by Rod Benson
What does it mean to live and work as a Christian in a politically charged world?
Some of us would prefer not to hear about politics, or pay politicians, or vote. But active participation in a democracy is both a serious responsibility and preferable to living in a community controlled by fascism, totalitarianism or terror. We need politics.
Political positions are usually cast as being either “left” or “right,” but such classifications are often misleading and outdated. Political theory has moved on, political parties and factions embrace policies across the ideological spectrum, and politicians chiefly use the terms to berate their opponents.
Yet Christians continue to employ left-right language to define approaches to moral and political issues. Of course the media helps – how often have you heard individuals and institutions identified as the “Christian right,” sometimes with the adjective “extreme”? Strangely, the “Christian left” are often called “mainstream churches,” which is also misleading.
This trend to polarize Christians is detrimental to our common mission in the world. David Gushee, a Baptist ethicist teaching at Mercer University, has a solution: disarm the power of the left-right divide in the church by recognizing and strengthening a nascent “centre.” Some will say that this merely exacerbates the problem. Yet I believe he has seen the way of the future, and it is multipolar.
In The Future of Faith in American Politics (Baylor University Press, 2008), Gushee rethinks Christianity’s engagement with culture and public policy. He maps the evangelical “right,” “left” and “centre” in the U.S., and analyses four key policy issues: torture, marriage, climate and war. He calls for an alternative to the main voices being heard right now.
This is an important book that deserves a wide readership. Gushee’s analysis and conclusions are directly relevant for Baptists in Australia today. We cannot afford to be divided by our political and cultural enemies. We must relearn what it means to live and work as Christians in a politically charged world, and retool for the challenges that lie ahead.
I dare to believe that our movement of churches could lead the way.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
29 October 2008
15 September 2008
by Rod Benson
I believe the local church is the hope of the world.
I’m not the first to have that thought – Bill Hybels and other peak Christian leaders have mentioned it many times. If you look at the life and ministry of Jesus, you’ll see that his ministry strategy and emphases focused on a small group of like-minded people who knew God, and wanted to obey him, and were convinced that they held the answer to the world’s hopelessness.
But what does it mean to convey Christian hope? Fundamentally there is the process of repentance and faith, the “new birth,” as John calls it. That experience, whether in an instant or across months or years, transforms a person from “darkness” to “light,” bringing new hope. As more individuals follow Christ, changes appear on a wider scale, and whole communities and nations are impacted. Ultimately the resurrection of Jesus, the centre and ground of hope, will transform every aspect of existence.
Evangelism and mission are essential to this process. So too are simple acts of compassion and grace, and the cultivation of Christian virtues in ordinary lives. I’d like to think that a world of lost, lonely and hurting people might find hope simply by crossing the path of a trusted Christian friend. And I’d like to think that our Baptist churches will be communities where such connections happen.
Moral qualities such as altruism, responsibility and justice do not descend on great leaders out of the air. They are cultivated and shaped in ordinary people, often away from the spotlight, early in life, often in the transactions between a parent and child. And they are most often strengthened by a moral community such as a local church. Historically, where the churches have been humble and missional, great good has come; where the churches have been haughty and institutional, society has crumbled.
We have an awesome responsibility then: together, to be the bearers and harbingers of Christian virtues and Christian hope, shaping and being shaped by our communities. Therein lies the hope of the world, as Jesus well knew.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
I believe the local church is the hope of the world.
I’m not the first to have that thought – Bill Hybels and other peak Christian leaders have mentioned it many times. If you look at the life and ministry of Jesus, you’ll see that his ministry strategy and emphases focused on a small group of like-minded people who knew God, and wanted to obey him, and were convinced that they held the answer to the world’s hopelessness.
But what does it mean to convey Christian hope? Fundamentally there is the process of repentance and faith, the “new birth,” as John calls it. That experience, whether in an instant or across months or years, transforms a person from “darkness” to “light,” bringing new hope. As more individuals follow Christ, changes appear on a wider scale, and whole communities and nations are impacted. Ultimately the resurrection of Jesus, the centre and ground of hope, will transform every aspect of existence.
Evangelism and mission are essential to this process. So too are simple acts of compassion and grace, and the cultivation of Christian virtues in ordinary lives. I’d like to think that a world of lost, lonely and hurting people might find hope simply by crossing the path of a trusted Christian friend. And I’d like to think that our Baptist churches will be communities where such connections happen.
Moral qualities such as altruism, responsibility and justice do not descend on great leaders out of the air. They are cultivated and shaped in ordinary people, often away from the spotlight, early in life, often in the transactions between a parent and child. And they are most often strengthened by a moral community such as a local church. Historically, where the churches have been humble and missional, great good has come; where the churches have been haughty and institutional, society has crumbled.
We have an awesome responsibility then: together, to be the bearers and harbingers of Christian virtues and Christian hope, shaping and being shaped by our communities. Therein lies the hope of the world, as Jesus well knew.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
18 August 2008
by Rod Benson
New words and phrases about ethics appear from time to time – such as “co-belligerence,” “consistent pro-life ethic,” and “public theology.” My bio describes me as an ethicist and public theologian, and people are always saying, “What’s that?” Let me explain.
First, what it’s not. Public theology is not the opposite of private theology (whatever that is). And it’s not the theology expressed by ordinary Australians, or by post-religious people who retain elements of “residual Christianity.”
Public theology is concerned with how the Christian faith addresses matters in society. It is concerned with the “public relevance” of Christian beliefs. It seeks to provide resources for people to make connections between faith and practical issues facing their community.
For Clive Pearson, one of Australia’s best public theologians, public theology assumes that theology is relevant to everyone (not just to Christians), and to other academic disciplines; and that theologians should attend to the specific needs of different audiences (e.g. the world, the church and the academy).
Pearson would also say that public theology has no privileged status in today’s marketplace of ideas. Its aim is not proselytism but the common good – the well-being and flourishing of a whole society.
At their best, Baptists have always been advocates for public theology and for the common good. Indeed the sixteenth-century Baptist insistence on religious liberty was grounded in a concern for the common good: freedom to practice religion, or no religion, according to conscience. Today we face fresh challenges to strengthen our heritage of radical thought, freedom and progress.
Now a word of caution. We may extend the boundaries of public theology to embrace what philosopher John Rawls describes as “public reason” – to translate religiously-based concerns into universal values. This is what many politicians and academics tend to do. For example, while Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama are both public Christians and use the language of public theology, their rhetoric sometimes stretches toward the universal, losing its Christian distinctiveness.
We need public theology (and public theologians!). But let’s keep our ideas and arguments firmly anchored to Jesus Christ and the biblical witness.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
New words and phrases about ethics appear from time to time – such as “co-belligerence,” “consistent pro-life ethic,” and “public theology.” My bio describes me as an ethicist and public theologian, and people are always saying, “What’s that?” Let me explain.
First, what it’s not. Public theology is not the opposite of private theology (whatever that is). And it’s not the theology expressed by ordinary Australians, or by post-religious people who retain elements of “residual Christianity.”
Public theology is concerned with how the Christian faith addresses matters in society. It is concerned with the “public relevance” of Christian beliefs. It seeks to provide resources for people to make connections between faith and practical issues facing their community.
For Clive Pearson, one of Australia’s best public theologians, public theology assumes that theology is relevant to everyone (not just to Christians), and to other academic disciplines; and that theologians should attend to the specific needs of different audiences (e.g. the world, the church and the academy).
Pearson would also say that public theology has no privileged status in today’s marketplace of ideas. Its aim is not proselytism but the common good – the well-being and flourishing of a whole society.
