Failure to lament

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.  But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked. Genesis 9:22-23 NIV

Rachel Gilson’s wayward theology and the nod that Sydney Anglicans offer such perversion was the subject of an earlier post. In addition to presenting to many Anglicans at an Undeceptions Conference, Gilson was interviewed at an inner city Anglican church (as linked).

The Sydney Anglican Diocese Doctrine Commission report would result in Gilson lamenting her state (paragraph 7.3 of this linked document). Lament is unnecessary of those who obey God. Private lament is best done in one's private chamber with those who are closest. Private lament is not best done on a public platform.

I long that two Sydney Anglicans had acted as Shem and Japheth. To have provided for Gilson (Isaiah 51:17-18). To have acted in charity (Proverbs 17:9) to bring privacy to Gilson's state. To have taken a cloak to cover Gilson as they guided her away from the stage. To offer Gilson rest. To weep with Gilson as she weeps. To comfort her and to direct her that she may be liberated.

 "[Shem and Japheth] not only would not see [Noah's nakedness] themselves, but provided that no one else might see it; herein setting an example of charity with reference to other men’s sin and shame." Benson Commentary

Noah’s Drunkeness by James Tissot, c. 1896-1902 

from https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/the-curse-of-hamcanaan-a-mythological-mystery/

I long for action of the Sydney Anglicans as Shem and Japheth beget a Godly nation, but of Ham there sprung hostile nations; Babylonians, Egyptians and Canaanites.

Shalom,

Ozhamada

Word perverted via back door

"Any attempt by one or some of God’s people to speak today a word that challenges scripture and tradition—a word claiming authority in the church on the basis of the gospel—is, in effect, making a prophetic claim to speak to and for the universal church. Speakers should recognize both the possibility and audacity of their claim. The church must hear and evaluate such voices, testing the spirits, asking whether or not it finds itself addressed in such a word by the challenge and comfort of law and gospel. In other words, the church applies the test of canonicity. Will this new word be heard as word of God, or will it not?"

From this link, 'A New Word on Homosexuality? Isaiah 56:1-8 as Case Study', F J Gaiser, p290 (possibly with 1Th 5:21 in mind)

 

I read with interest that a senior Sydney Anglican cleric attended an event in Sydney. At the event a USA speaker, Rachel Gilson, was listed. Where the herald of the news was surprised of the cleric's attendance on a paid ticket,  I was surprised the cleric graced the event.

Rachel Gilson is a Side B Christian. Side B Christians are defined here. (I use the term ”Side B” reluctantly in that I hesitate to put any descriptor before the word Christian. If I need identify my Christianity with a descriptor, then both Christendom and myself suffer).

Many will be thankful that Gilson recognises God’s good order for marriage as reserved for one man and one woman. Many will be thankful that Gilson advocates that Christians either maintain celibacy or marry a member of the opposite sex. Indeed, many will take joy that Gilson is in a one-man, one-woman marriage. Some robustly support Gilson for her “Biblical sexual ethic”.

And yet, there is still a dilemma.

For Gilson, grasps Christ’s cloak with one hand and her same sex attraction with another when all the time Christ’s message is that both Gilson’s hands must grasp Christ’s cloak (Note 1). While Gilson knows that the same sex attraction will not be part of the New Jerusalem, she does not care to prepare for that time by shaping herself free of same sex attraction. Gilson instead marches forth with the attraction proudly pinned to her chest. For Gilson, the same sex attraction is not something to be repented of. It is not something to be treated in the silence of prayer. It is not open to the benefit that sanctification may bring. That which is unnatural to God's order, that which cannot be let go; is pinned to the chest, it is commercialised.

And there is more dilemma.

Gilson holds that same sex attraction is compatible with heterosexual marriage (Note 2). In this it cannot be said that Gilson has submitted to her husband, for an undesirable sexual attraction plays a part in their marriage. Her attraction, both privately and publicly, need be fully for her husband alone. While Gilson grasps to her unnatural sexual attraction a dog lurks in her marriage. Some commentators note for instance that Gilson married reluctantly. Reluctantly approaching marriage is not a sound starting block.

