. This is the first of many demands, 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3, etc. Knowing. Pharaoh didn’t know the Lord; this is the theme that is central to the book. Reminds us of what knowing means in the book of John, which is being saved.
Moses explains to Pharaoh how the Hebrews were to serve the Lord, with a festival. If this would not take place, they would be stricken by ‘pestilence or sword’, cf. vs. 21 where the sword is mentioned again, but the one using it is Pharaoh.
From vss. 6-9, Pharaoh’s words are repeated in vss. 17-18, and because they came from Pharaoh’s mouth, they are law.
Illustration: Moses lets the Pharaoh know the words of the Lord. Pharaoh’s response is to say that he didn’t know the Lord, and proclaims some words himself, adding to the work of the Israelites, and to call them lazy. Pharaoh calls what Moses says “deceptive words”, or literally “lies”. For Pharaoh, Moses and his God were fakes. So the issue comes down as to whose words are true, Pharaoh or the Lord’s.
What Moses was asking Pharaoh was not an impossible thing, since religious texts show that Egyptian workers took days off for religious festivals.
Application: Moses’ first encounter with Pharaoh’s did not go down well. His first attempt, he found opposition, and very stiff at that. We are also entrusted with the most important message to those who are under the control of the devil, the gospel. Our work becomes more difficult since we have very famous sceptics who put the word of God, the Bible, in doubt. We must press on, although the opposition may seem to be in control. What’s in our lives that we know that Lord has given us promises, and we may lose heart seeing the opposing facts in our lives?? Our faith should look beyond any opposition, and hold on to God’s word.

Explanation Vss. 10-18: The language used by the slave drivers to the Isralite supervisors is legal language. This point out the Pharaoh’s word is law. Bricks in Egypt were as large as 12 inches, 6 inches tall and 6 inches deep. The need for straw comes because it provided humic acid, which increased the effectiveness as binder. Stubble, this was dried out remains in the field after the harvest, which had no humic acid, therefore, less suitable for their work. As the slave drivers were oppressing the Isralite supervisors, they approach Pharaoh to plead their case. Pharaoh again accuses them of laziness, and does not take attention of their pleads.
Illustration: The foreman call themselves “servants”, Pharaoh’s response is for them to get back to ‘serve’, ‘work’, cf. vss. 15, 18. Here we see the Isralites crying to Pharaoh, cf. 15:8. The usual cry is to the Lord, cf. 2:23; 8:8; 14:10, 15; 15:25; 17:4; 22:22.
Application: This is an example to whom we should not go when in trouble. We cannot go to the one who has us in slavery for delivery. How many times have we considered going to those who are afflicting us, in order for them to change their ways. The world will not change, but we have someone to cry out, and it is the Lord. Just as the Isralites were given stubble to complete their task, the world would always give us something that will quickly pass away, that will wither sooner or later. The Lord offers us eternal life, no temporal pleasures. We should always keep our eyes on the author and perfecter of our faith, Jesus, Heb. 12:2.

Explanation Vss. 19-21-6:1: The supervisors turn their anger to Moses and Aaron. They forget that they are sent from the Lord, but quickly attribute the blame for their situation on them. Pharaoh’s sword is the object of their fear, not the Lord’s sword, cf. 3.
Illustration: the foremen are looking for a way out of their trouble, and they have genuine concern for the Isralite workers. They blame not Pharaoh’s reluctance to hear the word of the Lord, but they blame those who brought to him the word of the Lord, Moses and Aaron. Moses cries out to the Lord, and the Lord answers him, explaining to him as to why Pharaoh has acted that way.
Application: We have a tendency to blame others for our own situation. We are not that different from the Isralite foremen. Sometimes we come to church with the expectation to be told how good we are, how gentle, how Christian!! But there’s no one good here but Jesus, cf. Mat. 19:17; Mk. 10:18; Lk. 19:19. Don’t blame the preacher when he is exposing the word of God, and you feel and know that you are not living a Christian life. The word is preached in order to show you how the Lord can take away those things that make us all sinners, and therefore, don’t have a relationship with our Lord. But what if there is no sin, and you still face opposition in your life, work, family, club, church??? Don’t blame others will not fix the problem. Just as Moses cried out to the Lord, we are to do the same. Remember Jesus cried out to the Father when in need in the Garden of Gethsemane, and he got an answer, to go the cross. Moses had much to endure before seeing what God was to do with Pharaoh. We also have a lot to live before we can somehow comprehend God’s plan in our lives.

