Last week, Easter 2008, our church was privileged to have one of the world's most articulate apologists, Greg Koukl, speak at our church's Easter Convention. I find Greg to be one of the clearest Christian thinkers in the world today. But not only is Greg super-smart, he is super-nice. He encourages this mix in all followers of Christ. His three key words for his ministry organisation, Stand To Reason, are: Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character. And Greg embodies these three key words. Greg did a brilliant presentation on clear-critical thinking. One of his first points was to encourage people to distinguish between what is genuine argument and what is non-argument (opinion, feelings, preferences, and ridicule). We posted a deliberately short clip of Greg discussing the issue of ridicule against Christianity. He made the point that ridicule is not an argument. He went on to cite a recent "debate" between Christopher Hitchens and Jay Richards in which Hitchens interrupted Richards opening remarks by asking him whether he believed in the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ. Richards acknowledged that he did. Hitchens then ridiculed Richards for holding these beliefs and then stated- "I rest my case!" Ironically, the clip of Greg making this point that ridicule is not an argument has been ridiculed repeatedly on YouTube. You might want to have a look at the clip and also be on guard against using ridicule and be alert to when it is used as a disguised argument against your beliefs.
F.W. Boreham suffered some criticism for not engaging his literary brilliance in the war effort of World War 2. The frustration of many of his admirers was compounded due to Boreham's earlier contributions around the time of the Empire's role in the Boer War (early 1900s) when he had written a stirring cover page article for the Otago Times in 1900, which called for Empire's young men to rally together for the cause. During World War 1 while serving in Hobart, Boreham also made some contribution to the War effort by references to the looming dangers in Europe. But by World War 2 he seems to have had a refining of his literary focus so that he was committed to focussing on his three great life themes: immensity, infinity and eternity.
In his 1918 book, THE SILVER SHADOW, he seems to subtly express his frustration at merely applying his literary genius to the events of the moment in an essay titled- 'Please Shut The Gate'. As World War 1 was concluding Boreham seems to examined the philosophy of his writing. This refining of his writing philosophy brought him no less criticism - it perhaps caused more! But admirers of his work are forever grateful his courage to not simply be a journalist and a commentator, but a thoughtful writer who chose to write on timeless themes by drawing on some of the best literary thought from literary giants and literary grasshoppers.
This timeless philosophy of Boreham, was encouraged by his consideration of Wordsworth who wrote during the time of England's darkest hour when the looming threat of Napoleon was on every Englishmen's mind. It was striking to Boreham that one of the most classic books of English literature, THE COMPLEAT ANGLER, was written during the English Civil War and the turbulence of Cromwell and Kings Charles - without any reference to geo-political events!
Boreham understood the need for distraction. He also understood how his three life themes were the perfect distraction for all people of all times.
Uncontrollable weeping. Deep heeving. Intense prayer. Thorough conversion. These are just some of the traits of what church historians call: revival. Revivals throughout history are rare. But it seems that there is an observable ground-work that takes place before each revival. This ground-work includes - (i) intense, fervent prayer, (ii) confession of sin, and (iii) deep repentance.
When God visits a church, community or city with revival, there is an extraordinary sensitivity to God. Christians become deeply aware of God's presence. Those who are not Christians become aware of their need for God. Churches fill. Prayer meetings grow. Giving increases. Violence decreases. It was said of Robert Murray McCheyne's church in Dundee, Scotland that after months of intense preaching, evangelising and prayer, the congregation became overwhelmed with the presence of God to the point that people were seen spontaneously dropping to their knees and sobbing heavily with heads bowed and hands clasped in prayer. Many of these people were shaking uncontrollably as they cried out to God for forgiveness and cleansing. The result was that the tiny church grew to thousands and Robert Murray McCheyne was so overcome with the demands resulting from the revival that he died of exhaustion at the age of just 29.
But rather than his life being a waste, his intense ministry had an affect on Scotland that not only touched his generation, but generations to the present day. Winkie Pratney says that the reason revival is so rare is that too few Christians are prepared to pay the price it demands. But history says that for every generation and town that experienced it, the price was worth it. Perhaps God may move upon us more intensely at Legana to pray for His presence and power. Perhaps we too may see sin for what it truly is and be driven to relentlessly seek holiness (sin's only remedy). Perhaps God may grace us with a generation who are more interested in pleasing God than finding pleasure.
