Before I try to prove that dressing up for church is Biblical, Ithink I need to deal with another objection that is uppermost in people’s minds. As one person (who prefers to remain anonymous) worded it, “Church finery also opens the door for economic and class distinctions which we've been told to steer clear of.” But this socialistic thinking is far removed from the Bible. I know, I know. People will immediately quote Galatians 3:28 : “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” But if this is an argument for abolition of all economic and class distinctions, then the homosexuals are right, and it is also an abolition of all distinctions in sex. (Hint for those who are out of the loop: So-called “Evangelical homosexuals” claim that since there is no male and female distinction in the church, anyone can marry anyone. “To insist that males must marry only females is to fly in the face of Paul’s obliteration of distinctions.”) But our equality in Christ ( Gal. 3:28 ) does not remove distinctions of sex, class or social groups. It makes all people equally accessible to salvation and to church membership (notice that the context is baptism – v. 27). The Bible is replete with not only social distinctions, but with clothing that shows such distinctions. It speaks of...

Tasmanian Attorney-General Lara Giddings confirmed her commitment to legislate professional, assisted killing. According to The Mercury she; "used her parliamentary Budget reply speech to unveil progressive plans for law reform in Tasmania in the next four-year term of the Labor-Greens government. It included an unexpected decision to reintroduce a voluntary euthanasia proposal to Parliament, long-awaited plans for a Tasmanian Charter of Rights and yet another overhaul of flawed laws regulating the professional sex industry. New death legislation is expected to come before Parliament mid next year, aided by an extra $300,000 allocation in last week's Budget for assistance in drafting these complicated new sets of laws. All of the law reforms proposed yesterday by Ms Giddings will be open for public consultation before coming before Parliament. She told Parliament yesterday she was committed to helping Tasmanians faced with terminal illness die with dignity, pledging to work co-operatively with Greens leader Nick McKim on new voluntary euthanasia laws." Rev Iain Smith wrote an insightful article last year, before this Bill was presented in our parliament. I strongly recommend you re-read his article here. What I was shocked to find out is that there is an organisation called Christians supporting choice for Voluntary Euthanasia. Their statement of belief reads like this; "[w]e are Christians who believe that, as a demonstration of love and compassion, those with a terminal or hopeless illness should have the option of a pain-free, peaceful and dignified death with legal voluntary euthanasia. These Christians, who support choice for Voluntary Euthanasia quote, amongst others, Methodist Theologian John Cobb to support their case; "[t]heologically, few would now accept the view that one range of actions belongs wholly to the sphere of human free will and another wholly to God. God is at work everywhere, but in a way that does not set aside the decisions of the creatures. Instead God makes such decisions possible and works in and through them". It is his contention that God does not lay exclusive claims to decisions about ending one's life. It is not a special case. In this, as in all things, we may find ourselves having to be in partnership with God. Their website has a tab for Bible facts and within that page an exegetical case to support their stance is blatantly missing. Some rhetoric and reference to how the Bible can be mis-used is flirted with, but no exegetical study is given. The basis for most of their argumentation is rooted in a perverted view of "love." Biblically, love cannot be divorced from faithful, sanctified obedience to the Law/Word of God (John 14:15 , 1 John 2:4 ). Jesus calls obedience to the Law of God true love (John 14:15,21 ,31; 15:10). So does Paul (Romans 13:8-10 ; Galatians 5:14 ; 1 Timothy 1:5 ), James (James 2:8 ); John (1 John. 2:5; 5:2-3; 2 Jn 6 ), Moses (Exodus 20:6 ; Deuteronomy. 