Conclusion: Life is full of hardship, trouble, and opposition. But as believers, we must trust that God has a greater plan for our lives than we can see from our perspective. God was working his plan through Israel’s suffering, which was the showing of his mighty hand in Egypt. What are you going through at this moment, that you feel there is no way out, that it doesn’t make sense or you don’t deserve it? Let’s remember that we have given our lives to the Lord, and he knows the outcome of our lives, even though we may not see the light at the end of the tunnel. Let us treasure what scripture tells us, “28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

Baptists mark 400th anniversary

By John McManus
BBC News

Members of the Baptist Union are gathering in Bournemouth to celebrate their 400th anniversary - the first Baptist congregation was founded in 1609. With four centuries of growth behind them, what are the challenges facing believers in the next 100 years?

Baptists first emerged after the Reformation swept Europe, causing upheaval throughout Christian communities.

Martin Luther's Protestant movement had gained ground in northern Europe, and Henry VIII had broken with Rome and established the Church of England as the country's national church, with him as its spiritual head.

Today Baptists are the fifth largest Christian church in the world, with 40 million members, and Baptists in England and Wales say that national numbers are stable, unlike many Christian denominations.

The sins of the bankers contributed to the mess, but so have all of us The Reverend Jonathan Edwards

But away from the pews, there are practical issues that Baptists are having to grapple with as their Union looks towards the future, many of them familiar to members of other religions.

In 2004 the wealthy Southern Baptist Convention of the USA split from the Baptist World Alliance, citing an increasing trend towards liberalism as the reason.

Closing rift

The theology of the Southern Baptists has been described by one English Baptist as right-wing and fundamentalist, with serious differences over the role of women in ministry and creation theology.

Jonathan Edwards blames churchgoers as well as bankers for the current financial crisis

The general secretary of the Baptist Union, the Reverend Jonathan Edwards, says that although the split was an unhappy one, he maintains close relations with the American Baptists and does not think it is necessarily permanent.

"I would be very surprised if the rift were to last for many years," he says.

Mr Edwards leads an administrative staff of 150 at the Union's headquarters in Oxfordshire, but the Baptists are not a top-down hierarchical church.

Individual congregations are self-funding and self-regulating, and even decide themselves what form their services of worship will take.

Mr Edwards cites this ability to respond to local preferences as the reason why congregations are not dropping, and in some places are even rising.

"Our churches are quite light on their feet. I'm not there telling them what they can and can't do."

Despite this, the Union is persisting in efforts to persuade congregations to be more diverse, a theme that will be continued at this weekend's assembly.

Supporting families

Although the first female ministers began preaching in the 1920s, only 10% of current ministers are women, a statistic the Union wants to change.

However, although ministers can be from either sex, they must be either celibate or in a heterosexual marriage.

Baptist Timeline 1609: first Baptist congregation founded in the Netherlands by John Smyth 1832: Baptist Union formed 1922: Violet Hedger becomes first female minister 2004: Southern Baptist Convention splits from World Alliance

"I believe the norm that God intends for us is hetero-relationships" says Mr Edwards.

"In these times especially, we should be supporting families."

Baptists have always been an evangelising religion, believing that they can help knit together communities by becoming practically involved in them, such as becoming school governors or running children's playgroups.

But their ambitions do not extend to wanting to replace the Anglicans as the national Church, and unlike, for example, some British Roman Catholics, they are not keen on pulling up a chair at the table of government.

Instead, they preach for the disestablishment of Church and state, though for different reasons to secularists.

Mark Woods, the editor of the Baptist Times, explains that politics and religion can be a heady mix.

"The model of one denomination of one religion acting as sort of spiritual broker for the rest of the country - however benevolent and co-operative they are - is no longer appropriate, if it ever was.

Baptists undergo full submersion in water when they join the Church

"That's not to say that religion should be excluded from public life, but we need a better system in which other traditions are represented as well."

Baptists believe that prophetic ministry - warning and advising on the issues of the day - is compromised if a Church is too close to government, so they are keen to stay outside the fold.