Will you not revive us again, that your people may rejoice in you?
Psalm 85:6
Christopher Hitchens' NY Times best selling book- God Is Not Great- presents some appallingly illogical arguments in an attempt, not merely to cast doubt on the existence of God, but, to be unabashedly anti-theist. I have addressed some of his arguments on another website (read). While Christopher Hitchens' arguments are obvious for both their motive and intent, not so obvious is the presentation of God by some people whose intention is quite different to that Hitchens.
Perhaps some Christians need to meditate on Psalm 96 and consider how compliance with this theologically profound Psalm could begin to reform the way their churches worship and (re)present God to the world. Rather than structuring our church services to be so seeker-sensitive that God and His claims are almost an embarrassment to Christians, Psalm 96 is the perfect response to people like Christopher Hitchens. But it is also the perfect correction to churches perplexed as to why their clever seeker and emerging services are proving to be ineffective.
Consider Psalm 96. It commands. It describes in exclusive terms. It makes absolute assertions. And it culminates with a verse that seems like a threat if not at least a sober warning. It seems that the elements of this Psalm are the very things that many church leaders are actually decreeing should be avoided by their ministers.
"This book could change the world!" Not only is this the opening line of the recently published book- The Most Embarrassing Verse In The Bible! but it is also the title of the Preface to the book. This newly updated edition of the popular eBook is now available in paperback. It has taken four years to produce and undergone critical peer review from pastors, Christian leaders, and lay people alike. Several denominational leaders who had read the draft, and the eBook edition, strongly urged that this book be put into print and made more widely available. And now it is. This book could change the world! It could help to navigate people through the Middle East Crisis and form a more Biblical position. It will answer some of the staunchest critics of Christianity who claim that Jesus was a false prophet who has been proven to have actually to have deceived His disciples! This was the claim of the late Prof. Bertrand Russell and in more recent times is echoed by Professor of Religion at the University of North Carolina- Bart Erdman - who use just one verse to make their case for athiesm! But this book, The Most Embarrassing Verse In The Bible answers these critics and their criticisms in a very historically rigorous way.
This book is available for $A11.95 (plus postage) directly from the author. (eMail the author)
Attending a Pentecostal church for the first time nearly 30 years ago, I was struck by the contrast with the Anglican churches that I had previously been familiar with. I mean struck. The differences were stark! Not only was the difference in the way they conducted a worship service, but the entire philosophy and theological understanding was different. To be Pentecostal then meant that you were different - very different. But not today.
Pentecostals once emphasized seeking God, studying the Bible for illumination, and exercising spiritual gifts that could not be emulated naturally (this began with speaking in tongues). The more extreme Pentecostals went so far as to say that if a person didn't demonstrate the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives with at least the gift of tongues then they weren't really saved in the first place! But this was always a heretical fringe, not the mainstream of Pentecostalism.
Philosophically Pentecostals generally regarded the studying of theology as unhelpful to ministry. Ministers were then proudly untrained but "anointed". The "Anointing" was regarded as the pre-eminent requirement for a ministry candidate. With the anointing an unlearned person could heal the sick, cast out demons, and save the lost. Afterall, this was what Jesus told His disciples to do and He also told them that they would need the anointing of the Father's Promise to be able to do it. When the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit's anointing took place on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4) it gave rise to the designation of what later Spirit-filled believers would be called: Pentecostals.
As the next generations of "Pentecostal" have replaced the early ones there has also been a replacement of theology and philosophy. Many of the things that the early Pentecostals of the mid-twentieth century did are now considered uncouth. To be Pentecostal today apparently no longer requires that a person has had any experience with the Holy Spirit or His gifts. Ministers no longer consider the anointing the exclusive component for ministry. And Theology is now a major emphasis in most Ministry Training Colleges (although which theology is still being determined).
I want to be a Pentecostal who heals the sick, casts out demons, saves the lost, teaches the Bible, grounds in sound Reformed Theology, motivates people into their Spiritually-gifted ministries, lives with passion for Christ, inspires faith, influences society, and continually seeks God. I want to declare that Jesus Christ is not only Lord, but our Healer, Deliverer, Saviour, and Vindicated King!
