In response to Nikki’s questions I am not sure. Having a conversation recently reinforced the issue that the gospels were recorded after many of the letters. I was discussing inclusive communion and how Jesus included Judas in the meal even though he was about to betray him. Does this give us evidence that we can make communion inclusive? One response suggested was that as Judas subsequently hanged himself, that this was a result of taking communion in an unworthy manner. However this sits very uneasily as Jesus himself then set Judas up and the unworthy manner bit was not mentioned in the gospels but in letters. So I still think there could be a case for inclusive communion (perhaps the agape meal that Nikki distinguishes) but I struggle with these kind of semantics and denying people a communion regardless of where we think they are as it may give glimpse of God.

What does God want the most – our money or our time?

I’m posing this question (to which I’m going to give my own personal response in a moment) because I regularly (but not too often) hear it said that ‘God needs rich people in the church for their money’ or ‘It is good to get rich because God needs the church to have money’.

Now, from what I can see the Bible doesn’t make any comments along these lines. Sure, it does show situations where the money of rich people are used – some of those wealthy people being followers of God. So don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to say that God won’t use our wealth.

Other interesting Biblical accounts that relate to the subject include:

• Job – where God allowed him to be stripped of his wealth and then given new wealth.
• The coin in the fish – where Jesus took a coin from a fish to pay some tax.
• and there must be loads of examples where God gives the wealth of unbelievers to his children

I reckon that God can get money however he wants, whenever he wants. His difficulty is getting our hearts, getting us to follow him, getting us to show his love to others.

Interestingly there are plenty of examples where God bypasses money completely:

• The oil in the jars that wouldn’t run out.
• Turning water into wine.
• Feeding the 5,000.
• Manna in the desert.

And tonnes of other examples. In fact God’s use of money is the exception! However, if we look at the role of the church we find that God chooses to show himself largely through the church – i.e. through the commitment, time and deeds of those who follow him. It is our time that he needs, more than anything else.

A problem with the idea of ‘earning money for God’ is this:
Many say that we are over consuming and that our exploitation of nature is highly excessive, that we can’t carry on in the way we are. Now, we know that consumption is matched by production (you can’t consume what is not produced!), so if we believe that God wants our production to be as high as possible then one would have to assume that he is cool with the idea of raping the earth…
…I’m not convinced!

Just picked up on the Tall Skinny NewZealander:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2005/05/newbigin_on_fun.html

Isn’t it odd that the term fundamentalist (at it’s most basic interpretation) implies someone who adheres to the fundamental (and therefore ‘core’) truths of their faith. So doesn’t this imply that they don’t get carried away with peripheral (less obvious) aspects of their faith?

Isn’t this liberalism? Where you are more open to different, previously unexplored truths surrounding the core beliefs?

When did the term fundamentalism become something that encompassed more than core belief?Oliver & Company on dvd

In pushing the theological boundaries how far is too far? I have been thinking a lot about TSK post here

on Acts 15 and recognise that as missionaries come back and tell the stories of how they contexualised the gospel, that the teachers did indeed make some sense these stories and grounded them in the biblical narrative. A couple of thousand years on are todays teachers willing to do the same leg work? As I try to make sense of where God leads through mission contexts I am not sure if the teachers will catch up. As the missionaries move on and culture shifts if they do not keep up it takes a Luther or Calvin to fill the vacuum (My fear is they would never be heard in the myriad of voices of postmodernity). If Dave comes back with a reinterpretation of Blessed are the mourners through his experience with the young people here that does not fit into the traditional narrative who is to say they are right and he wrong. Where should the weight be, with missionary or the teacher?

Penal substitution is a topic that is being kicked around the church at the moment. The concept that Jesus took the penalty for our sin when he died on the cross.

In thinking about this a couple of things have crossed my mind:

1. Sin is separation from God. The penalty for sin is separation from God (hell?). So the penalty is the same thing as the offence itself… but can we call it an offence, seeing as we are all born separate from God? Perhaps the offence is to choose separation from God? To choose your own way, to choose sin. So if you choose sin then you get sin.
2. Jesus died for our sins and it does seem that he was temporarily separate from God. But perhaps death, for Christ, was more about being stronger than evil and working out God’s forgiveness than taking the penalty?
3. Who’s dishing out the penalty? God? Or is it us when we choose sin, when we choose the actual penalty? Certainly the only one who can save us from the penalty/sin is God.

I probably need to get my head down and look at some theology about this to be honest. Anyway, you can take the above merely as some wandering wonderings of the mind! 🙂