At their best, Baptists have always been advocates for public theology and for the common good. Indeed the sixteenth-century Baptist insistence on religious liberty was grounded in a concern for the common good: freedom to practice religion, or no religion, according to conscience. Today we face fresh challenges to strengthen our heritage of radical thought, freedom and progress.
Now a word of caution. We may extend the boundaries of public theology to embrace what philosopher John Rawls describes as “public reason” – to translate religiously-based concerns into universal values. This is what many politicians and academics tend to do. For example, while Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama are both public Christians and use the language of public theology, their rhetoric sometimes stretches toward the universal, losing its Christian distinctiveness.
We need public theology (and public theologians!). But let’s keep our ideas and arguments firmly anchored to Jesus Christ and the biblical witness.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
by Rod Benson
Grief meets each of us when we lose someone or something we care deeply about. But in a world driven by instant gratification, where well-being is measured in shallow emotional highs, are we scared to feel sad? Do we overlook the goodness and growth that may attend grief?
Paul Tournier (1898-1986) was a Swiss physician and author who acquired a global audience for his work in pastoral counselling. He was a pioneer of person-centred psychotherapy. In his book, Creative Suffering (1981), Tournier reflected on his own bereavement. He wrote:
Sometimes, faced with grief, we restrain a God-breathed creative energy. There is good we can do in this world because we have experienced grief. Are you ready to walk along a path toward growth? Then go with God.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
Grief meets each of us when we lose someone or something we care deeply about. But in a world driven by instant gratification, where well-being is measured in shallow emotional highs, are we scared to feel sad? Do we overlook the goodness and growth that may attend grief?
Paul Tournier (1898-1986) was a Swiss physician and author who acquired a global audience for his work in pastoral counselling. He was a pioneer of person-centred psychotherapy. In his book, Creative Suffering (1981), Tournier reflected on his own bereavement. He wrote:
People talk of ‘widows and orphans.’ I am both. I hesitated for a long time [before writing this book]! Because what I have to say is that I have indeed felt a renewal of my creative urge since then …. This is quite the opposite of a denial of grief. It really is suffering …. The greater the grief, the greater the creative energy to which it gives
rise….
Since my wife’s death I have come to realize that I had lived all my life in mourning, waiting for reunion in heaven with my parents …. Now, with my new bereavement, my link with heaven is made stronger still, and that stimulates, rather than diminishes, my interest in the problems of this world. The human heart does not obey the rules of logic; it is constitutionally contradictory. I can truly say that I have a great grief and that I am a happy man.
Does that mean that I am, in fact, performing my work of mourning in Freud’s sense? I do not think so. With Freud it is a detachment, a disinvestment, to borrow a term much used by the psychoanalysts. It is, he writes, a matter of severing one’s attachment to the object that has been abolished …. You will see that what I have done is the exact opposite.
Sometimes, faced with grief, we restrain a God-breathed creative energy. There is good we can do in this world because we have experienced grief. Are you ready to walk along a path toward growth? Then go with God.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
22 June 2008
by Rod Benson
One of the best ways we can build healthy churches is to grow positive relationships. Here are seven tips for giving criticism, adapted from John Maxwell’s teaching:
Clarify your motive. The goal should be to help, not to humiliate. Three key questions will help expose your true motives. (1) Would I criticize if it were not a personal matter? (2) Will criticism make me look better? (3) Does this criticism bring pain or pleasure to me? If it’s painful, you’re probably safe in doing it.
Look at yourself before looking at others. Instead of putting others in their place, put yourself in their place. Have you successfully done what you’re accusing the other person of failing to do? You may be the one who needs to make changes.
Be specific. Say exactly what you mean and provide examples to back yourself up. If you can’t be specific, don’t confront. People can usually tell when you’re skirting an issue and will not respect you for it.
Be creative. Look beyond the problem and see if you can help them find some solutions. For most of us it’s much easier to be critical than creative. But unless you’re willing to help turn the situation around, you’re not ready to comment on the problem.
Attack the problem not the person. When a confrontation becomes a personal attack, you destroy your own credibility. The expected outcome of a confrontation should be that the offender leaves with a clear understanding of the problem and the hope that he or she can turn it around.
Confront when the time is right. If you wait too long you lose the opportunity moment and the issue becomes history. Timely intervention helps you keep the facts straight and use the incident as an opportunity help the person grow.
Begin and end confrontation with encouragement. Always sandwich criticism between praise at the beginning and encouragement at the end. To leave a discouraged person without hope is cruel and vindictive.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney. For the original (longer) article, click here.
One of the best ways we can build healthy churches is to grow positive relationships. Here are seven tips for giving criticism, adapted from John Maxwell’s teaching:
Clarify your motive. The goal should be to help, not to humiliate. Three key questions will help expose your true motives. (1) Would I criticize if it were not a personal matter? (2) Will criticism make me look better? (3) Does this criticism bring pain or pleasure to me? If it’s painful, you’re probably safe in doing it.
Look at yourself before looking at others. Instead of putting others in their place, put yourself in their place. Have you successfully done what you’re accusing the other person of failing to do? You may be the one who needs to make changes.
Be specific. Say exactly what you mean and provide examples to back yourself up. If you can’t be specific, don’t confront. People can usually tell when you’re skirting an issue and will not respect you for it.
Be creative. Look beyond the problem and see if you can help them find some solutions. For most of us it’s much easier to be critical than creative. But unless you’re willing to help turn the situation around, you’re not ready to comment on the problem.
Attack the problem not the person. When a confrontation becomes a personal attack, you destroy your own credibility. The expected outcome of a confrontation should be that the offender leaves with a clear understanding of the problem and the hope that he or she can turn it around.
Confront when the time is right. If you wait too long you lose the opportunity moment and the issue becomes history. Timely intervention helps you keep the facts straight and use the incident as an opportunity help the person grow.
Begin and end confrontation with encouragement. Always sandwich criticism between praise at the beginning and encouragement at the end. To leave a discouraged person without hope is cruel and vindictive.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney. For the original (longer) article, click here.
12 May 2008
June 2008
by Rod Benson
Most Baptists are evangelicals, and many evangelicals are Baptists. Among other things, evangelicals love to define what they believe. The latest significant attempt appeared in Washington, D.C., on 9 May.
Titled “An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment,” the 20-page document was drafted by prominent evangelical thinker Os Guinness and eight other scholars, pastors and theologians, and signed by at least 80.
It seeks to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the Western world today; and seeks to clarify where Evangelicals stand on issues that cause consternation in public life. The Manifesto suggests three “mandates.”
First, Evangelicals must define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus. Almost half the document expounds this task, defining Evangelical faith and conduct Christologically, and identifying seven “defining features” or implications of being Evangelical.
Second, Evangelicals must reform their own behaviour, in the light of repeated failure to be shaped by the Good News of Jesus before recommending its life-changing power to others. The authors highlight numerous forms of religious myopia and hypocrisy within Evangelicalism, ranging from replacing “biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, [and] worship with entertainment,” to attacking “the evils and injustices of others … while [living] captive to forces such as materialism and consumerism in ways that contradict our faith.” A five-fold call responds to these shortcomings.
Third, Evangelicals must find a new understanding of their place in public life. Specifically, “to be Evangelical … is to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good.”