Gilson is perhaps simply misguided – she is perhaps yet to benefit from sound instruction. Many have sought to pervert the Gospel. Many play games with God’s Word. Gilson stands on a false dichotomy: that God states "no" to same sex attraction, yet God's grace can encompass that which God finds unnatural for mankind (both of these quotes from 'Sex: Telling a Better Story', Rachel Gilson, in "Before You Lose Your Faith" Deconstructing Doubt in the Church by The Gospel Coalition):

On "no": "When I was first feeling drawn to Jesus, I wondered if there’d be a place for someone like me in his church. Initially I was given false hope by friends who told me the Bible doesn’t actually say no to same sex sexuality. But when I read the Bible, I found it does."

On "grace": "There is a better way, a way of grace and truth. Jesus isn’t about stereotypes, prejudice, mockery, or hiding. He’s about life, forgiveness, strength, and joy. Instead of throwing everything out and walking away, take this as a call to grow in biblical discernment and sift the gold of God’s vision for our bodies from the muddy stream of how humanity has soiled sexuality."

Alternatively, it is possible to think Gilson misguided of identity politics. Identity politics tends to reduce everything to a individual-centric viewpoint. Gilson should have no priority of self but instead a priority in marriage (Genesis 2:24).

“All of us have witnessed some pretty amazingly ridiculous interpretations of Scripture, undertaken by well-meaning folk who are not much used to disciplined reading of any texts. When biblical scholars engage in the same game, of course, our tools are much more sophisticated. But make no mistake: many of us really do continue to play the game.” 

The Trials of Biblical Interpretation – Don Carson

Attendance of a senior Sydney Anglican cleric to a Gilson talk is a nod to a perversion of Biblical teaching; a perversion personified of Gilson’s twin duopoly of unnatural desires & a heterosexual marriage [that heterosexual marriage need not be comprehensively honoured] and of God saying "no" yet accepting something that is unnatural through grace. It is a further Sydney Anglican nod to homosexual perversion; the first when Ed Shaw, author of the The Living Out Church Audit, a document that welcomes homosexuals to the full life of a church, spoke at the St Andrew’s Cathedral and other Sydney Anglican venues.

While the senior cleric is of a station that would have him aware of the church’s tradition of testing New Word, perversion of the Word occurs through the back door.

 

Shalom,

Ozhamada

 

Note 1: Mark 5:21-34, the story of the afflicted woman who touched Jesus cloak indicates a distinction between Judaism – where obedience to sacrifices or rituals were necessary – to the Christianity – where faith is required. The mechanism Jesus used to draw this distinction is his insistence that the disciples identify the woman from amongst the great throng of people (verse 30). The disciples could see the woman – and recognised her as one in need – yet they were culturally blind to the woman’s plight. The disciples had not yet fully understood Christ's kingdom so they held to their past. 

Gilson, like the disciples, clutches to that which she is bound. And, to Gilson there is then also God's grace in the provision of a heterosexual marriage. Gilson thus grasps ill-fatedly to both ritual and faith.

Note 2: Lest I am criticised for idolising marriage please consider Gilson's own words on the subject: "Christians rightly celebrate marriage. God created marriage as a symbol of how he loves the church. Human marriage is supposed to be faithful for life, because God is always faithful to his people, as we should be to him. Human marriage is supposed to be the start of a new household, because God’s relationship with his people begins a new family. Human marriage is the only place for sexual intimacy and pleasure, because God’s relationship with his people is incredibly intimate and deeply pleasurable. And, if we have ears to hear, human marriage is only to be a male-female union, because the gospel is the picture of two non-interchangeable and different parties, made one by the work of Jesus Christ. Husbands represent Christ, and wives represent his church (Eph. 5:22–33). Heady stuff, no? Beautiful, too." 'Sex: Telling a Better Story', Rachel Gilson, in "Before You Lose Your Faith" Deconstructing Doubt in the Church

by The Gospel Coalition.