5:10; 7:9; 11:1,13,22; 19:9; etc), Joshua (Joshua 22:5 ), Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1:5 ) and Daniel (Daniel 9:4 ), to name a few. Christians need to scratch below the surface. The major issue in this debate is sovereignty. You can see that in the John Cobb quote. He is a Methodist, who (as a quasi Wesleyan/Arminian) has a lower view of God's absolute sovereignty and claim over every person's life and actions. More than that, on Cobb's operating assumptions the Word/Law of God cannot be the only rule for all of faith and life. This presents some nasty problems. Ultimately when a person, church, state or nation rejects the Law/Word of God as their life standard evil runs rampant. Man does not have the authority or capacity to independently determine good from evil. The One who created the Heavens and the earth does. His Law/Word provides us with a moral compass. When the church disregards what God has to say on any matter she will be judged. Continued disobedience to the Scriptures has brought God's covenantal judgment upon most western nations. Our societies are spiritually crumbling. This does not mean the end is nigh. It means we need to repent and rebuild all of life (individual and corporate) on the Law/Word of God. We must also be mindful that Christ Himself said that He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. Further than that, He asserted that not one of the tiniest pieces of the Law is nullified by Him, the ruler of the kings of the earth (Matthew 5:17-19 and Revelation 1:5 ). "Thou shalt not kill/murder" applies at every stage of life, whether the person is in or out of  the womb or when considering the most loving way to help a suffering person. Christians ought to presuppose the authority of the Scriptures. The Bible is our ultimate philosophical starting point, our first premise. From it we should investigate and learn how to bring glory to God. Our world and life view must be built upon the Bible alone. There is still a myth within modern Christendom: the sacred/secular divide. No area of life is or can be religiously/morally neutral (1 Corinthians 10:31 ). As individuals, families, societies and nations we either bring glory to God by sanctified obedience to His Law/Word or we do what is evil in His sight. Morality can and is legislated, the battle is over whose morality is to be codified and the source of that morality. For the secular humanist, and sadly many well meaning Christians, the moral source of a society's codified law system is natural law - aka autonomous man. This has devastating long term affects on a society's culture. The more consistent, with natural law, the codification becomes the more that society crumbles. We cannot find morality in the laws of nature or nature itself. Why? Think of the consequences, think of all the examples of behaviour we find in nature and then think where this type of codification leads to. Our only sure ground is the codified Word of God.  Doug Wilson argues well, that we ought not play God with these sorts of decisions: Ask Doug: End of life decisions from Canon Wired on Vimeo. As Christians we ought to understand the source of the debate. Is God sovereign and does His Law/Word apply to both individual and corporate life; or is man sovereign and does his word/law determine right from wrong? The Mercury also ran a warning over this euthanasia bill storyand quoted Wesley Smith, a prominent American bioethicist;   Prominent American bioethicist Wesley Smith said legalising euthanasia in Tasmania would send a global message that death is an acceptable answer to human suffering.He said it would lead to legalised assisted suicide for people who wanted to die because of depression, grief or divorce. Mr Smith visited the state yesterday in a bid to lobby Tasmanians and the State Government against a proposal to become the first Australian state to legalise euthanasia. 'Once you open the door even a small crack to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia you're saying killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering and it's not going to remain long as that tiny crack,' he said. 'Once a society and a medical system accepts that this is a legitimate way to treat suffering people it will, in definition, expand because how can it logically not.'Once you accept the precepts of assisted suicide, that suffering is a just cause for helping someone end their life, it's not going to remain restricted.' 'It's very disingenuous to say we're just going to have a little piece, because when you open that little piece it's the equivalent of the proverbial foot in the door.'  Don't be fooled by all the anti-religion or religiously neutral talk coming from Lara Giddings, Nick McKimm or their supporters. A religious battle is being played out here. The stakes are high and the people of God need to fall on their knees, confess their sins and seek God's forgiveness. We need to restore faithful corporate worship of the Triune God of the Scriptures and then seek to again be the salt of society. Prayer, repentance, right Sunday/Lord's Day worship and courage to stand against evil is desperatly needed.

One myth is that there is no relationship between the outward man and the inward heart of a Christian. This is the most frequent objection that I hear: “I am of the opinion that God looks at your heart and not the clothes you wear.” If you mean by such a statement that clothes do not make the person, I agree. If you mean that clothes are utterly unimportant, all I have to do is put you into a debate with so-called “Evangelical Nudists” like Elton Robb and you will change your tune.

