As we all know, the Star Wars epic is a story of a battle of good against evil, where the evil empire uses fatal force to ensure it’s dominance against the good rebel alliance who also use fatal force against the enemy to ensure their dominance.

Unfortunately for us, we are taken in by this idea that good can defeat evil using hate – the tool of evil – but we find it hard to accept that the tool of good is love, and that the only hope of defeating evil is with love. Jesus set an example of love and perhaps the hardest commandment was to ‘love your enemy’, which seems to entailing doing the same stuff to your enemies as you do to your friends!

For some reason we find it easier to accept the violence fallacy as being the ultimate power rather than the supremacy of the truth of love! Let’s not be fooled by the myths and legends of our culture, which present the idea that violence is the ultimate arbiter. Let’s accept Christ’s example on the cross and incorporate his message fully into our lives as we are changed by his love for us.

I guess the feeling that theological reflection has the ability to change what was an outwardly negative event to a positive inner event is that as we bring God into the situation we can start a redemptive process. One example could be the writings of Rita Nakashima Brock in Journeys by Heart – A Christology of Erotic power where some of the oppression suffered by women that stems from a male patriarchal view of the trinity is examined and challenged. She goes onto use feminist theology to “liberate” Christ from “the unholy trinity” calling for the heart of Christianity to be reinterpreted in non oppressive ways. Taking Jesus as the model of self giving, obedience, love and liberation, she describes two parts to the questions that this raises as we encounter situations. (I would call these theological reflection questions) Firstly there is the question what would Jesus do or have me do in this situation and secondly How do I and others feel right now – What can I do to lessen the suffering? The first is an external question and the second is a question of the heart that moves us towards self possession, a greater connection and an inner redemptive process.

Whilst Brock is addressing some pretty deep theological issues the identification of the two focuses of the questions demonstrates what can happen when we risk entering into theological reflection about any issue (positive or negative) and move beyond the questions of what could I have done differently to the internal questions that challenge our christlikeness and responsibilities for inner growth and change.

Make any sense Ben and Phil?

• The Foot Fist Way the movie

Been doing some writing today thinking about Theological Reflection and my focus was drawn to how much we can let exterior events affect us negatively but by bringing God into the equation and reflecting on the events in a more disciplined way we can begin a redemptive process and enhance the inner life.Star Trek III: The Search for Spock psp

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