There is much more to the Manifesto, and much to question, clarify and qualify. Australian Baptists surely have important things to say on these matters. Links to the Manifesto and selected responses appear below.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
Links:
The Evangelical Manifesto
http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf
Defence of the document by lead author Os Guinness
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=55239
News report in Christianity Today
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/mayweb-only/119-51.0.html
News report in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-05-06-evangelical-manifesto_N.htm
Criticism by Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1147
Criticism by respected evangelical Alan Jacobs in The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029045957979237.html?mod=taste_primary_hs
by Rod Benson
Most Baptists are evangelicals, and many evangelicals are Baptists. Among other things, evangelicals love to define what they believe. The latest significant attempt appeared in Washington, D.C., on 9 May.
Titled “An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment,” the 20-page document was drafted by prominent evangelical thinker Os Guinness and eight other scholars, pastors and theologians, and signed by at least 80.
It seeks to address the confusions and corruptions that attend the term Evangelical in the Western world today; and seeks to clarify where Evangelicals stand on issues that cause consternation in public life. The Manifesto suggests three “mandates.”
First, Evangelicals must define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus. Almost half the document expounds this task, defining Evangelical faith and conduct Christologically, and identifying seven “defining features” or implications of being Evangelical.
Second, Evangelicals must reform their own behaviour, in the light of repeated failure to be shaped by the Good News of Jesus before recommending its life-changing power to others. The authors highlight numerous forms of religious myopia and hypocrisy within Evangelicalism, ranging from replacing “biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, [and] worship with entertainment,” to attacking “the evils and injustices of others … while [living] captive to forces such as materialism and consumerism in ways that contradict our faith.” A five-fold call responds to these shortcomings.
Third, Evangelicals must find a new understanding of their place in public life. Specifically, “to be Evangelical … is to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good.”
There is much more to the Manifesto, and much to question, clarify and qualify. Australian Baptists surely have important things to say on these matters. Links to the Manifesto and selected responses appear below.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
Links:
The Evangelical Manifesto
http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/docs/Evangelical_Manifesto.pdf
Defence of the document by lead author Os Guinness
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=55239
News report in Christianity Today
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/mayweb-only/119-51.0.html
News report in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-05-06-evangelical-manifesto_N.htm
Criticism by Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1147
Criticism by respected evangelical Alan Jacobs in The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029045957979237.html?mod=taste_primary_hs
16 April 2008
May 2008
By Rod Benson
From time to time, we’re urged to define limits to our consumption, to explore the possibilities of wealth redistribution and communal ownership, and to practice sacrificial giving to promote justice and mercy and ministry. John Stott called it “the Christian counter-culture.” Luke called it the “common life.” Jesus called it “neighbour-love” and “cross-bearing.”
There is, however, virtue to be gained in consumption. God fills the world with good things, and invites us to consume them with pleasure. God gives us time, and invites us to spend it in his service. God gives us his love, and his Son, and invites us to the table. God gives us his Spirit, and invites us to use the Spirit’s gifts.
One of the Gospel’s ironies is that God calls us to respond to the supreme act of self-sacrifice through acquisition and consumption. We receive the gift of life; we take the bread and wine; we walk in the Spirit.
God satisfies our deep needs, and prepares us for life in his presence. He wants us to live generously and compassionately, to follow Jesus. Yet we can be so focused on doing God’s work that we overlook what must come first: receiving God’s love, and being God’s person. If that’s where you’re at, then George Herbert’s classic poem is for you:
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
By Rod Benson
From time to time, we’re urged to define limits to our consumption, to explore the possibilities of wealth redistribution and communal ownership, and to practice sacrificial giving to promote justice and mercy and ministry. John Stott called it “the Christian counter-culture.” Luke called it the “common life.” Jesus called it “neighbour-love” and “cross-bearing.”
There is, however, virtue to be gained in consumption. God fills the world with good things, and invites us to consume them with pleasure. God gives us time, and invites us to spend it in his service. God gives us his love, and his Son, and invites us to the table. God gives us his Spirit, and invites us to use the Spirit’s gifts.
One of the Gospel’s ironies is that God calls us to respond to the supreme act of self-sacrifice through acquisition and consumption. We receive the gift of life; we take the bread and wine; we walk in the Spirit.
God satisfies our deep needs, and prepares us for life in his presence. He wants us to live generously and compassionately, to follow Jesus. Yet we can be so focused on doing God’s work that we overlook what must come first: receiving God’s love, and being God’s person. If that’s where you’re at, then George Herbert’s classic poem is for you:
Love bade me welcome, yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-ey’d Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lack’d anything.
“A guest,” I answer’d, “worthy to be here”;
Love said, “You shall be he.”
“I, the unkind, the ungrateful? ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.”
Love took my hand and smiling did reply,
“Who made the eyes but I?”
“Truth, Lord, but I have marr’d them;
let my shameGo where it doth deserve.”
“And know you not,” says Love, “who bore the blame?”
“My dear, then I will serve.”
“You must sit down,” says Love, “and taste my meat.”
So I did sit and eat.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
16 March 2008
April 2008
by Rod Benson
Australia has a female Deputy Prime Minister, two female High Court Judges, and numerous women company directors, CEOs, professionals and senior academics. Victoria has a female police commissioner, and Victorian Baptists nurtured the first woman President of the Baptist Union of Australia. Victoria leads the way in ordaining women to Baptist leadership.
There are also many hundreds of women who lead, teach and serve God and others in Victorian Baptist churches, and in the wider community.
But all is not well. Women called to lead in the church face ostracism, disempowerment and even denunciation based on their gender. Men simply do not face these challenges.
Developing women pastoral leaders is especially difficult. Some women are reluctant to pursue formal studies, aware that there may be no place to serve upon graduation. There may be few churches willing to employ a female lead pastor, and this lack of demand creates additional problems when women pastors seek a second or third pastorate. Gifted women often move from a church into chaplaincy or other roles. Male pastors, by contrast, normally find it easier to secure pastorates once experienced and more mature.
Even where church leaders are progressive on gender, and a church appears committed to gender equality, a church meeting may fail to call a woman pastor for various unspoken reasons. Or a denominational committee may treat women applicants more rigorously than men.
And what to do when a female pastor (or denominational committee member) begins bearing children? Or when her husband is offered a job transfer out of the community? Or when other women in the church feel sexually or psychologically threatened by the presence of a woman pastor? These and other related issues bear careful consideration.
It is little wonder that gifted, well-trained and experienced women continue to drift away from the church, and out of it altogether.
We must learn to view women and men as equals, as God views them. For some, this will be very hard. Thank you, Victorian Baptists, for demonstrating leadership and courage on this vital issue.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
by Rod Benson
Australia has a female Deputy Prime Minister, two female High Court Judges, and numerous women company directors, CEOs, professionals and senior academics. Victoria has a female police commissioner, and Victorian Baptists nurtured the first woman President of the Baptist Union of Australia. Victoria leads the way in ordaining women to Baptist leadership.
There are also many hundreds of women who lead, teach and serve God and others in Victorian Baptist churches, and in the wider community.
But all is not well. Women called to lead in the church face ostracism, disempowerment and even denunciation based on their gender. Men simply do not face these challenges.
Developing women pastoral leaders is especially difficult. Some women are reluctant to pursue formal studies, aware that there may be no place to serve upon graduation. There may be few churches willing to employ a female lead pastor, and this lack of demand creates additional problems when women pastors seek a second or third pastorate. Gifted women often move from a church into chaplaincy or other roles. Male pastors, by contrast, normally find it easier to secure pastorates once experienced and more mature.
Even where church leaders are progressive on gender, and a church appears committed to gender equality, a church meeting may fail to call a woman pastor for various unspoken reasons. Or a denominational committee may treat women applicants more rigorously than men.