#inclusion #humansexuality #sin #SSM #homosexual #Sydney #livingout #samesexattraction #chastity #bible

Cars consuming granola

Could Carma kindly explain the presence of granola consuming vehicles - while Carma eats their granola?

Blasphemy when character is called for

I lodged a complaint against a member of Australian Anglican clergy.

The complaint forms as a breach of the church’s code. The code document is named Faithfulness in Service. The complaint is to the clergy’s use of offensive language. Faithfulness in Service includes a definition of offensive language. Offensive language includes blasphemy. The complaint therefore is to blasphemy.

The blasphemous words were uttered in the sermon of a June 2023 service that was readily available upon the church’s Facebook page and/or its YouTube page. I accessed the service via Facebook.

The words were:

"I shudder at his [Paul] diagnosis that suffering produces endurance. Suffering doesn't produce endurance. Suffering produces destruction....to be quite frank, it is absolute nonsense".

As I did not wish to labour the church’s complaints unit (Professional Standards Unit) of my finding in blasphemy I simply offered that I found that the words:

 

“Irreverently treat God's Holy Word (Romans 5).”

 

While I was silent in my complaint as to other utterances in the sermon, it is of note that the preacher followed the utterance with the words: “I hope that Saint Paul in heaven has gotten over it”. In the sermon of the following week another reference to Saint Paul was: “I always thought that Saint Paul needed a psychiatrist”.

The blasphemous words form a denial of God’s Holy Word. It is insufficient to see the words simply as a critique of the writings of Saint Paul as one must counter how the Holy Spirit inspire the entire canon of the Bible. Therefore, to deny any part of the Bible – to call any part of it “absolute nonsense” - is very grave indeed.

There is a wealth in Romans that lend readily to a very generous preaching of the Romans 5 text. The text is a mere clipped ticket if one tackles only the Suffering > Endurance relationship. The text calls for the whole measure to be preached: Suffering > Endurance > Character > Hope.

The complaint yielded little real benefit. It was of little benefit in the sense that I was throwing stones from afar when the congregation should have thrown stones. Congregants armoured of discernment are best addressing an errant Rector locally. 

For, it was a Sydney Anglican Rector who once told me this joke:

“In some churches the Rector can only be rid of if he:

i)                    speaks heresy,

ii)                   goes insane, or

iii)                 dies.

In some churches all three happen and still no-one notices”.

 

Shalom,

Ozhamada

#church, #anglicans, #bible, #sermon, #homiletics, #blasphemy, #character, #hope,#endurance, #complaint

Questions, novel "Feed"

 A child is currently completing her final year of secondary school. An assigned novel; Feed, by M.T. Anderson, was lying around the house. In a mode that led to these questions linked, I offer these comprehension questions of Feed:

 

1. Given what happened to Violet, why would anyone voluntarily accept the Feed implant? What pressures are there in society to motivate someone to accept the Feed implant?
2. If man fools with nature there tends to be consequences. There are benefits to the Feed, but also costs. What costs are there to those who accept the feed?
3. In what movies, or cartoons, have upcars been depicted? How would traffic rules need to change to allow for upcar traffic?
4. Think of new jobs that may be required to allow for the Feed to operate and for the feed to be maintained. Write a job advertisement for such a job.
5. In Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, the characters have lupus. In Feed, the characters have lesions. What are the authors of such novels trying to convey when such diseases are present in an otherwise pristine world?
6. Are Titus and his friends slaves? If so, who are they slaves too?
7. Did Titus and his friends use their Feed downtime in the hospital on the moon wisely? How may have they have made better use of that time?
8. Very late in the novel Titus finds that he cannot will a light globe to turn on. How in the future will we distinguish from what is connected to the internet of things to that which is not?
9. What is the irony of the novel ending with the repeated advertising slogan: "Everything must go"?
10. Violet's father begs Titus to go be with the Eloi (a post-human race). In what ways is Titus post-human (for example: think of how little Titus understands of the technology that he uses).

