shall we sign?
What do you reckon?
Shall we sign the letter and put our name to the Clergy Letter Project? Do you think that signposts reputation might be affected?
Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
February 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Humour aside…
“the Bible does not provide a clear source of truth.”
Yep… in lots of areas, you are correct.
“Unfortunately, Christians are not allowed to have this view.”
Apparently, you’ve never studied theology.
CCTC is taking enrolments now… athiests welcome.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Are theologians Christians? What relationship does theology have to Christianity?
The simple(r)-minded Christian in the pew (or in the nude in the emerging church) would expect the Bible to provide a clear source of truth. He/she would not be aware of the nuanced meanings in the original languages and multiple theological models.
I’m not an atheist - so don’t know the implication of your last statement.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
More correctly, I should say anyone’s welcome… unlike many colleges where you have to sign on the dotted line theologically speaking.
Honestly, I think you underestimate the theological capacities of a lot of ordinary people in the pews… they don’t actually believe the bible will tell them “clear truth” about science, about technology, about some “modern” ethical dilemmas (eg stem cell research), about how to raise your children or how to manage your time or a whole lot of stuff where it would be nice to have “clear truth”… but that’s simply not on offer in the bible. Most of them have read the bible enough to recognise genres (though they might not use that word, they will discriminate between poetry, a gospel, the book of Revelation or a letter… for examples… when looking to understand what the bible is saying). Most of them recognise the role of prayer and discernment and good advice and wisdom in all of the many areas where the bible does not provide “a clear source of truth”.
This is where I was digging a bit about what the fundamentalists have done to you… you seem to assume: “Christians are not allowed to have this view”… which is a highly fundamentalist view, not a mainstream Christian view. (I don’t know anyone who believes: “the bible has clear answers about everything”)
What is your religious background, by the way?
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
What interests me more, Janet, is how the mind understands the world. After all, that is primary tool we have for understanding anything. I don’t see how theology is useful in this process.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
By signing the document (the original topic of this thread), could you be seen to be implicity acknowledging the failure of religion - the Christian faith in this case - to provide useful models to understand the world? Apart from some basic morality stuff (questionable in some cases), and a fading cultural backdrop, the Christian faith has little of real value to provide anyone.
Leave the job of understanding the world, of continuing to investigate the nature of reality, to science. All that’s left for religious people is adjustment of the various pyramid marketing systems sufficiently to give them a bit more life. That, and occasional moral/motherhood commentary on world events.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
You should study psychology and the science of perception then. This is probably the wrong spot for your quest.
For myself… I believe we are not just cerebral cortexes… we are spiritual beings and moral beings, and the answers to our deepest questions of our hearts are more to be found in theology than in psychology… I’ve studied both. But it’s your journey, not mine… grace to you.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
“I believe we are not just cerebral cortexes” . Agreed - materialism is an unsatisfactory position to take, if only because it makes assumptions that cannot be supported.
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 am
I stated earlier that Genesis 1 - 3… regardless of how you interpret the details… outline some of the most profound theological themes of the whole bible. I thought I’d post this over from theforgottenways because it’s such a good reflection on who we are called to be, grounded in the theology of these first chapters.
Getting missional is a FUNCTION it is a response generated by a DNA that has a different focus - getting Missional is a fruit rather than a root… The root that underlies many of the comments made here is “relationship.” Healthy relationship is the “good news”… it’s ontologically who we are created to be… and it is the state that Christ came to restore. Incarnation is all about restoring relationship. Incarnation in the past weeks has meant mourning with those who mourn, weeping with them - no smug answers, just sitting in the depths… not striving, just resting - often in sadness - in the presence of the God who sits in the depths too; the God who knows the pain and weeps too for the children who are lost in this all-too-human depravity.
The Eternal relationship in the Godhead is fruitful and multiplies, producing creation and ultimately humanity - created in God’s image for relationship with Him… In Genesis 1 & 2 there is no mission, there is no judgement, there is no brokenness - just harmony. Created in God’s image we are destined to be blessed, be fruitful and multiply. That is the primal covenant - relationship with God… that is the good news that Jesus comes to reNEW.