And what to do when a female pastor (or denominational committee member) begins bearing children? Or when her husband is offered a job transfer out of the community? Or when other women in the church feel sexually or psychologically threatened by the presence of a woman pastor? These and other related issues bear careful consideration.
It is little wonder that gifted, well-trained and experienced women continue to drift away from the church, and out of it altogether.
We must learn to view women and men as equals, as God views them. For some, this will be very hard. Thank you, Victorian Baptists, for demonstrating leadership and courage on this vital issue.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
21 February 2008
March 2008
by Rod Benson
The National Apology by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, on Wednesday 13 February was the most profound display of social justice I have witnessed.
It was symbolic but also practical. It was inspired by particular moral convictions but secured bipartisan political support. It reflected on past mistreatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and looked to the future with courage and optimism.
Above all, the Apology expressed the words that many Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, have needed to hear from the lips of their Prime Minister: “We apologise, we say sorry, we say sorry.” Those words were long overdue.
But while Apology Day is the end of one difficult journey, it marks the beginning of another longer one. Baptists and those of other faith communities all over this great country must now work hard together to ensure that the symbolism in the Apology bears fruit in just public policy, effective implementation, and a continued commitment to reconciliation between partners only now learning to trust each other.
It was a privilege for me to formally represent the President of the Baptist Union of Australia in Canberra on this historic national occasion, and to share in an ecumenical prayer service in the afternoon at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture.
I look to the future in the hope that institutionalized injustice based on race and ethnicity never happens again; that within my lifetime Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians come to experience the same life expectancy, and educational and economic opportunities; and that the principles of “mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility” are taken seriously and become evident in all our attitudes and actions.
I am personally committed to this vision of justice for all Australians, and I encourage you to stand with me as we lay claim to a just future that embraces all Australians. Such a vision is undoubtedly God-inspired and will need divine wisdom and power to succeed. Pray that our leaders and policy makers follow the heart-beat of God for our nation.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
by Rod Benson
The National Apology by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, on Wednesday 13 February was the most profound display of social justice I have witnessed.
It was symbolic but also practical. It was inspired by particular moral convictions but secured bipartisan political support. It reflected on past mistreatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and looked to the future with courage and optimism.
Above all, the Apology expressed the words that many Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, have needed to hear from the lips of their Prime Minister: “We apologise, we say sorry, we say sorry.” Those words were long overdue.
But while Apology Day is the end of one difficult journey, it marks the beginning of another longer one. Baptists and those of other faith communities all over this great country must now work hard together to ensure that the symbolism in the Apology bears fruit in just public policy, effective implementation, and a continued commitment to reconciliation between partners only now learning to trust each other.
It was a privilege for me to formally represent the President of the Baptist Union of Australia in Canberra on this historic national occasion, and to share in an ecumenical prayer service in the afternoon at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture.
I look to the future in the hope that institutionalized injustice based on race and ethnicity never happens again; that within my lifetime Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians come to experience the same life expectancy, and educational and economic opportunities; and that the principles of “mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility” are taken seriously and become evident in all our attitudes and actions.
I am personally committed to this vision of justice for all Australians, and I encourage you to stand with me as we lay claim to a just future that embraces all Australians. Such a vision is undoubtedly God-inspired and will need divine wisdom and power to succeed. Pray that our leaders and policy makers follow the heart-beat of God for our nation.
Rev Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College, Sydney.
February 2008
by Rod Benson
In December 2007 I spent two weeks in Israel and Palestine with Australian church leaders, encouraging Palestinian Christians and observing daily life in the West Bank. We visited Jerusalem, Hebron, Jenin, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and several refugee camps. We met Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders, Israeli and Palestinian politicians, and civic and human rights leaders.
We heard of Israeli grief and pain resulting from violent attacks and fear of terrorist activity. We saw and heard evidence of systematic harassment, physical and psychological oppression, and widespread unemployment and poverty resulting from Israeli military occupation of the West Bank.
The imprisonment of political prisoners, the segregated road system, the proliferation of hundreds of checkpoints and road blocks throughout the West Bank, the restrictions on movement of people and goods, and the effective isolation of Palestinian communities from one another all reduce the quality of life for Palestinians, foment active resistance, and stand in the way of a just peace.
The nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex. Both Israel and Palestine have a right to political autonomy, security and self-determination. Most ordinary people long for a just and lasting peace in the region. But in my judgment this appears remote.
Yet there are signs of hope. Human rights organisations and local community organisations do courageous work. More Israelis are becoming aware of the financial and human cost of the conflict. Political leaders are seeking to work toward a resolution of the conflict.
Here’s what you and I can do to further peace and harmony in Israel and Palestine:
- pray for a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
- learn all you can about the region and the conflict, being aware that there are at least two sides to every story;
- sponsor aid and development projects in the West Bank and Gaza;
- encourage the Australian Government to take more action to support peace;
- build stronger relationships with Jewish and Muslim people in Australia to encourage greater understanding.
Rod Benson is an ethicist and public theologian with the Tinsley Institute, an activity of Morling College.
27 November 2007
December 2007
by Rod Benson
In September the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance published “The Philadelphia Statement,” biblically grounded and theologically rich, with a strong emphasis on the kingdom of God, and collaboration with God in mission.
Surprisingly for a non-Catholic statement, it urges social and political consensus “with all who seek peace and the common good,” and calls individuals and groups “to participate in actions and programs which aim at overcoming social evil and which enhance the common good.” This is a huge task, but there will be disagreement on what constitutes “evil” and “good.”
The Statement also makes strong claims for the integration of evangelism and social justice:
(a) “Both evangelism and social action are essential dimensions of the gospel”;
(b) “[The church ought to] bear witness in life, word and action to the power of the gospel to transform lives and societies”;
(c) “The notion of a purely privatized faith in which the gospel only affects individual, personal or family life but has no wider implications for society must be rejected as inadequate”;
(d) “We must commit ourselves to the common life of faith and action which will lead to a transformation of the world in which we live.”
This is compelling, but why do so many peak evangelical gatherings feel the need to issue statements advocating integral mission?
First, evangelicals have often been unfaithful to the biblical witness, and to generations of pastors and theologians who have sought to apply the biblical teaching on social justice.
Second, evangelicals are often guilty of promoting radical individualism and pragmatism at the expense of communitarianism and a serious commitment to radical discipleship. Taken to extremes, these ideologies threaten the integrity and viability of ministry and mission.
Third, evangelicals have often failed to find effective ways of engaging the political process. Often the articulation of public policy options leads to conflict, degenerating into slanging matches, stony silences or standoffs.
Until we all address these issues, evangelicals will be criticised as socially irresponsible, and will need to be reminded by scholars of the radical and holistic nature of the gospel.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
by Rod Benson
In September the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance published “The Philadelphia Statement,” biblically grounded and theologically rich, with a strong emphasis on the kingdom of God, and collaboration with God in mission.
Surprisingly for a non-Catholic statement, it urges social and political consensus “with all who seek peace and the common good,” and calls individuals and groups “to participate in actions and programs which aim at overcoming social evil and which enhance the common good.” This is a huge task, but there will be disagreement on what constitutes “evil” and “good.”
The Statement also makes strong claims for the integration of evangelism and social justice:
(a) “Both evangelism and social action are essential dimensions of the gospel”;
(b) “[The church ought to] bear witness in life, word and action to the power of the gospel to transform lives and societies”;
(c) “The notion of a purely privatized faith in which the gospel only affects individual, personal or family life but has no wider implications for society must be rejected as inadequate”;
(d) “We must commit ourselves to the common life of faith and action which will lead to a transformation of the world in which we live.”