The Mercury, Hobart's major local newspaper, reported that "Harmeet Singh, 34, sexually assaulted the 18-year-old after picking her up in his taxi." Singh's original story was that he did not assault this young lady but that she offered him sexual favours to pay for her taxi fare. "However he pleaded guilty in the court today to one count of sexual assault." There is a lot wrong with this story. Why was this girl out getting drunk and not helping within the home environment? This young lady's father abdicated his responsibility to protect his daughter. Much more could be said. When we read about such things as Christians we automatically think on a Biblical worldview. What we need to understand is that those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1 ) do not see the world through the same lens as we do. The church is the salt of the earth, she is to transform and then preserve society in the Word/Law of God. This is part and parcel of her Great Commission, to disciple the nations in the Scriptures and immerse them in the Word - teaching all to be faithful to God. Today the Australian church in general believes evangelism and individual salvation are the chief and end of her duty. In this paradigm society can and at times should be governed by a word other than that which proceeds from the mouth of God. As the church moves away from discipling the nation of Australia in God's Word/Law, towards subjective individualism, we find society crumbling. Don't get me wrong, all of heaven rejoices at the repentance of an individual sinner. I'm not implicating otherwise. What I am suggesting is that the church is stuck in first gear. Once a sinner repents the journey of sanctified obedience to the Law/Word of God should begin. Individuals and churches should be moving from milk to solid food. This highlights the Biblical flow of death to life. Often the godly go through death like experiences and then "resurrect" to a greater life of glorifying God. We can see this easily in the life of Joseph. He symbolically "died" as his brothers sold him into slavery and when he was unjustly thrown into prison. However, Joseph was obedient to the Word of God and was "resurrected" into a position of great influence at the right hand of Pharaoh. He was then used to protect and aid the people of God. Throughout history we read about how faithful people of God die first and then are "resurrected" or raised up to advance the kingdom. What has this to do with our cabbi?  

Wow! I feel like a radical bucking tradition! I visited a church some time ago with my family and noticed that we got the same attention that men with piercings got ten years ago! Tattoos are so yesterday! Let me tell you a secret: if you want to stand out in a crowd, dress up for church. You’ll instantly satisfy your craving to be different, to buck conformity and to stand strong in the face of criticism. You may end up irritating a few people in the process by not fitting in, but isn’t that the point? The in-thing changes so rapidly today that you may not have noticed that you are not with-it. Get with the program and dress up for church!  

Last week a friend of mine found out that his local Council would charge between $250 and $500 (each) for him to clear some trees from his land. This fee was cutely termed a carbon offset! Note that the council does not remove the trees, but charges the land owner (?) a carbon offset to grant him permission to remove his trees off his land. This is simply governmental absurdity. Or is it? The underlying question is that of sovereignty and ownership. In other words, whose land is it? The owner's or the government's/council's? Scripture tells us that the sovereign Triune God owns all of His creation, the earth and its fullness (Psalm 24:1-10 ). All land therefore belongs ultimately to God. He is the sovereign and has given us to be the stewards of His creation (Genesis 1:28 ). Within this stewardship is the idea of private property. In fact it is an important component of the Ten Words, "thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15 ). Being able to steal something presupposes that the property (money, land, goods, services etc) actually and fully belonged to another person or entity in a private sense. Scripturally, if I purchase a property that property should entirely and privately belong to me, a steward under the sovereign ownership of God.  

The Australian Rudd government would like us to believe that their education, health and hospital policies are a revolution in thinking. This is a somewhat grandiose statement that cannot be left unchallenged. In their recent Labor Connect (an E-News letter) we were informed that the incumbent party will, “put in place the most significant reforms to Australia’s health and hospitals system since the introduction of Medicare – to create a National Health and Hospitals Network that is funded nationally.” You can read all about how Mr Rudd promises to further centralise federal government power and authority through health and hospitals here. In recent weeks our government has also announced a super tax for the mining sector. The questions that have been filling my head include: is this simply a socialistic regression; what are the Biblical responsibilities of governments; and why is the church not speaking to these centralisation matters? These questions are important and need to be addressed. The Bible speaks to both of the scenarios and thus we ought to take note of the blue prints provided by the “ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5 ).