Genesis 3 describes the breaking of relationship; this is where the evangelical gospel begins - with a problem, rather than actually with God - so we end up with “angry white young men largely brought up in rather conservative evangelical churches” (who can’t jump!) What is it about our brokenness that is “good news” - that’s the bad news - the focus on humanity and human behaviour is not good news! Like James, I find that is still the root paradigm for much of the emerging church - and that some of the struggles are in trying to do “missional” when at heart we are still living with a message of judgement. We need a reNEWed paradigm - the Bible begins in Genesis 1, the good news begins with God, the good news begins with primal relationship formed in eternity. This needs to be the core of our message.
Our God is a relational God, that is His nature - “God IS Love.” When relationship is broken THEN God becomes missional - in pursuit of His children who are running from Him, because of their perception of the damage to their eternal relationship. When “sin” appears THEN God acts in a role as judge, it is not who God IS - it is a function in response to an action, not ontologically part of who God is… or intended to be part of the nature of humanity. “Mission” is what God does to restore relationship; mission is the journey, relationship the destination. The missional approach is far better than the attractional approach, but it is still a step removed… mission is a fruit, rather than a root - the root of “Apostolic Genius” is relational - mission is a consequence of relationship. Jesus closest crew built relationship together. Peter and Paul have a face to face argument, founded on relationship.
As Genesis relates the story, Adam and Eve did not have to be told they were sinners - as our evangelical heritage demands - or told to hide from God, or told to cover up their nakedness - the purity of God and their own lack of purity was self evident. The goal of the authentic church is to reveal the nature of Jesus Christ - not focus on humanity’s brokenness (we do deal with brokenness, but it is not the primary focus). When people have a revelation of the risen Christ, their weakness is self evident… it doesn’t require others to judge. Ecclesia is a gathering of people recognising their Lord together, recognising their humanity together and journeying together in love, working together to see each part holistically restored to health and so the whole body restored to health.
The pain of our world IS the consequence of broken relationship. Jesus comes to reveal to us what it is like to live life in harmonious relationship in the Godhead - He says what He hears the Father say, He does what He sees the Father do… He restores people and situations holistically - He is on a mission reNEWing the primal, relational covenant we see outlined in Genesis 1 & 2 - which He initiated, which He sustains and which He restores. He is broken to pay the price of the broken relationship and therefore the relationship is restored from heaven’s perspective.
When we begin to read the reNEWed Testament from the perspective of restoring relationship, we begin to recognise that at the root of all that is going on is a mission to restore relationship - the mission is NOT the focus, it is simply the means to the end - which is restored, reNEWed relationship. The aim is relationship… authentic ecclesia is about relationship. Then we are joined in co-mission with God, to restore people in relationship with Him and with one another.
Relationship IS the root… mission is a fruit. To truly be missional we need to be tight in relationship with God, then we catch His heart for relationship with His lost children and THEN we are missional. We catch God’s heart to see people restored, through intimacy with God… our response is to initiate relationship - the authentic church shares meals and belongings, gathers together and celebrates their relationships with God and with one another. Which is why the place to start church, to meet people is places of gathering - “bars and pubs and cafes” - people are ontologically designed to seek out relationship. When asked what the most important teaching is, Jesus responds, love God, love people - relationship…
The code is relational (rDNA ) the consequence is that the genetic information results in the development of a cell structure that is replicating in nature - it is fruitful and multiplies - and missional in function… which sounds a lot like the early church and the Chinese church movement!
“don’t emerge before you get missional” might even be expressed at a deeper level… “don’t get missional before you ARE relational.”
With thanks to “Celtic Son”
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
“Christians are not allowed to have this view”
Mmm… not forthcoming with your religious background so I’ll guess based on your rigid caricature. I reckon stereotypical conservative Baptist or Brethren. Am I close?