This is compelling, but why do so many peak evangelical gatherings feel the need to issue statements advocating integral mission?
First, evangelicals have often been unfaithful to the biblical witness, and to generations of pastors and theologians who have sought to apply the biblical teaching on social justice.
Second, evangelicals are often guilty of promoting radical individualism and pragmatism at the expense of communitarianism and a serious commitment to radical discipleship. Taken to extremes, these ideologies threaten the integrity and viability of ministry and mission.
Third, evangelicals have often failed to find effective ways of engaging the political process. Often the articulation of public policy options leads to conflict, degenerating into slanging matches, stony silences or standoffs.
Until we all address these issues, evangelicals will be criticised as socially irresponsible, and will need to be reminded by scholars of the radical and holistic nature of the gospel.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
November 2007
by Rod Benson
Despite much media preoccupation with youth and youthfulness, Australian society is rapidly greying. Soon one in four Australians will be over 60 years old. Younger adults will feel increasing pressure to care for older citizens, and fund their health and lifestyle requirements through taxes. Politicians will feel strong pressures as they listen to the perspectives of ageing people and consider just responses. Similar pressures face church leaders.
Age-related change occurs throughout the life cycle, but in Australia “ageing” is culturally assumed to begin between about 55 and 65 years, often coinciding with retirement. Ageing impacts people in diverse ways and can be unpredictable and stressful. Life experiences, attitude and psychospiritual factors all have a bearing on one’s outlook as the existential “autumn” and “winter” of life set in. For some, ageing can be crushing and soul-destroying experience.
Scripture accepts the transitory nature of youth and reflects frankly the problems and issues we face as we age. At the same time, it presents older persons as dignified, venerable and wise; longevity as a reward for virtuous living; and advanced age as a gift from God. Early Christian communities were led by “elders” – older men and women who possessed a wealth of knowledge and skill built over a lifetime of experience. Ageing community members received special respect and care, and developing leaders were coached and mentored by their elders, including the pastoral care of older persons.
Throughout Scripture, life involves positive development and change, and the idea of permanent retirement is unknown. Ageing is divinely intentional and part of what it means to be a human person. The capacity to “do” things is not the definitive measure for determining someone’s worth and value.
To reflect on passages such as Genesis 3:19, Exodus 20:12, Proverbs 3:1-2 and 16:31 is to recognise how far we have drifted culturally and theologically from the image of ageing as a sign of wisdom, long life as a symbol of blessing, and grey hair as glorious.
What can you, and your church, do to swim against these cultural trends that threaten to swamp and impoverish our community life?
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
by Rod Benson
Despite much media preoccupation with youth and youthfulness, Australian society is rapidly greying. Soon one in four Australians will be over 60 years old. Younger adults will feel increasing pressure to care for older citizens, and fund their health and lifestyle requirements through taxes. Politicians will feel strong pressures as they listen to the perspectives of ageing people and consider just responses. Similar pressures face church leaders.
Age-related change occurs throughout the life cycle, but in Australia “ageing” is culturally assumed to begin between about 55 and 65 years, often coinciding with retirement. Ageing impacts people in diverse ways and can be unpredictable and stressful. Life experiences, attitude and psychospiritual factors all have a bearing on one’s outlook as the existential “autumn” and “winter” of life set in. For some, ageing can be crushing and soul-destroying experience.
Scripture accepts the transitory nature of youth and reflects frankly the problems and issues we face as we age. At the same time, it presents older persons as dignified, venerable and wise; longevity as a reward for virtuous living; and advanced age as a gift from God. Early Christian communities were led by “elders” – older men and women who possessed a wealth of knowledge and skill built over a lifetime of experience. Ageing community members received special respect and care, and developing leaders were coached and mentored by their elders, including the pastoral care of older persons.
Throughout Scripture, life involves positive development and change, and the idea of permanent retirement is unknown. Ageing is divinely intentional and part of what it means to be a human person. The capacity to “do” things is not the definitive measure for determining someone’s worth and value.
To reflect on passages such as Genesis 3:19, Exodus 20:12, Proverbs 3:1-2 and 16:31 is to recognise how far we have drifted culturally and theologically from the image of ageing as a sign of wisdom, long life as a symbol of blessing, and grey hair as glorious.
What can you, and your church, do to swim against these cultural trends that threaten to swamp and impoverish our community life?
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
13 September 2007
Speaking ethically No. 16
October 2007
by Rod Benson
“Manners maketh the man,” said William of Wykeham, and American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson reflected that “Good manners are made up of petty sacrifices.” But few aphorisms are less likely to appeal to the modern mind, says Lucinda Holdforth in her book, Why Manners Matter: The Case for Civilized Behaviour in a Barbarous World (Random House, 2007).
Why, then, write a book on manners? Holdforth, a Sydney-based speechwriter, is convinced that civility protects human rights and freedoms, saves us from over-legislation, strengthens community, and “adorns our individual humanity.” In short, manners are essential to civilization.
This is not a book that pines after 19th-century sensibilities, nor a manual on etiquette. It’s a perceptive commentary on how we live, a conversation on ideas, and a plea for neighbourly respect and common sense. The author argues that personal civility matters because (to grab a few of her key ideas):
• we are social animals who must cooperate to survive;
• manners are more important than laws, less invasive than morals, and better than social confusion;
• manners nurture equality, modify self-esteem, and express our civic values;
• sovereignty demands self-sovereignty;
• manners resolve the tension between order and freedom, liberty and stability;
• manners express authenticity, goodness and progress in human community;
• corporations are not civilizing institutions; and
• manners give us dignity, improve communication, prevent premature intimacy, reveal our humanity, and render life beautiful.
By our modest mannerly contributions, our little “petty sacrifices,” we combine to make something bigger and ultimately more significant – a civil society. And a civil society is an excellent environment in which Christians and Christian values may flourish.
Why Manners Matter is witty and timely, profound and practical, forceful and charming. As the publisher’s blurb notes, it “will ensure you never take courtesy for granted again.” I respectfully suggest you go out and get two copies: one for yourself and the other for someone you know who disdains manners – or who lives among people who do.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
Purchase Lucinda Holdforth, Why Manners Matter: The Case for Civilized Behaviour in a Barbarous World at http://www.randomhouse.com.au/Books/Default.aspx?Page=Book&ID=9781741668704
October 2007
by Rod Benson
“Manners maketh the man,” said William of Wykeham, and American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson reflected that “Good manners are made up of petty sacrifices.” But few aphorisms are less likely to appeal to the modern mind, says Lucinda Holdforth in her book, Why Manners Matter: The Case for Civilized Behaviour in a Barbarous World (Random House, 2007).
Why, then, write a book on manners? Holdforth, a Sydney-based speechwriter, is convinced that civility protects human rights and freedoms, saves us from over-legislation, strengthens community, and “adorns our individual humanity.” In short, manners are essential to civilization.
This is not a book that pines after 19th-century sensibilities, nor a manual on etiquette. It’s a perceptive commentary on how we live, a conversation on ideas, and a plea for neighbourly respect and common sense. The author argues that personal civility matters because (to grab a few of her key ideas):
• we are social animals who must cooperate to survive;
• manners are more important than laws, less invasive than morals, and better than social confusion;
• manners nurture equality, modify self-esteem, and express our civic values;
• sovereignty demands self-sovereignty;
• manners resolve the tension between order and freedom, liberty and stability;
• manners express authenticity, goodness and progress in human community;
• corporations are not civilizing institutions; and
• manners give us dignity, improve communication, prevent premature intimacy, reveal our humanity, and render life beautiful.
