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.

An Index on Promiscuity

Sex and the citizen

Dec 15th 2008
From Economist.com

Where people are most, and least, promiscuous

HOW much do sexual habits vary between countries? A great deal, according to a study of 14,000 people in 48 countries. The survey asked respondents to consider seven questions related to sex. Some questions were factual: how many sexual partners have you had in the past year and how many one-night stands have you had? Other questions were about attitudes to sex: is sex without love acceptable, or sex with casual partners? From the answers, the researchers compiled an index of promiscuity for respondents from each country. The result appears to show that Finns and other Europeans are the most promiscuous, whereas respondents from more conservative countries, such as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, are less promiscuous. Around the world men and women vary in their attitudes to casual sex. Men are more likely to seek it out in their late twenties. Women wait until their thirties when the chances of a casual encounter resulting in pregnancy are less.

Celebrating Christmas at Altona Baptist Church

A Short History against Christianity

There seems to be a never-ending fascination to see the demise of Christianity. Since the time of the apostles, the Jews wished for Christianity to go away, cf. Acts 5:35-39. Then the Romans wished for Christianity to go away, since the subject of the Empire were not finding answers in the old pagan religion, but in Christ preached by Christian. Then, the big schism in 1054 between the Orthodox Church in the east and the Roman Church in the west happened. Many saw this a sign of the end of Christianity. Yet, it didn’t happened. Then, the church in the west became corrupt, and again, many said that Christianity was done for, but then, the Reformation came along.

After the Reformation, the new Humanism that changed our contemplation of God as the creator, and focused our attention to God’s creation, not to praise Him, rather, to doubt Him, then attacked Christianity. With the Enlightenment, humanity seemed to have grown up, and did not need the out of fashion belief of a powerful and all loving God, and of Jesus. Those who held such views were seen as to hold back progress. Voltaire, the great French Revolutionist, predicted that in 100 years, the Bible would be no “forgotten and eliminated”. In the last century, Time magazine had an issue in which it declared God as dead, on April 8, 1966. And of lately, there’s a group within Christianity, the Emergent Church, that calls for Christianity to die in order to survive.

There seems to be a fascination with the death of Christianity. I think it is because that while Christians exists, they will be a reminder that Jesus is the Lord of all, and that the world needs a saviour. Although the world may wish for the demise of God’s people, we hold on to Jesus’ promise, Mat. 16: 18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. “

Luis A. Jovel

Are We Promised Prosperity?

Now that the economic "bailout" plan has been passed by Congress, expect all parties involved to claim credit if it appears to work and deny blame if the crisis worsens. Though the primary problem is a crisis in the credit markets and the financial sector, the entire economy feels the crunch. The crisis now may lie in the awareness of uncertainty -- and no one likes uncertainty when it comes to matters economic.

The public is also bracing for more bad news. Just today, the State of California announced that it might need a $7 billion bailout. The state's credit rating is not the problem, but the state has been unable to get the short-term money it needs, given the constriction of credit. Who is next?

There are a host of issues to be considered here. Many Americans are just waking up to the basic facts of economics. Most, sad to say, remain oblivious. Some among the more curious are discovering how much borrowing and lending goes on in the course of business -- and among their neighbors.

Niall Ferguson, one of the world's most influential historians, puts much of this into perspective in an essay published in the current issue of TIME magazine. In "The End of Prosperity?," Ferguson argues that another Great Depression -- a "Depression 2.0" -- is avoidable. Nevertheless, a period of far less material prosperity is almost surely at hand.

He explains:

The U.S. — not to mention Western Europe — is in the grip of a downward spiral that financial experts call deleveraging. Having accumulated debts beyond what's sustainable, households and financial institutions are being forced to reduce them. The pressure to do so results from a decline in the price of the assets they bought with the money they borrowed. It's a vicious feedback loop. When families and banks tip into bankruptcy, more assets get dumped on the market, driving prices down further and necessitating more deleveraging. This process now has so much momentum that even $700 billion in taxpayers' money may not suffice to stop it.

The unavoidable reduction of debt is traumatic at every level. Excessive and unsustainable valuations led to bad decisions and the illusion of free money. It never lasts. The "deleveraging" we are now witnessing will take some time to run its course. And that course is still unpredictable.

The most interesting part of Ferguson's analysis has to do with the causes and course of the Great Depression as compared to the present crisis. His historical precision and honesty are helpful -- even as his analysis is bracing.

One of the most interesting paragraphs in Ferguson's essay has to do with the credit crisis at the household level. Consider this:

In the case of households, debt rose from about 50% of GDP in 1980 to a peak of 100% in 2006. In other words, households now owe as much as the entire U.S. economy can produce in a year. Much of the increase in debt was used to invest in real estate. The result was a bubble; at its peak, average U.S. house prices were rising at 20% a year. Then — as bubbles always do — it burst. The S&P Case-Shiller index of house prices in 20 cities has been falling since February 2007. And the decline is accelerating. In June prices were down 16% compared with a year earlier. In some cities — like Phoenix and Miami — they have fallen by as much as a third from their peaks. The U.S. real estate market hasn't faced anything like this since the Depression. And the pain is not over. Credit Suisse predicts that 13% of U.S. homeowners with mortgages could end up losing their homes.

We can only wonder how many Americans realize that total household borrowing now amounts to the productivity of the entire U.S. economy for a year. That is a staggering reality. Such borrowing levels are economically unsustainable. At the level of the individual household, this downturn can be catastrophic.