‘fess up, and I’ll tell you my beef with Creation Scientists.
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
That’s a big ten four there, Janet.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I don’t know what that means.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Speaking of not understanding what someone is talking about… does anyone know what’s happened to Homer?
February 24th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Here you go Janet, this will expand your education a bit, another mini culture, you’ll find 10-4 there,…..
http://www.angelandcroc.com/regs/ttalk/trucker_talk.html
February 24th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I had a chuckle reading the bit about God begin relational, restoring relationships, etc.
All I can say is that is complete nonsense - Janet, are you on drugs or just dellusional?
Have you ever know a Christian to behave as if they believed that nonsense?
February 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
No drugs… simply delusional!
Yes, some.
Now you’ve ‘fessed up (and it’s been decoded) I’ll tell you my biggest beef with Creation Scientists. I don’t get cranky with “ordinary” Christians who get sucked into that (or “ordinary” people who gets sucked into rather odd churches), although I’ll certainly dialogue about it if someone is open to this.
I get cranky over deliberate dishonesty from those heading the Creation Science movement. This has been quite compellingly outlined in Ian Plimer’s “Telling Lies for God”… as the title implies, he firmly lays the charge that their behaviour is fraudulent… that they keep trotting out “evidence” that has been completely discredited, and that they know has been completely discredited, because it is more important to convince the masses than it is to tell the truth.
I also think their highly manipulative stance: “if you don’t believe in a 6000 year old earth you can’t believe in Jesus”… although its completely ridiculous… does influence some people, and becomes a barrier to faith for some.
These are my biggest gripes… I could go on of course!!!
March 4th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Janet … something to get your teeth into.
The Neanderthal within
03 March 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Dan Jones
In 1999, Trinkaus and Zilhão, who is at the University of Bristol in the UK, published their analysis of the Lagar Velho child. They argued that his bones provided the answer to a long-standing and delicate question about human evolution: did our ancestors interbreed with Neanderthals?
The child, the team argued, was clearly a human-Neanderthal hybrid. He had the prominent chin and facial features of a Cro-Magnon, but also the stocky body and short legs of a Neanderthal. The only possible explanation was that he was the product of long and extensive interbreeding between early Europeans and the Neanderthals.
This interpretation was - and still is - controversial. While the possibility of interbreeding between our direct ancestors and other human species has long been recognised, there has never been much evidence to support it.
Since the discovery of the Lagar Velho child, however, new lines of evidence have started to emerge, largely from genetics but also from new fossils (see “Wisdom of bones”). As the findings stack up, researchers are edging towards the conclusion that interbreeding not only happened, but that it played an important role in our evolution.
Like it or not, we may have to accept that our species is, to some extent, a hybrid. There’s a little bit of Neanderthal in all of us.
…a broad consensus seems to be emerging about our ancestry, and it includes interbreeding as an important element.
“There was a great genetic contribution from one African population, but the genetic material that existed in other localised archaic populations was not lost forever - it was integrated into the modern human genome,” says Garrigan.
Trinkaus, who has long argued that humans picked up genes from other archaic humans, sees a similar picture. The extremes of single origin on the one hand and global multiregionalism on the other are “intellectually passé,” he says. “The basic model is ‘out of Africa’ - with admixture. The issue is how much, where, and when.”
As always in science, the answer to those questions lies in gathering more data. With the advent of $1000 genome sequencing, predicted to be a reality within five years, it will be possible to sequence vastly more genomes than are available today.
Researchers can then seek a complete picture of the puzzling patterns of ancestry locked away in our genomes. Then, at last, we may know whether the Lagar Velho child was part of a hybrid population heading down an evolutionary dead end, or an ancient reminder of the Neanderthal in all of us.
Hmm…
Jack
March 4th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Looking at evolution on the micro level is like solving a jigsaw with most of the pieces missing… I don’t get over-fussed about discoveries like this to be perfectly honest.