By our modest mannerly contributions, our little “petty sacrifices,” we combine to make something bigger and ultimately more significant – a civil society. And a civil society is an excellent environment in which Christians and Christian values may flourish.
Why Manners Matter is witty and timely, profound and practical, forceful and charming. As the publisher’s blurb notes, it “will ensure you never take courtesy for granted again.” I respectfully suggest you go out and get two copies: one for yourself and the other for someone you know who disdains manners – or who lives among people who do.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
Purchase Lucinda Holdforth, Why Manners Matter: The Case for Civilized Behaviour in a Barbarous World at http://www.randomhouse.com.au/Books/Default.aspx?Page=Book&ID=9781741668704
Speaking ethically No. 15
September 2007
by Rod Benson
Last month, the Australian Federal Parliament passed legislation authorising the Howard Government’s unprecedented actions to arrest child abuse and neglect among indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.
These included measures for alcohol restriction; computer auditing to detect prohibited pornographic material; better management of community stores to deliver healthier and more affordable food; five-year leases on some communities to enable better management of investments and improved living conditions; land tenure changes for town camps; and removal of customary law as a relevant mitigating factor for bail and sentencing conditions.
This is an issue of immense significance to our nation, and to our churches and mission agencies working alongside indigenous Australians. There has been cautious support but also strong criticism from church leaders. Many have welcomed the government’s commitment to tackling violence and abuse in indigenous communities, but have expressed grave concerns with the substance and process of the planned reforms.
In my view, more emphasis needs to be placed on sustainable solutions and long-term planning, developing programs to strengthen families and communities and empower them to confront problems (rather than an over-reliance on top-down and punitive measures), and adequate consultation with indigenous communities.
There is a great deal more of value still to be said on the legislation, its implementation in the diverse communities affected, and the responses by those communities.
Careful attention also needs to be paid to the degree to which these policies actually resolve problems of child abuse and neglect; the ways in which alcohol and drug abuse, petrol sniffing and access to pornography increase the risk of abuse and neglect; and the extent to which the problems extend beyond remote indigenous communities into thousands of supposedly “safer” Australian suburbs, homes and families.
Our Baptist churches need to contribute more to the debate, and, where possible, to the solutions. And the people directly affected, all of them Australian citizens with their own hopes and fears, aspirations and perspectives, need our ongoing prayers and our genuine care. They too are our neighbours.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
September 2007
by Rod Benson
Last month, the Australian Federal Parliament passed legislation authorising the Howard Government’s unprecedented actions to arrest child abuse and neglect among indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.
These included measures for alcohol restriction; computer auditing to detect prohibited pornographic material; better management of community stores to deliver healthier and more affordable food; five-year leases on some communities to enable better management of investments and improved living conditions; land tenure changes for town camps; and removal of customary law as a relevant mitigating factor for bail and sentencing conditions.
This is an issue of immense significance to our nation, and to our churches and mission agencies working alongside indigenous Australians. There has been cautious support but also strong criticism from church leaders. Many have welcomed the government’s commitment to tackling violence and abuse in indigenous communities, but have expressed grave concerns with the substance and process of the planned reforms.
In my view, more emphasis needs to be placed on sustainable solutions and long-term planning, developing programs to strengthen families and communities and empower them to confront problems (rather than an over-reliance on top-down and punitive measures), and adequate consultation with indigenous communities.
There is a great deal more of value still to be said on the legislation, its implementation in the diverse communities affected, and the responses by those communities.
Careful attention also needs to be paid to the degree to which these policies actually resolve problems of child abuse and neglect; the ways in which alcohol and drug abuse, petrol sniffing and access to pornography increase the risk of abuse and neglect; and the extent to which the problems extend beyond remote indigenous communities into thousands of supposedly “safer” Australian suburbs, homes and families.
Our Baptist churches need to contribute more to the debate, and, where possible, to the solutions. And the people directly affected, all of them Australian citizens with their own hopes and fears, aspirations and perspectives, need our ongoing prayers and our genuine care. They too are our neighbours.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
10 September 2007
Speaking Ethically No. 14
By Rod Benson
August 2007
In June Prime Minister John Howard announced that Australia was in the grip of a “national emergency” – on the scale of Hurricane Katrina – brought to light by the release of a report, Little Children Are Sacred, arising from an Inquiry headed by two eminent Australians, Rex Wild and Pat Anderson.
Responding to the crisis, Mr Howard announced a raft of strong measures aimed at addressing violence and abuse in indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory.
“The duty of care to the young of this country is paramount,” he said, “and nobody who has any acquaintance with that report could be other than appalled by … the cumulative neglect of many over a long period of time and frustrated in the extreme of the inability of governments to come to terms with an effective response to deal with this problem.”
“Without urgent action to restore social order, the nightmare will go on – more grog, more violence, more pornography and more sexual abuse – as the generation we are supposed to save sinks further into the abyss,” Mr Howard said.
Sadly, this is the latest in a series of reports documenting horrific and sickening violence and abuse in Australian indigenous communities. The federal government’s initiatives are welcome and desperately needed, but come too late for hundreds of children who have lost their innocence, and much more, through abuse and neglect.
Opponents have disingenuously accused Mr Howard of racism, paternalism and political opportunism. We do face a national emergency, and unprecedented steps are necessary to address the problem and its causes.
But what the Report uncovered is part of a wider malaise that reaches into every community, every family, every human heart. The Bible calls it sin, and calls for repentance and reconciliation.
Legislative and punitive measures to address social crises may be justified, but cannot change human nature. Only God can do that. A radical turn toward God is what this nation and its people need more than anything else.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
By Rod Benson
August 2007
In June Prime Minister John Howard announced that Australia was in the grip of a “national emergency” – on the scale of Hurricane Katrina – brought to light by the release of a report, Little Children Are Sacred, arising from an Inquiry headed by two eminent Australians, Rex Wild and Pat Anderson.
Responding to the crisis, Mr Howard announced a raft of strong measures aimed at addressing violence and abuse in indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory.
“The duty of care to the young of this country is paramount,” he said, “and nobody who has any acquaintance with that report could be other than appalled by … the cumulative neglect of many over a long period of time and frustrated in the extreme of the inability of governments to come to terms with an effective response to deal with this problem.”
“Without urgent action to restore social order, the nightmare will go on – more grog, more violence, more pornography and more sexual abuse – as the generation we are supposed to save sinks further into the abyss,” Mr Howard said.
Sadly, this is the latest in a series of reports documenting horrific and sickening violence and abuse in Australian indigenous communities. The federal government’s initiatives are welcome and desperately needed, but come too late for hundreds of children who have lost their innocence, and much more, through abuse and neglect.
Opponents have disingenuously accused Mr Howard of racism, paternalism and political opportunism. We do face a national emergency, and unprecedented steps are necessary to address the problem and its causes.
But what the Report uncovered is part of a wider malaise that reaches into every community, every family, every human heart. The Bible calls it sin, and calls for repentance and reconciliation.
Legislative and punitive measures to address social crises may be justified, but cannot change human nature. Only God can do that. A radical turn toward God is what this nation and its people need more than anything else.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
Speaking Ethically No. 13
By Rod Benson
July 2007
In 1996, Dr Arch Hart spoke at a pastors’ conference I attended at Mapleton, Queensland. At one point he said, “There are many good people in the church, but not many nice people.”