The Christian tradition has been very suspicious of credit and borrowing. Usury laws and a bias against borrowing and lending dissuaded most Christians from borrowing except in a dire emergency. Until fairly recently, the wide-spread use of consumer credit was unimaginable among Christians. Evidence that this is no longer the case can be found in the popularity of so many Christian financial advisors who have been calling for believers to get out of debt.

In another article -- fascinating on its own -- TIME's David van Biema looks at the influence of prosperity theology in the current credit crisis. His article, "Did God Want You to Get That Mortgage?," starts with a punch:

Has the so-called Prosperity Gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants — and hence, victims — of the current financial crisis? That's what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of Pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California Riverside, he realized that Prosperity's central promise — that God would "make a way" for poor people to enjoy the better things in life — had developed an additional, toxic expression during sub-prime boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe "God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house." The results, he says, "were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers."

Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, explained it this way: "It definitely goes on, that a preacher might say, 'if you give this offering, God will give you a house.' And if they did get the house, people did think that it was an answer to prayer, when in fact it was really bad banking policy."

It is easy to see how prosperity theology could lead to these unwarranted assumptions. Prosperity theology is a lie, and a false Gospel. We are not promised economic or financial prosperity in the Gospel. We are promised what money cannot buy and poverty cannot take away.

It is also easy for non-Charismatic critics of prosperity theology to look down on those who were so susceptible to its false promises. Many devotees of prosperity theology are desperate in ways the more privileged cannot understand, and they are prey to both lenders and preachers promising prosperity.

I must wonder how many other Christians -- far removed theologically from Charismatic prosperity theology -- might have bought into a very different prosperity theology. Have we all been seduced by the idea that prosperity is a given? Do we now think that prosperity is our right? Do we associate prosperity with the blessings we receive in the Gospel?

Perhaps we all need a refresher course in Christian economics and Christian theology. Niall Ferguson argues from the record of history in looking to the current crisis. Perhaps we should remember our own history lesson -- that far more believers in Christ have been and are now among the poor, rather than among the wealthy. We should hear Jesus warn against materialism and Paul remind us that we are to be content when we have plenty and when we have little. We should know that the Christian virtue of thrift is incompatible with the lies of those who push consumer credit.

We are not promised prosperity. When we do enjoy prosperity, we should be thankful stewards -- not peddlers of our own prosperity theology.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2575

A Date with Disaster -- Presbyterians Approve Homosexual Clergy

Meeting in San Jose, California, the Presbyterian Church USA, the liberal branch of American Presbyterianism, moved to approve homosexual clergy on June 27, 2008 -- a date that may well mark a final blow against biblical orthodoxy in that denomination.

The PCUSA has debated sexuality issues for decades now, with activists for homosexual ordination pressing their case until they finally got their way at the denomination's General Assembly. In that historic meeting, the General Assembly actually approved several proposals.

Even before dealing directly with the question of ordination standards, the General Assembly approved a first step toward revising the denomination's official translation of the historic Heidelberg Catechism. Once again, the crucial issue was homosexuality. The question was "complex and multi-layered," as the proposing group admitted.

Here is how the official PCUSA news office described the issue:

Most of the Assembly's attention focused on Question 87 of the catechism: "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?"

The current text of the answer reads: "Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'"

According to the overture rationale, two phrases in the current answer that were supplied by the 1962 translators do not appear in the original text or in any translations produced prior to 1962. The primary phrase that is in dispute is "or of homosexual perversion."

The words "homosexual perversion" in an official church document would, to say the least, present a challenge to approving the ordination of active homosexuals. The General Assembly voted to approve the change, arguing that the issue was accuracy in translation. Those opposed to the change noted that the catechism is making a direct reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which explicitly does include homosexual behaviors among those condemned.

That out of the way (though requiring further action at the next General Assembly), the denomination then turned to the issue of standards for ordination. The language to be replaced requires that all ministers of the church must live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." That language, consistent with Scripture and Christian tradition, is to be replaced with a new standard that would require nothing at all with reference to sexual integrity.

The new wording would read:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation, pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation and establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

The new wording is liberal in application and neo-orthodox in form. The minister must merely pledge to live in obedience to Christ, but with no reference whatsoever to what Jesus would require in terms of sexual ethics. The language about following where Jesus leads "through the witness of the Scriptures" reduces the Bible to a witness and obedience to utter subjectivity.

The proposed amendment to the standards now moves to the denomination's 173 regional units (presbyteries) where it must receive sufficient support. Similar efforts have failed in the past, but many believe that this proposal will be difficult to defeat. The defection of many conservatives from the denomination (and some churches as well) may weaken the opposition.

Nevertheless, even without the change in the standard, local presbyteries may well move to ordain active homosexuals anyway. The Associated Press explains how:

Of equal importance to advocates on both side of the debate, the assembly also voted to allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object to the existing standard. Local presbyteries and church councils that approve ordinations would consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.

That vote was an "an authoritative interpretation" of the church constitution rather than a change to it, so it goes into effect immediately. The interpretation supersedes a ruling from the church's high court, issued in February, that said there were no exceptions to the so-called "fidelity and chastity" requirement.

Taken together, these changes represent a disaster for this church. In capitulating to the demand that homosexuality be normalized, the church turned its back on the Bible, on its own tradition, and on the protests and prayers of its members who would, of all things, expect their ministers to exhibit "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."

Just reflect for a moment about what the removal of those words really means. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA has just proposed to define its own denomination as a church for which those words no longer make sense.

The Albert Mohler Program