And as if to illustrate this, Mr Edwards delivers an uncompromising evaluation of the current financial crisis.

"We're pointing the finger at ourselves.

"We in the Churches have been tied into the selfishness and materialism just like everybody else. This is an opportunity for a radical rethink.

"The sins of the bankers contributed to the mess, but so have all of us."

The Development of Worship within Christianity

INTRODUCTION
Worship has always been a part of the people of God. After the fall, we are told that “people began to invoke the name of the Lord”, cf. Genesis 4:26. This, as Evelyn Underhill has commented, may be the “acknowledgment of Transcendence” . We can see that from the beginning of human kind, there has been a need to acknowledge that that is beyond us. But the definition of worship is not as straight forward as what’s being said. Underhill tells us that worship “is the response of the creature to the Eternal. Geoffrey Wainwright takes a similar view, calling worship a “faithful human response to the revelation of God’s being, character, beneficence and will. The two previous authors have focused on the response of the worshipper, from a Catholic perspective, Patrick Bishop says that worship “consists in a response of veneration in the face of the recognized presence of God”, bringing God into the act of worship along with the worshipper.

Historical Aspects of Worship
As it has been mentioned before, as described by Scripture, worship has been an integral part of humanity’s response to God’s actions around us. Christian worship in particular, borrowed from the worship liturgy found in Second Temple Judaism. Prayer was included in worship as well as the reading and exposition of a biblical passage. The two main innovations introduced by the Christians were that the main day of worship was no longer on the Sabbath, but on Sunday, and that Jesus became the focus of worship. Justin Martyr (100-165) tells us that the Gospels and the writings of the prophets were read aloud during the Christian service, cf. First Apology 67. Worship became a very integral issue in the development of Christology, since Christians saw the worship of Jesus as an integral part of their worship. If Jesus were only a creature, Christians would easily be called idolaters. The church went through great pains in order to formalise her teachings about who the person of Jesus was, and the councils of Nicea and Constantinople served to settle the dispute and affirm that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equally deserving of our worship, since the three are equally God. It was around this period, that the worship of the Church changed greatly, since there was no need to hide from fear of persecution, and Christianity, being the official religion of the empire, took over the pagan temples. As the early type of worship had been simple in its form, it was during this time and afterwards, that ceremony took central stage in the worship practice of the church. The two stages of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Upper Room, gave way to more elaborate forms of worship. This gradually grew to such an extent that the priest was the only one doing something in the worship service, while the attendants were mere spectators. It must be mentioned that it was during this period, that the Eastern and Western parts of the church took different approaches to worship, the former taking a more mystical approach, while the later, a more rational.

By the time of the Reformation, the Reformers had a reaction to the lack of input from the congregation to the worship service. The response to the manner of worship was threefold, representing the three major trends of the time. The Roman Catholics retained the usage of musicians but with minimal congregational input; the Calvinists, abolished music all together and opted for congregational singing; and the Lutherans, was a combination of the two. For most of the Protestants, the exposition of the word became the highest reason of corporate worship. These developments from the Reformation period are more or less still present in the congregations of both Roman Catholic and Protestant persuasions, with some variations.

The Usefulness of Worship
Worship has an impact on the worshipper that goes beyond the liturgical service. As Patrick Bishop tells us, worship “imposes an ethic upon us”. Romans 12:1-2, tells us to offer ourselves in a spiritual worship, and also not to be conformed to this world. Roman Catholics see worship as the “glorification of God and the sanctification of humanity”. This aspect of worship should be paramount to those who take part of it. Too often people come our churches, take part of the worship experience, yet don’t feel compel to transform their lives to the ideals they have just sang or recited. As Underhill points out, worship “sets the awful Perfection of God over against the creature’s imperfection, it becomes the most effective cause of “conviction of sin”, and hence, of the soul’s penitence and purification”. In this I brake with some of my contemporaries that see worship as a solely spiritual exercise in which God is magnified, to no effect on us apart from feeling gratitude. This sort of worship becomes more mechanical than organic, and has no impact in us or those surrounding us.