Russian roulette is the absurd practice of placing a single slug in the chamber of a revolver to play with death. Does Christianity have an ethical standard? Do we, as heirs of Christ, owe allegiance to any standard of morality? Is the Christian ethical mandate a smorgasbord approach? Should Christians play ethical Russian roulette with morality? Some argue that New Testament believers are spiritual antinomians, and “[e]thical direction is…found in the internal promptings of the Holy Spirit”[1] without a yardstick. It sounds super spiritual; allowing much individual freedom and expression. Surely the Spirit removes the shackles of codes of morality? Christianity deals with the heart. Looking upon actions and externals is legalistic and unfair. Is this position yours dear reader? Do you seek to glorify God in such a free and expressive manner? Are you solely concerned for the heart? Is beauty only skin deep? Please consider perhaps there is another option. One wherein external expressions flow from the heart. Not a day passes without ethical considerations. Daily life is filled with personal choices. As mundane as they may seem, each of our decisions is important. Instantaneous, mundane decisions reflect our ultimate ethical authority. Our choices tell a story. They point to our master. In fact our world is of such an ethical nature that the Apostle Paul says that all things should be done to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31 ). His qualification is incredible. The Apostle notes that even the mundane acts of eating and drinking is ethical! All actions can thus be to the glory or otherwise of God. As created beings, we bear the image of God. And we are to reflect the character and nature of God. Image bearers (articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) are thus ethical creatures by nature. All our motives, actions and thoughts are governed by an ethical code (1 Corinthians 10:31 , Proverbs 4:23 , Matthew 12:34-35 ). It is important for the disciple of Jesus to bear fruit (John 15:5-8 ) in accordance with his heart (Matthew 7:15-20 ). Ethics flow from within. Actions do speak louder than words, “by their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:20 ). The Christian must ask what is our ethical yardstick? Do we follow our feelings or the “spirit” or our friends or is there another option?

Francis Schaeffer once asked “how should we then live?” This is a good question. It is one that ruffles our tendency to simply be nice. With purposeful precision it strikes at the heart of every view of life. It raises the issue of authority in Christianity’s ethical standards. Where do and should I derive my morality? Does the Gospel require a type of outward conformity or are we saved to licentiousness? Or does my conscience lead me in daily decision making? The question forces us back to examine our ethical premises. Not a day goes past without every one of us making ethical decisions. We are constantly determining how to behave, what to look like, how to speak and so on. These are routine everyday occurrences. Often these choices are so intrinsic and rudimentary that they occur without much purposeful thought. In whatever setting we find ourselves; church, home, work, etc; there are spoken and unspoken ethical codes. Whether we like it or not “[a]ll of life is ethical.”1 Society and life is full of implicit codes of right and wrong. Schaffer’s question drives us to ethical standards. Which then begs the question of sovereignty. In other words, where should the ethical buck stop. Who’s in charge here and what are the rules?

For the past two weeks I have briefly explored Jungian psychology. I will now have a quick look at Jung's impact on the modern world. It has been substantial. His theories and work have shaped many modern schools of thought. Further than this, Jungian theory is assumed by many unsuspecting Christian. It has shaped what we believe about the condition of man and how that condition should be "fixed." Post world war two: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is one of the most popular personality testing systems in the western world today. It is used extensively across the world for testing personalities for job suitability, marriage counselling etc. The indicator was developed by Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers. The indicator involves 125 (or so) questions with the result of the person being placed within one (of sixteen) types. You are expected to fit between a number of these types. These types are meant to say a great deal about you: “your likes and dislikes, your likely career choices, your compatibility with others…” etc. In fact Isabel Briggs explained that: “Whatever the circumstances of your life, the understanding of type can make your perceptions clearer, your judgments sounder, and your life closer to your heart’s desire.”1