For the past two weeks I've been on holidays. The hardest thing about being a pastor on holidays is that you can't go to your own church. I love my church and don't just attend it because I'm the pastor. But holidays does present the opportunity to visit other churches. And this is what my family and I have been doing. It has enabled us to see where some of the church crowd are going.
I pastor a church that is affiliated with the Australian Assemblies of God which causes people to make certain assumptions about what our church must be like. The general assumption is that we are a church driven by emotionalism and preach an overly simplistic message akin to the Word-of-faith heresy. But when people actually visit our virtual church or our ministry site they assume that we are a "Word-heavy" church devoid of prayerfulness or care. But none of these assumptions are correct.
While the general direction of the Australian Assemblies of God in the past few years has been a syncretism of Word of Faith and Seeker-sensitive-services, we have not 'joined in'. Most Australian AOG churches are essentially Arminian. We are essentially Calvinistic. Nearly all Australian AOG churches are Futurist. We are Partial-Preterist. Our church was recently described by a visiting evangelical Arch-Deacon of the Anglican Church as "the most unusual AOG church in Australia!". We are not interested in going along with the crowd.
And where is the crowd going? It seems that prayer, preaching, congregational worship is either being replaced or subjugated for x-boxes, Wii game consoles, coffee and cake, and "40-Day" programs. But is this what Christ was dying to build?
What does the Church offer? If it's merely more entertainment options then it will hurtle toward total irrelevance- which would be ironic since this is what many in the church crowd are desperately trying to avoid!
I consider that the Church offers the Gospel. The Gospel is the message of God's love, grace, and forgiveness through Jesus Christ. It is presented through prayer, worship, devotion, community, service, but most importantly: preaching. It is offered 24/7/52/365.25 - but especially on Sundays ("the Lord's Day", 1Cor. 16:1; Rev. 1:10). And it is my prayer that as long as I am pastor (and even long after I have gone) that Legana Christian Church will be passionately committed to delivering the Gospel without succumbing to "the crowd". I pray that we can take the faith of the early Pentecostals along with their willingness to pray and seek God for the miraculous and galvanise it with the best historic Reformed scholarship and offer ourselves unreservedly to God. Let's pray.
¶ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2:36
It seems that in order to have faith in God we have to "know" certain things. Some people have a highly unrealistic idea of faith when it comes to faith in God. This is because they define faith as the absence of doubts. For these people, faith is not valid unless it is certain. Thus, when the inevitable doubts come that challenge their faith in God and His Word, they feel that they never really had the kind of "faith" necessary to be a true believer. But this is not the Bible's picture of faith...
How many things do you know for "certain"? Compare this with how many things you know. If you're like most people, according to Prof J.P. Moreland, you probably think about 500 things a day that you accept as true yet without absolute certainty.
Faith is only faith in the presence of doubts. While Scripture commends that we know certain things it only once asks us to know something for certain - that Jesus is Lord (Acts 2:36). We can know, trust and love God yet battle with doubts. Of this, I'm certain.
A few months ago I was interviewed by ABC television's program, 4 Corners, when Liz Jackson asked me whether I thought the "Christian vote" would have any bearing on the upcoming Federal election. My answer surprised her. I stated emphatically that I thought the Christian vote would determine the outcome of the election! She immediately questioned me again on this matter and I re-stated my answer. Now that the election has been and gone I can say "I told you so!" The Christian vote determined the outcome of the 2007 Australian Federal Election.
It has been widely acknowledged that the Christian vote was a significant factor in the outcome of the 2003 Federal Election. For the first time in a long time several elected parliamentarians unashamedly declared their Christian commitment. The entrance of the Family First Party caught many commentators off guard and wondering how such a new political party could gain around 2% of the national vote in its first foray into national politics.
What these political observers had failed to detect was the level of frustration among middle Australians who were fed up with hostile, adversarial, politicking and extreme minority groups pushing for extreme legislation changes on marriage, drugs, crime, abortion, euthanasia and terrorism. The problem was compounded because those arguing for moral absolutes were generally on the Conservative side of politics and coincidentally generally happened to be Christians. Their Christian values then became the target for those on the other side of the politics which tended to sway the sympathies of middle Australia to the Conservatives.
At the 2003 Federal Election the choice was stark for Christian voters: Prime Minister Howard an unapologetic church-going Christian, or, Mark Latham an unabashed atheist who thought little of Christian values. But this election was different...