Conclusion
Worship may take the form of an individual or corporate expression. However, as with the ethical dimension of worship, I would say that the communal act of worship should take precedent over the individualistic one. The usage of water, table, bread, and other visual aids should be welcomed and accepted as legitimate aids to our worship experience. Too many churches have come to reject such age proven aids, and have rather opted for a projector as the sole instrument to stimulate their senses to worship. Yes, the worship of Christians must always be Theo centric, but as in the case of Jesus, who lived the perfect life of worship, it must also serve to enable the worshippers to help their neighbour. Our worship does not end at the steps of the church, but goes beyond it.

Bibliography

Bishop, Patrick ‘Worship’ in The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship. Peter & Fink, Eds. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990.

Manson, P. D. ‘Worship’ in The New Dictionary of Theology, Sinclair R. Ferguson, David F. Wright, Eds. Leicester: IVP, 1988.

Rayburn, R. G. “Worship in the Church” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Walter A. Elwell Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Underhill, Evelyn Worship Nisbet & Co. LTD; London, 1936.

Wainwright, Geoffrey ‘Theology of Worship’, in The New Dictionary of Liturgy & Worship Paul Bradshaw Ed. London: SCM Press, 2002.

White, James F. Introduction to Christian Worship (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980.

When did churches start using instrumental music? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/nov30.html, Christianhistory.net accessed on the 26/05/09.

Luis A. Jovel

Newsweek -- The End of Christian America

Albert Mohler has written an article on the subject of the gradual demise of Christianity in the USA. Now Newsweek, has picked up on the issue, and has written an article and put the issue as its front page news. I invite you to read Mohler's article and Newsweek's.
*******************************

"To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population."

Thus writes Newsweek editor Jon Meacham in this week's cover story, "The End of Christian America." The image on the front cover says it all, declaring "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" in type set to form a cross.

The cover story is a serious consideration of the issue Newsweek set as its priority for the week of Easter, and the seriousness of the magazine's approach is evident in the fact that its editor, Mr. Meacham, wrote the cover story himself. The essay, elegant in form and serious in tone, demands attention.

I read Jon Meacham's essay with no small amount of personal interest, for Mr. Meacham had talked to me as he was writing the article. Here is how his essay begins:

It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, "this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified." As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America's religious culture was cracking.

I do remember that moment quite well, and I expressed my thoughts in an article posted March 27, "The Eclipse of Christian Memory." The increasingly secular character of New England, now surpassing even the Pacific Northwest, is a portrait of Christianity in retreat. The course of this retreat has been long. Indeed some historians would trace the secular trend in New England to the period of the Revolution itself. In the minds of at least some New Englanders, King George was not the only authority dethroned in that generation.

Still, the region remained under the influence of Christian memory and, for most of the intervening decades, under the influence of the Christian worldview. Now, New England is the most secular region of the nation, representing a model of what I believe is rightly designated post-Christian America.

Mr. Meacham picked up on this description of the pattern, and Newsweek launched a cover story. A good portion of the essay deals with my argument and a consideration of its accuracy and significance. Without doubt, Newsweek considers the pattern to be of great significance -- thus the cover story. Mr. Meacham looked at the same data that had caught my attention, the American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] and the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study. His summary response to the post-Christian designation: "There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory."

Here is the essence of Jon Meacham's analysis:

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world." As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.

This is a fair and insightful rendering of the pattern. What does become clear in this paragraph is that what Newsweek sees as the essence of the issue is political influence. While this is hardly a non-issue, my greater concern is not with political influence and what secularization means for the political sphere, but with what secularization means for the souls of men and women who are now considerably more distant from Christianity -- and perhaps even with any contact with Christianity -- than ever before. My main concern is evangelism, not cultural influence.

One key aspect of Mr. Meacham's argument is his suggestion that what binds America together is not "a specific faith" but instead "a commitment to freedom" and, in particular, freedom of conscience. There is something to this argument, of course. The founding generation did not establish the young republic on any religious creed or theological doctrine. Still, there is something missing from this argument, and that is the recognition that freedom, and freedom of conscience in particular, requires some prior understanding of human dignity and the origins of conscience itself. Though the founders included those who rejected the Christian Gospel and Christianity itself, Christianity had provided the necessary underpinnings for the founders' claims.

Mr. Meacham also suggests that this new situation is perhaps healthy for the church. To this extent I agree -- the church gains a necessary knowledge any time the distinction between the church and the world is made more evident. Our first concern is and must be the Gospel. It is good that non-Christians know that they are not Christians and that Christians be reminded of that fact that what sinners need is the Gospel of Christ, not merely the lingering morality of the Christian memory.

