2020 OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SHAKING

 

2020 OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SHAKING - 4 horsemen 

I have the emergency app on my phone. We monitor here and the beach. It must have gone off a thousand times this year – warning of fires, virus, and winds.

I dreamt last night of a beach and a sea with people in it. Waves surging to enormous height.

In scripture the sea is often the nations and the people. We are in such a time – the waves drive to and fro. The seas churn under the winds of heaven.

The people are in uproar in many directions.

Some of this has God’s sovereign purposes in it.

I saw in the dream that there is great opportunity in this season, if we are bold to leave security and run toward the sea, to the surging. But we must also discern.

When God moves, things around Him may also move, that are not Him.

When Jesus came to earth, King Herod moved against all the Jewish babies. The would be king acted to hold power as the true King is born. A deceptive, seemingly pious, pretender king. What spirit is that and what colour would it be?

No doubt it would want to be seen as white (as kings and spirits of antichrist would).

When Habbukuk sees the Lord move, he sees pestilence before and behind him. 

It’s similar spiritual principles. Things are stirred up and oppose the entry of the King.

"His splendor was like the sunrise;

rays flashed from his hand,

where his power was hidden.

Plague went before him;

pestilence followed his steps.

He stood, and shook the earth;

he looked, and made the nations tremble." (1)

When Elijah is at the mountain, hiding in depression after Jezebel’s threats, God sends an object lesson; discern what is really Me in all this:

“Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by”

“Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. “ (2) 

Not every dramatic and destructive wind carries Him, though he kicked it off. Elijah has to wait for the gentle whisper, after fire and earthquake, the voice asking him, 

“What are you doing here, Elijah?”

Wind is also same word for spirit. Not every spirit is of God, though he might have released it.

We see kings, even those originally chosen, like Saul, may be tormented by an “evil spirit from the Lord.” (3) Not of the Lord, but from Him, if doors are opened. 

On national scale, Zechariah saw four horses released. The angel instructed him, “These are the four spirits (or winds) of heaven”

In Revelation 6, John also sees the four coloured horses released on the earth.

Angels then hold the back these “4 winds of heaven’ while the chosen are sealed.

The fallen wisdom of human leaders (white), the red horse of bloodshed, the black of economic famine, grey horse of death – loosed on the earth. They are not of Him, but spirits released around fallen mankind, overseen in heaven’s timings as part of just judgments.

We live and are moving into such times. The sea of humanity churns high- the four winds blow that stir the sea.

Like Elijah, we must watch for the still voice after the storm, to see what is really Him, not just preceding or around Him. There are also great opportunities in this hour. The angels will still the winds for the sealing of his people and their wider purposes in Him. Even as the waves surge among the nations and mountains come apart, the stilling of the waves in Jesus presence, the invitations to lie beside still waters, to see the sea around the throne still as glass, remains open and true.

Faith necessarily has political context

Jesus came to a highly politicised, fraught, culture. A nation on edge, under foreign rule.

Israel was set up as a theocracy. God was central business; the kingdom was central government. The law was government policy. Politics and theology were not seperate categories. Sin and repentance had public and political implications.

Like today, there were various political and religious groupings in this uncertain mix.

We might think Jesus would have preferred the outsiders, those looking for a new kingdom, committing to a teacher of righteousness, and eschatological expectation, out in the desert. There was just such a group of devout Jews around Jesus' time, the Essenes. We know they liked reading Enoch and Daniel and Isaiah and the Psalms (They held out the longest, at Masada, when the end finally came, against the armies of Rome.)

Or we might think He would find plenty of common ground with those who wanted to take the culture of the temple further afield, to move the realm of temple purity and God honouring elements further into everyday life. There was a group agitating on those lines. 

Or perhaps he'd work with those sons of David who saw the need to act to take out the foreign influence and restore Israel's national kingdom. That did look like David, and was a fair Messianic expectation, surely. The disciples seem to still have that in their thinking even after the resurrection and all they have seen and learnt. (Lord are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?).

He threads the needle between all those movements, and the various intersections of these, which were alive and well in his day. Essenes, Pharisees, Zealots, Herodians. He looks a bit like each of them, but does not align with any. He is doubly revolutionary, redefining the reform movements as well.

Given Israel's history, calling 12 disciples was a political and theological statement, that would not be too hard to read, at least as a question. They had 12 tribes after all, and must have wondered. Is he retelling our story? Claiming to remake the nation?

From someone else, the question "Who do they say I am?" could be a moment of insecurity in a leader. From Jesus it's more likely leading his disciples to ponder how this prophetic puzzle he has set them, the selection of the 12, and all the signs and wonders and teaching, is playing out. They report most people have some kind of sense he is prophet, maybe Elijah, but when he narrows the focus to them, "and who do you say I am?" Peter gets the fuller picture : Messiah, saving King, the one designated Son of God.  (Thats not, necessarily, yet. a statement of ultimate divine identity in the way it later came to be understood.)

Jesus travelling the country does look a bit like David after he had been anointed to be king, the future and destined king traversing the country, while a Saul is still on the throne. The people maybe get that, and in John 6, try to make him "king by force". But he has another way to kingship; and a wider realm to be king over.

The prophets who went before him, had finally culminated in the final great forerunner and messenger, John the baptist,  with his message of repentance. John and his precursors had both a political and theological scope; you could hardly drive a wedge between those realms.

Some of that prophetic line before John had been voices to their kings, from inside the palace. Nathan and Gad, to David. Zechariah and Haggai to Zerubbabel. The exhort and encourage and correct the king, mobilise the people, but broadly from the same page.