Kevin Rudd has little in common with Mark Latham. And perhaps his greatest endorsement as a good bloke was when Mark Latham published his biography and referred to Kevin Rudd as "a terrible piece of work". Coming from Latham that was ironically glowing praise! Kevin Rudd did much behind the scenes to appease the Christian vote. He met privately with many national church leaders and asked them what Labor had to do to win their support. Being a forthright church-going Christian, Kevin Rudd was not prepared for Christians of Australia to continue to think that being a Christian voter meant being a Conservative voter. He challenged this as he spoke to church groups and Christian gatherings around Australia. He especially courted the Pentecostals and met with nearly all of the leading Pentecostal movements to share his vision for Australia.
Because Kevin Rudd shares John Howard's Christian commitment it was inevitable that many of his value-laden policies would closely resemble the Prime Minister's. This then led to a huge tactical problem for the Conservative political strategists. And this is where they made a fatal political mistake. Instead of challenging the content of Mr Rudd's policy agenda (which they were essentially neutralised from doing, eventually causing them to claim in frustration that Kevin Rudd was a "Me too!" candidate) they made their attacks personal and nasty. They tried to equate the words "Trade Unionist" and "inexperienced" with "evil". It didn't go down well with the Christian vote. It looked desperate.
It was contrasted with Kevin Rudd's message of "new leadership" which would focus on educating children better, caring for the marginalised, and making workplaces fairer. This seemed to echo some very traditional Christian values. Added to this, Kevin Rudd was careful not to discuss issues of "Gay" marriage, abortion, euthanasia which most Christians find non-negotiable. But then there was the environment...
The Conservatives had for a long time generally failed to appreciate the dire warnings of scientists regarding the reality of the affect of carbon emissions on Climate Change. Kevin Rudd didn't.
In Tasmania there was no greater environmental issue than the proposed Pulp Mill. This had become an extremely provocative environmental issue which seemed to have the support of both State and Federal Conservatives. Kevin Rudd somehow seemed to distance himself from the proposal and process and thereby left it up to the Conservatives to argue why the Pulp Mill should go ahead. Some Christian voters saw through this though and despite almost insurmountable battles with their consciences voted Green instead either major Party (perhaps not realising that a vote for the Greens was ultimately a vote for the Pulp-Mill-supporting Labor Party). This was evidenced around Tasmania where Christian ministers were seen handing out Greens How-To-Vote cards on Polling Day. The Greens then gained the largest proportion of the Tasmanian Christian vote they have ever received which has seen their Lower House vote and their Senate vote go to record levels.
Mr Rudd courted and it seems eventually won the Christian vote. Christians want good economic management where the marginalised are looked after and the entrepreneur can flourish simultaneously. Christians want our borders protected but not at the expense of incarcerating already traumatised children behind razor-wire fences. Christians want development but not at the expense of poor environmental stewardship. Christians want everyone looking for a job to find one but not by the compulsory forfeiting of weekends, penalty-rates, or reasonable job-security. Christians want the sacredness of those who bear the image of God from conception to be afforded the right to life and that the institution which delivers this to be a unique privilege between one man with one woman for life. If Mr Rudd has any mandate he at least has a mandate from the Christian vote to deliver this. Christians should pray that he does.
Last week, Easter 2008, our church was privileged to have one of the world's most articulate apologists, Greg Koukl, speak at our church's Easter Convention. I find Greg to be one of the clearest Christian thinkers in the world today. But not only is Greg super-smart, he is super-nice. He encourages this mix in all followers of Christ. His three key words for his ministry organisation, Stand To Reason, are: Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character. And Greg embodies these three key words.
Christopher Hitchens' NY Times best selling book- God Is Not Great- presents some appallingly illogical arguments in an attempt, not merely to cast doubt on the existence of God, but, to be unabashedly anti-theist. I have addressed some of his arguments on another website (
This book could change the world! It could help to navigate people through the Middle East Crisis and form a more Biblical position. It will answer some of the staunchest critics of Christianity who claim that Jesus was a false prophet who has been proven to have actually to have deceived His disciples! This was the claim of the late Prof. Bertrand Russell and in more recent times is echoed by Professor of Religion at the University of North Carolina- Bart Erdman - who use just one verse to make their case for athiesm! But this book, The Most Embarrassing Verse In The Bible answers these critics and their criticisms in a very historically rigorous way. 