Christians are graciously credited with God’s righteousness, but we all need to build on that truth and, in the power of the Holy Spirit, become godly. We are “called saints,” but we need to “be holy.” Theologians describe this as the tension between the indicative and the imperative.
How do we achieve this? By imitating the Lord Jesus Christ: sharing his heart for God, reflecting his confidence in God’s word, modelling his love for people, catching his vision for justice.
Jesus is our Saviour, but he needs to become our Exemplar. The Bible needs to become our rule for life. The fruit of the Spirit needs to permeate all our relationships (Gal 5:22-23). As this occurs, we learn to trust, and be trusted; to respect others, and be respected in return; to practice fairness for all, and be treated fairly ourselves. And we help others to find and follow Jesus.
Who you are becoming is more important than what you are doing. A virtuous character is of greater value than a grand vision and a busy schedule.
In our workplaces, communities, churches and families there are people who yearn for trust, respect and fairness. They don’t need the far-off example of good people; they need the close-up love of nice people. They need to know they are not alone, that God is at work, and that justice will prevail.
You may be good, but are you nice? Does someone close to you need to know that you trust them? Do you know someone who needs to feel respected once again? How can you make your community a fairer place?
Jesus did not go around feeling good, but doing good (Acts 10:38). He stood with the powerless, sat with the hurting, and ate with the outsider. He taught and modelled radical trust, respect and fairness. He was both “good” and “nice.” And he wants us to follow him.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
By Rod Benson
July 2007
In 1996, Dr Arch Hart spoke at a pastors’ conference I attended at Mapleton, Queensland. At one point he said, “There are many good people in the church, but not many nice people.”
Christians are graciously credited with God’s righteousness, but we all need to build on that truth and, in the power of the Holy Spirit, become godly. We are “called saints,” but we need to “be holy.” Theologians describe this as the tension between the indicative and the imperative.
How do we achieve this? By imitating the Lord Jesus Christ: sharing his heart for God, reflecting his confidence in God’s word, modelling his love for people, catching his vision for justice.
Jesus is our Saviour, but he needs to become our Exemplar. The Bible needs to become our rule for life. The fruit of the Spirit needs to permeate all our relationships (Gal 5:22-23). As this occurs, we learn to trust, and be trusted; to respect others, and be respected in return; to practice fairness for all, and be treated fairly ourselves. And we help others to find and follow Jesus.
Who you are becoming is more important than what you are doing. A virtuous character is of greater value than a grand vision and a busy schedule.
In our workplaces, communities, churches and families there are people who yearn for trust, respect and fairness. They don’t need the far-off example of good people; they need the close-up love of nice people. They need to know they are not alone, that God is at work, and that justice will prevail.
You may be good, but are you nice? Does someone close to you need to know that you trust them? Do you know someone who needs to feel respected once again? How can you make your community a fairer place?
Jesus did not go around feeling good, but doing good (Acts 10:38). He stood with the powerless, sat with the hurting, and ate with the outsider. He taught and modelled radical trust, respect and fairness. He was both “good” and “nice.” And he wants us to follow him.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
Speaking Ethically No. 12
By Rod Benson
June 2007
For many Christians in Australia today, worship is an experience of emotional intensity that can be packaged in an event or purchased on CD. It’s all about me (and God).
But that’s not worship as conceived by the Bible or the first Christians. Of course, worship that lacks emotional intensity may be poor worship. Quality worship acknowledges the relation between the self and the divine, is not afraid to employ the full resources of the arts, and can touch our deepest feelings. But what we call worship may actually be something else.
Worship reveals what we value most. Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21). Quoting Isaiah, he spoke of “people who honour me [God] with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain” (Matt 15:8-9a).
In Romans 12:1-2, Paul describes his vision of “true worship.” It is an ongoing, whole-person self-sacrifice. It is empowered by God’s mercy and guided by God’s will. It is counter-cultural, and achieved most fully in community.
True worship has nothing to do with style of music, CCLI compliance or seating capacity. Old Testament prophets like Amos, Isaiah and Micah were on the right track when they called God’s people to more fully express justice, mercy, compassion, generosity and humility in their daily lives. That’s worship.
Jesus stood at the heart of the same spiritual tradition. He modelled and taught those same virtues and values. He challenged and denounced their opposites. In doing so, he revealed what he valued most. In his own way, Paul expressed an ongoing, whole-person, counter-cultural, self-sacrificial conception of worship. Both paid with their lives, but left a permanent practical legacy.
As we follow Jesus, when do we engage in true worship? What do others perceive we value most? How costly is our commitment to godly living? In what ways are we intentionally and missionally counter-cultural in the context of worship? What might God think of it all?
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
By Rod Benson
June 2007
For many Christians in Australia today, worship is an experience of emotional intensity that can be packaged in an event or purchased on CD. It’s all about me (and God).
But that’s not worship as conceived by the Bible or the first Christians. Of course, worship that lacks emotional intensity may be poor worship. Quality worship acknowledges the relation between the self and the divine, is not afraid to employ the full resources of the arts, and can touch our deepest feelings. But what we call worship may actually be something else.
Worship reveals what we value most. Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21). Quoting Isaiah, he spoke of “people who honour me [God] with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain” (Matt 15:8-9a).
In Romans 12:1-2, Paul describes his vision of “true worship.” It is an ongoing, whole-person self-sacrifice. It is empowered by God’s mercy and guided by God’s will. It is counter-cultural, and achieved most fully in community.
True worship has nothing to do with style of music, CCLI compliance or seating capacity. Old Testament prophets like Amos, Isaiah and Micah were on the right track when they called God’s people to more fully express justice, mercy, compassion, generosity and humility in their daily lives. That’s worship.
Jesus stood at the heart of the same spiritual tradition. He modelled and taught those same virtues and values. He challenged and denounced their opposites. In doing so, he revealed what he valued most. In his own way, Paul expressed an ongoing, whole-person, counter-cultural, self-sacrificial conception of worship. Both paid with their lives, but left a permanent practical legacy.
As we follow Jesus, when do we engage in true worship? What do others perceive we value most? How costly is our commitment to godly living? In what ways are we intentionally and missionally counter-cultural in the context of worship? What might God think of it all?
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
Speaking Ethically No. 11
By Rod Benson
May 2007
As missiologist Brian Stanley observes, “the Church must stand for something in the world, or it will be swept aside as meaningless.” The church of Jesus Christ is far from meaningless in real terms. But its necessary spiritual emphasis and legitimate otherworldly agenda make it an easy target for those who would see it swept aside.
A church that does not reflect God’s heart for unredeemed social systems and structures, as well as God’s heart for unreconciled persons, is a church that God may well sweep aside as meaningless to his purposes.
The great danger for so-called Left- and Right-motivated movements for Christian social justice is that they will perpetuate the adversarial rhetoric and destructive divisions of the past (both political and religious) rather than embrace a truly wholistic vision and strategy for justice and peace in our world.
Where are Baptists positioned with respect to these threats and opportunities? Should our understanding of mission self-consciously embrace a moral or social dimension? Do we stand for something in the world?
Indeed we do. Many Australian Baptists would agree with the principle that “the soul of reform was the reform of the soul.” Yet on the whole, we have clearly accepted that our Christian responsibility does not end at the regeneration of individuals but extends to the reformation of society.
A small example of this occurred last month on the NSW-Victorian border where the recently planted Echuca-Moama Baptist Church sponsored an event to raise funds for the Royal Children’s Hospital Good Friday Appeal. The 1,000-strong crowd was entertained by musicians from local churches, Bendigo and Melbourne, puppet plays, Easter egg giveaways, Easter quizzes, egg and spoon races, face painting, basketball hoops, a footy handball target, and a jumping castle.