Shalom,

Ozhamada

Questions Fahrenheit 451

Fahrenheit 451 was set as a novel, by a school, for our household. I enjoyed reading the novel and set these questions for her consideration.

   

In what way was the book first published? Who was the publisher? In what ways is that fitting of a book that addresses fire?

What is the difference between family and “family”? How does the character Mildred illustrate the difference?

What is Denham's Dentifrice? Why is it so bothersome to Montag? In the episode where Denham’s Dentifrice is introduced what does the reader learn about the community in which Montag lives?

Name two animals that the Mechanical Hound is an amalgam of. What makes the Mechanical hound so effective?

How are books described (identify at least five descriptors)? What does Faber convey as most lost through the destruction of books?

What role does Clarisse play? What is unusual about Montag and Clarisse’s first encounter?

At the end of the novel what distinction is drawn between city and country? How is that distinction evident today? Is city more associated with control than country?

At the end of the novel how is Montag given another chance at life? How will he use that chance?

Describe the televised capture of “Montag”. How is that episode in common with media today?

On setting out on the rail tracks Montag recognises that Clarisse had stepped on the rail tracks before him. Had Clarisse stepped on the rail tracks in reality or metaphorically?

How does the quote at the commencement of the novel set the scene of the whole novel? 

"If they give you ruled paper, write the other way." 

Juan Ramón Jiménez (24 December 1881 – 29 May 1958)

Why has the novel endured as a popular novel? What do you find to be accurate of its predictions of the future? Are there any predictions of the future in the novel that are yet to be realised?

What is so difficult of predicting the future? As the novel is written 70 years ago, what would you predict of the world in 70-years time, in 2092?

In what ways is entertainment and banal television identified in common with its recognition in the dystopian novel Brave New World?

What is the Scripture that is referenced at the book’s closing? What does that Scripture portray? Why is important that Scripture is remembered and shared in Montag’s time? Is it important that the same Scripture is remembered and shared today?

Shalom,

Ozhamada

Sermon launch in yesterday's shower

People of the Anglican Diocese of Perth,

Rise up in a storm of discernment and demand better preaching.

For, one of your clergy had not firmly set a sermon by 3:23pm of the prior day.

“It was precisely 3:23 yesterday afternoon when I realised that I was not the person who should be preaching to you today. 

I was in the shower. 

Which is what I do when I don’t know what to put in my sermon.” 

The Third Sunday after Epiphany by The Reverend Sarah Stapleton | 23 January 2022, accessible here.

Homiletic lecturers emphatically propose preparation of complete sermon drafts days prior to the day of delivery. 

"If you are due to preach Sunday", they say,

 "then have your first full draft done by Tuesday morn before the cock crows". 

It is impressed upon students that they must allow complete sermon drafts to go through refinement that only days of deliberations bring. There is prayer. There is the work of the Spirit.

And, if such lecturers ever consider the role of a shower in sermon preparation, they speak of how the shower moment is one that brings inspiration that finely tunes a single point (rather than as a launching moment).

A stock image, unknwon woman who is probably not a resident of Perth

(As an aside: One finds it inappropriate for a female preacher to allow male congregants, other than the preacher’s spouse, to imagine her unclad in a shower. Such is the trap of the male mind).

Shalom,

Ozhamada

#Perth, #anglican, #perthanglican, #Sermon

Note: Pastor Alistair Beggs illustrates sermon preparation by drawing to how porridge is prepared in Scotland. A good Scot soaks their oats overnight long before cooking them. Pouring a packet of instant oats immediately at the start of the cooking process does not produce anything like the desired product. See:https://youtu.be/sn07712bToU