I am haunted a bit by this section of the Newsweek article:

Mohler posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. "A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us," Mohler wrote. "The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture." When Mohler and I spoke in the days after he wrote this, he had grown even gloomier. "Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society," he said from his office on campus in Louisville, Ky.

I appreciate the care, respect, and insight that mark this essay by Jon Meacham. I also appreciated our conversation about an issue that concerns us both. Still, I hope I did not reflect too much gloom in my analysis. This much I know -- Jesus Christ is Lord, and His kingdom is forever. Our proper Christian response to this new challenge is not gloom, but concern. And our first concern must be to see that the Gospel is preached as Good News to the perishing -- including all those in post-Christian America.

Barbie turns 50. Time to look at life at this point

Albert Mohler, from whom I get many posts from, has written about the event two weeks ago, that Barbie turn 50 yrs old this month.

Why would this be of interest to the rest of us?

Barbie's origins were not as clear cut and innocent as the little girls it hopes to project her self. For example, Barbie was modelled after a sex toy from Germany. No wonder the body dimensions of the doll can be only achieved through surgery, and never naturally.

Both parents and feminist criticise this aspect of Barbie. Barbie projects herself as the ideal girl, with the ideal lifestyle. No girl of the age of 6 can have a car as flashy as Barbie's, or have a boyfriend as good looking as Barbie's. Of course, this is only child play, however, just as I long for a BMW due to my cars as a kid, many young women grow up and long to have the life style Barbie has. The difference is that they are flesh and bones, not as Barbie is, mainly plastic.

Barbie's ideals are not the ones that christian people hold. Starting by the fact, that outside beauty is not the pinnacle of a woman's existence. This is how the Bible defines a beautiful woman who does have wisdom:
Proverbs 11:22
Like a gold ring in a pig's snout
is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.

I have two daughters, and those of you who have daughters, we would do well to teach our daughters to aspire, not to be like Barbie, but to be the best with the gifts God has given them.

For those interested in readig the article, you can find it at: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3365

Luis Alberto Jovel

Australia Day, for whom?

Today, here in Australia, we are celebrating "Australian Day".

This is the day when we honour those that have given to the community a lot, as well as those who have achieved, against all odds, great deeds.

However, it would seem that not all people are happy about it. Aboriginals are demanding to change Australia Day, January 26, to another date. This, they say, it's because they call today "Invasion Day", due to the fact that the first fleet arrived on that day.

Last year, the Prime minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, offered an apology for the treatment of aboriginees in the past. Previous prime ministers refused to this, since they thought, rightly, that that would open a floodgates of monetary demands from those who saw themselves as abused, looked down upon, etc. Leaders from the aboriginal peoples denied that, but now we see many demands of compensantion. I assumed that we, as fallen human being, would never be satisfied, even as in this case, an apology was given. It was said by many people, including some lectures of mine, that the apology last year would help for reconciliation between anglo Australia and aboriginal Australia. I am not part of either, by the way. This has not taken place, as we see the new demands from the Australian of the Year, Michael Dobson, an Aboriginal, to have Australia day moved to another date, even though the rest of the country is happy to keep it as it is.

I don't think reconociliation can ever take place, because we are fallen human beings. What we need to do, is to put the past in the past, and forge a good future for our nation together. Too much time has being wasted on the issue of reconciliation. That time would have been better spent preparing ourselves for the future, for such things not to happen again. The Apology last year failed, because we always think that we as human beings are good, but the Bible tells us otherwise, that we all have strayed, and no good is in us, cf. Romans 3:9-18.

Therefore, all reconciliation, that does not take God, and what He did through Jesus, to reconcile us to God, into account, is doomed to fail, cf. II Corinthians 5:11-6:2.

But going back to Australia. As you have seen in the videos I have posted, Australia is a beautiful place. I am happy the way my country is, and although I recognise that there were some before me here, I also embrace the democracy that Australia believes in. If the rest of us are happy with Australia Day, please respect the wishes of the majority, and enjoy living in this Southern Land.