There was also opportunity for people to be impacted by the Gospel with a strong Christian emphasis through the puppet plays and songs, a Bible reading and free Christian literature.
Was it worth it? Was it mission? Did it bless others? Yes.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
By Rod Benson
May 2007
As missiologist Brian Stanley observes, “the Church must stand for something in the world, or it will be swept aside as meaningless.” The church of Jesus Christ is far from meaningless in real terms. But its necessary spiritual emphasis and legitimate otherworldly agenda make it an easy target for those who would see it swept aside.
A church that does not reflect God’s heart for unredeemed social systems and structures, as well as God’s heart for unreconciled persons, is a church that God may well sweep aside as meaningless to his purposes.
The great danger for so-called Left- and Right-motivated movements for Christian social justice is that they will perpetuate the adversarial rhetoric and destructive divisions of the past (both political and religious) rather than embrace a truly wholistic vision and strategy for justice and peace in our world.
Where are Baptists positioned with respect to these threats and opportunities? Should our understanding of mission self-consciously embrace a moral or social dimension? Do we stand for something in the world?
Indeed we do. Many Australian Baptists would agree with the principle that “the soul of reform was the reform of the soul.” Yet on the whole, we have clearly accepted that our Christian responsibility does not end at the regeneration of individuals but extends to the reformation of society.
A small example of this occurred last month on the NSW-Victorian border where the recently planted Echuca-Moama Baptist Church sponsored an event to raise funds for the Royal Children’s Hospital Good Friday Appeal. The 1,000-strong crowd was entertained by musicians from local churches, Bendigo and Melbourne, puppet plays, Easter egg giveaways, Easter quizzes, egg and spoon races, face painting, basketball hoops, a footy handball target, and a jumping castle.
There was also opportunity for people to be impacted by the Gospel with a strong Christian emphasis through the puppet plays and songs, a Bible reading and free Christian literature.
Was it worth it? Was it mission? Did it bless others? Yes.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
Speaking Ethically no. 10
By Rod Benson
April 2007
“We are at a moral crossroad; it’s time to demonstrate the true meaning of Easter,” the flyer declared, advertising a national event. The flyer failed to explain which moral crossroad the sponsor had in mind, but it got me thinking: What has Easter to do with ethics?
The Easter story is the foundational story of Christianity. As we accept what God did for us in Christ, and identify with Jesus in his death and resurrection, God grants us a new life of freedom, assurance and hope. This new life is profoundly shaped by our obedience to Jesus. But what does such a life look like?
New Testament scholar N.T. Wright puts it best:
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
By Rod Benson
April 2007
“We are at a moral crossroad; it’s time to demonstrate the true meaning of Easter,” the flyer declared, advertising a national event. The flyer failed to explain which moral crossroad the sponsor had in mind, but it got me thinking: What has Easter to do with ethics?
The Easter story is the foundational story of Christianity. As we accept what God did for us in Christ, and identify with Jesus in his death and resurrection, God grants us a new life of freedom, assurance and hope. This new life is profoundly shaped by our obedience to Jesus. But what does such a life look like?
New Testament scholar N.T. Wright puts it best:
Jesus … calls us to share in his work of drawing out and dealing with the evil of the world; by loving our neighbours, both immediate and far-off, with the strong love that sent him to the cross; and by working out the implications of that love in our own vocations, whatever they may be, in our social and political action, in our relationships (and particularly our marriages and families), and in our caring for those in our midst who need the healing and restoring love of God most deeply. We are called, as the people who claim the crucified Jesus as our Lord, to seek out the pain of the world, and, in prayer, in patient hard work, in listening, in healing, in announcing the Kingdom of this Jesus by every means possible, to take that pain into ourselves and give it over to Jesus himself, so that the world may be healed … With the cross as the underlying story of our lives, validated by the resurrection and then implemented by the fire of the Holy Spirit, we can have the confidence to take on the world with the sovereign love of God.
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
23 January 2007
Speaking Ethically No. 9
By Rod Benson
March 2007
Christians often invoke the parable of the “Good Samaritan” to illustrate the need for compassion and altruism in response to human need. It is one of the most ethically significant stories Jesus used to teach right attitudes and right action.
But as Alan Verhey well points out in his fascinating book, Reading the Bible in the Strange World of Medicine, the high cost of health care and the scarcity of medical resources may limit the extent to which the Good Samaritan ethic applies today.
What if the oil and wine, and the stay at the inn, leave the patient barely alive and in permanent care? Should the Samaritan continue to pay for this care? What if there are ten, or a hundred, patients? Which ones should he rescue? What if all the beds in all the inns are in use? What happens when funds dry up?
Peter Singer raises similar issues in the care of extremely premature babies, citing a report in the November 2006 issue of the Medical Journal of Australia.
He observes that no babies under 26 weeks gestation in NSW and ACT between 1998 and 2006 survived without admission to a neonatal intensive care unit. Between 23 and 25 weeks, 65 per cent survived, but up to two-thirds had severe functional disability. Of those born at 25 weeks, only 13 per cent had severe functional disability.
To draw a line, say at 24 weeks, and say that no child born prior to that cut-off should be treated would avoid much soul-searching and save the community the expense of medical treatment likely to prove futile, as well as the need to support severely disabled children who survive. But it represents institutional interference, and removes parental freedom.
Instead, a workshop of health professionals has defined a “grey zone,” between 23 and 26 weeks, within which the decision to administer treatment is left with the parents.
This recognises the need for parents to participate in life-and-death decisions about infants at the margins of viability, and acknowledges that reasonable limits to medical treatment are desirable.
In a less-than-perfect world, some situations may call for “Fair Samaritans.”
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
By Rod Benson
March 2007
Christians often invoke the parable of the “Good Samaritan” to illustrate the need for compassion and altruism in response to human need. It is one of the most ethically significant stories Jesus used to teach right attitudes and right action.
But as Alan Verhey well points out in his fascinating book, Reading the Bible in the Strange World of Medicine, the high cost of health care and the scarcity of medical resources may limit the extent to which the Good Samaritan ethic applies today.
What if the oil and wine, and the stay at the inn, leave the patient barely alive and in permanent care? Should the Samaritan continue to pay for this care? What if there are ten, or a hundred, patients? Which ones should he rescue? What if all the beds in all the inns are in use? What happens when funds dry up?
Peter Singer raises similar issues in the care of extremely premature babies, citing a report in the November 2006 issue of the Medical Journal of Australia.
He observes that no babies under 26 weeks gestation in NSW and ACT between 1998 and 2006 survived without admission to a neonatal intensive care unit. Between 23 and 25 weeks, 65 per cent survived, but up to two-thirds had severe functional disability. Of those born at 25 weeks, only 13 per cent had severe functional disability.
To draw a line, say at 24 weeks, and say that no child born prior to that cut-off should be treated would avoid much soul-searching and save the community the expense of medical treatment likely to prove futile, as well as the need to support severely disabled children who survive. But it represents institutional interference, and removes parental freedom.
Instead, a workshop of health professionals has defined a “grey zone,” between 23 and 26 weeks, within which the decision to administer treatment is left with the parents.
This recognises the need for parents to participate in life-and-death decisions about infants at the margins of viability, and acknowledges that reasonable limits to medical treatment are desirable.
In a less-than-perfect world, some situations may call for “Fair Samaritans.”
Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