I do recall finding one tit-bit fascinating. An investigation into mitochondrial DNA some years ago… which we always inherit from our mother as it’s found in the cytoplasm… found it seems we all descended from one woman about 100 000 years ago! (obviously dubbed “Eve”!) It SO recent on the evolutionary timescale. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else had tried to replicate the research and came up with a different answer! (Must look into that again some time.)
When the human genome project has been completed and there’s been time to chew over the diversity and origins questions as a result I’ll be much more interested then.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Actually, to be more accurate… evolution on the micro level is more like solving a jigsaw with most of the pieces missing, and with other pieces from different jigsaws thrown in.
In other words… you can find a bone / tooth fragment (say from some hominid) but you don’t know for sure whether there were lots of different species of hominids… most of which became evolutionary dead ends.
So… a bone fragment may be from a human ancestor… or from a hominid evolutionary dead end… which jigsaw does it belong to?
Over time and with new discoveries, the theories keep getting reworked.
By sequencing genes and/or proteins you get a better idea of relationships because mutations tend to accumulate over time… the numbers of differences between genes/proteins can tell us about the “genetic distance” between two species, or between two individuals. This is where the genome project could get quite interesting.
(Is everyone bored or incomprehending yet?)
March 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Now Sanders, if you’re still out there… I’d like to reflect on these comments:
“Leave the job of understanding the world, of continuing to investigate the nature of reality, to science.”
“I believe we are not just cerebral cortexes” . Agreed - materialism is an unsatisfactory position to take, if only because it makes assumptions that cannot be supported.
You know… if you value the contribution of science, if you’re interested in how people think, if you reject both materialism and fundamentalist religion, you really must read M Scott Peck… he’s the perfect spiritual director for a pilgrim like yourself. Found in all good bookstores…
March 5th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Janet you said:
“Over time and with new discoveries, the theories keep getting reworked”.
In 1962 Thomas Kuhn, American historian and philosopher of science, published the ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’; which claimed that science doesn’t actually progress scientifically!
He didn’t necessarily make himself popular with this assertion!
Kuhn argued that the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is the INTERPRETIVE BASIS for science [emphasis mine], and that scientists work within a ‘paradigm’ (set of accepted beliefs), which eventually weakens until new theories and scientific methods replace it.
A paradigm is like a model of reality, but it’s more than merely a theory. It’s closer to an interpretive framework, a set of glasses through which we view the world.
This puts a whole new spin on ‘scientific’ analysis don’t you think? For example, until recently Newtonian physics governed the way we view reality. Most of us think in terms of cause and effect.
However, when Einstein came along the simple Universe of ‘cause and effect’ broke down, and probabilities and ‘relationships’ became the standard.
Since that time Heisenberg and others and the rising science of Quantum physics have made the predictable world even less predictable.
One of the ‘myths’ that needs to be debunked among the ‘uninformed’ is that science (as empirically based truth) is superior to Scripture because the latter is open to so many different interpretations. Kinda makes you wonder doesn’t it?
Jack
March 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I actually think there’s a bit of an intuitive “wising up” to the limitations of science among the masses because popular media tends to keep pumping out “new research shows that”… (eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you, high carbohydrate diets make you fat, high carbohydrate diets make you thin, a new drug looks like it will be a cure for influenza, a new drug increases your risk of developing cancer) etc. etc. etc.
In other words… science is a method for discerning truth but it’s not infallible… in fact, it only deals with theories and probabilities. I think the age of the internet too has made people suspicious of all “authority figures”, white coated or otherwise. They can easily search areas of research themselves and access the raging debates and different resarch results in all kinds of areas of science.
It’s a thoroughly post-modern world for many, don’t you think? It’s also a missionary challenge that many are suspicious all forms of traditional authority… doctors, scientists, ministers of religion, politicians, etc. etc.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Janet,
Well said … particularly about the huge missional challenge before us - i.e. how to proclaim ‘the gospel’ in a post modern culture that rejects absolute truth and pretty much rebels against all forms of authority.
Jack