Luis A. Jovel

The "American Experience" and the Death of Evangelism

Every culture and civilization embraces a certain set of assumptions about life, truth, significance, and what it means to be human. Without these shared assumptions, common life would be impossible. Individuals within these societies may not give much active thought to these common assumptions, but their decisions, expectations, and general dispositions reflect the presence of these assumptions as what some philosophers call background ideas.

Out of these assumptions an entire way of life emerges. Background ideas move into the foreground as morals, manners, and the culture at large begins to reflect the decisive influence if these ideas. In America, an identifiable "American way of life" rules as an operational worldview for many persons -- perhaps even replacing more fundamental convictions.

"The American way" involves, among other things, patriotism, a sense of fair play, equality, personal autonomy, and limitless opportunity. We expect each other to respect these assumptions and ideals.

But, is God accountable to the American way?

Responding to a recent report from the Barna Research Group indicating that Americans Christians are increasingly unwilling to believe that their non-Christian neighbors are going to hell, Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe explained:

"It's just part of a 200-year working out of ideas about personal autonomy and equality that are sort of built into the American experience. The notion that someone is going to burn in hell because they have their own beliefs is just not resonant within our larger political ideals."

Wolfe, who directs the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, suggests that Americans are confusing the American experience with the ways of God. Without doubt, assumptions about autonomy and equality "are sort of built into the American experience." These ideas are now just taken for granted. Americans generally assume themselves and their fellow citizens to be unconditionally autonomous, free to make and remake themselves in protean fashion, and thus the unfettered captains of their own souls.

Americans are not sure what to do with ideals of equality and fairness, but we are generally certain that equality and fairness are the right categories to employ, regardless of the idea or context.

People who think themselves autonomous will claim the right to define all meaning for themselves. Any truth claim they reject or resist is simply ruled out of bounds. We will make our own world of meaning and dare anyone to violate our autonomy.

The same research report indicates that a majority of American Christians pick and choose doctrines, more or less on the basis of those they like as opposed to those they dislike.

This certainly explains a great deal about the current shape of Christianity in American today. Specifically, it points to at least one fundamental reason that so many Christians -- including a significant number who claim to be evangelical -- no longer believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

That reason: Eternal punishment in hell is not consistent with "the American experience" or "the American way." The God of the Bible, in other words, does not act in ways consistent with what many people consider to be American ideals. Sending people to hell is just not fair.

The Bible never claims that God acts fairly, of course. Fairness is the best we mortals can often hope to achieve. We want our children to learn to play fairly and each child learns all too quickly to cry out, "No fair!"

But God does not claim to be fair. The God of the Bible is infinitely greater than we are. He is faithful, just, holy, merciful, gracious, and righteous. A morally perfect being does not operate at the level of mere and faulty human fairness, but at the level of his own omnipotent righteousness. We hope to make things fair. God makes things right.

I think Alan Wolfe is on to something really important here, and Christians should think carefully about what he is saying. The Holy One of Israel, the ruler of all and the sovereign of universe, is now to be judged by his own sinful creatures by the standard of fairness. Doctrines ruled to be "unfair" are cast aside and overridden by our cherished cultural assumptions. Evangelism will die the thousand deaths of cultural awkwardness.

As much as Christians in this blessed nation should respect and cherish our democratic ideals and system of government, we must keep ever in mind that the Kingdom of God is ruled by a higher and infinitely more perfect law and system of governance.

Be warned: God is not running for office, and heaven is not a democracy.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3106

Sydney Tower Restaurant

Here we are at the Tower's Restaurant. Some English and Spanish as always.

Some videos from our trip to Sydney's Blue Mountains

N. T. Wright answers his critics, again!

For the beggining of the year, I am looking forward to read Wright's new book:

Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision

I. Howard Marshall makes a description of the book on Amazon.co.uk
This book is a magisterial response to the recent spate of criticism directed at Tom Wright for his theology of justification. He introduces readers to the debate and outlines his position without engaging in polemic against his opponents. 'This sprightly and gracious, yet robust, work is Tom Wright's carefully argued and scripturally based response to those who think that he has deeply misunderstood Paul's doctrine of justification… This is definitely one of the most exciting and significant books that I have read this year… Strongly commended!' Professor I. Howard Marshall, University of Aberdeen

Something to look forward in your new year reading list.

Luis A. Jovel.