Jesus points out John is not the sort of figure you find in the palace, aligned to the king and fine things. He does end up there, sort of, but mainly speaks to the king from prison. He'd addressed Herod's personal morals, taking his brothers wife, and continues to speak to Herod from there, until his end. Paul looks like this too, reaching various rulers from his imprisonments.

Israel had also known examples of "second in command" rulers, counsellors and prophets to pagan kings who are escalated because of their gifts. Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, Joseph to Pharaoh.

Other prophets had also written oracles against the pagan nations, even as they warn that God could use them to chastise Israel. Isaiah warns Israel that her dependence on foreign nations will fail; that an alliance with Egypt or Babylon won't stop Assyria being used as God's judge, and yet rebukes the same nations for their excessive cruelty. Jeremiah and Ezekiel do some of that as well.

Other prophets had more heated roles inside Israel - they directly contest the king. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were called to contest the official views. Elijah in particular lived in times of high conflict; trading insults with one of Israel's worst kings, Ahab, about who is the real source of Israel's trouble, and eradicating the legions of Baal prophets that Ahab had married the nation into. Political and personal purity merge together there. 

Notice though that even in this low season, God still had an operative on the inside, Obadiah, shielding a hundred prophets from Jezebel's purges. Both options remain valid. Elijah was tempted to see himself as the only one, the one true follower - but God discloses that there are seven thousand more, some probably like Obadiah, walking the line in dark times.

John is also considered a new Elijah, the return of the forerunner. I mentioned he is no chaplain or advisor to the king, except from prison. Paul is similar; he does hear of a convert reaching the emperor's household (Php 4:22) and he preaches directly to his captors. Paul is not above using his Roman citizenship when it suits - appeals to the Emperor when he can't trust the Jewish trial; staves off a beating by citing it, at another time.

Jesus had been no great respecter of King Herod, the pretender king who wanted him dead; calling him a fox, but hadn't encouraged insurrection. The beatitudes - turn the other cheek - should also be read as a mandate for dealing with Israel's situation before her oppressors - take that solider's bag the extra mile, look for the reward to be later. John has spoken to the soldiers as well - don't extort, be content with your pay.

Jesus said, of our core prayer strategy, we should ask to see the Kingdom come. We welcome Him, His presence and ways, his rule and peace, the Kingdom in our midst, into our lives, our hearts first, and to others.

But just when we want that to only be a spiritual kingdom, remember "gospel" was already a known word; it had originally meant the Roman proclamation that the emperor was Lord and saviour and son of God. "Jesus is Lord" is not just a personal conviction, it also means the mighty Roman emperor does not really deserve those titles, is not the real source of peace. Persecution soon followed.

Today, some emphasise a role for getting heavenly patterns and words, and seeing them birthed here. I also like that. On earth as it is heaven.

We might see politics as dirty, fallen, the works of man; since we have the heavenly kingdom to steward and share. And indeed that may be so. But they overlap - the kingdoms of the earth will become the kingdom of God. We have to see the church as ecclessia, a form of heavenly government, both at war with the systems of man, its fallen spirit, but also as purifying salt and leaven, kingdom agency, Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, in the midst. There may be seven thousand like Obadiah in civil and prophetic service, as well as the climatic confrontations of Elijah.

In this age it will often be both. These things tend to be BOTH, AND, not one OR the other. We've loved the first seven chapters of Acts, we also need the last seven.  

So, we spread the kingdom in love and evangelism, in prayer and faith. And, some may be the insiders, at all levels, to the mountain of influence called government. Indeed we can hardly avoid it, as a body, in some measure, even as there is a spiritual war involved in being there.

We aspire to Zion, to go higher and deeper into the heavenly realities that we can access now.

The overall body surely has to have representatives in both places at once. Individuals can be in both places at once. Some may look like prophetic counsel, some as contested voices from outside, depending on the season. Either way, we don't necessarily get to do devotion and spiritual kingdom without political context. Like Jesus, we have to thread the needle - we're not conspiracy theorists in the desert.  Nor is truth fully owned and implemented by either side of politics, though we can respect those who serve there, even when we disagree. But the truth may well be political. 

For those who know that we are called to honour leaders as God's instruments, as in Romans 13 or 1 Timothy 2, I agree. We must certainly pray for all we agree or disagree with, for the stability of the civil function they represent.  But the instruction of Paul to the fledgling New Testament church is not the only thing the bible has to say on the matter, as this post explores.  

Prayer is world changing and powerful, and the church needs to be incarnate in the world as well. Retreating only to prayer and encouragement from the margins - as if we only offer chicken soup for the soul, and will be chaplains to the worlds abuses -  can sometimes leave the operation of the world to the tyrants.  Retreating to private piety may seem to keep us alive, and let the world go to the the dogs, even the dogs of war.  Tyrants won't mind if we just pray and don't speak or act; though pray we must, and pray often and well.  But we must avoid the risk of drifting into a docetic heresy; as if Jesus had not really been incarnate in the spiritual project or remaking the heavens and earth, and we'd prefer to not be either. 

We carry his Kingdom forward as the true hope and light, where-ever we be, in all ways, in prayer or citizenship, in service and word, in pastoral care and prophetic counsel, in bringing good news and prophetic confrontation, carrying his signs on earth and heaven. 

And in a democracy, we have less wilful kings to deal with. But citizens must engage on all fronts, in prayer and word, lest it revert or drift to arbitrary power exercised without review, for vested interests. And we may need to translate a lot of this to other institutional settings, work or uni or school, a microcosm where it plays out in similar ways. 

wonders in the heavens

I wrote this a year ago but let it sit, as I sometimes do.

The fact that Adelaide will host the new Australian Space Agency, announced this week, made me remember it. 

Wonders in the heavens and signs on the earth

A few months ago, August 2017, scientific instruments detected a huge explosion in another galaxy. Its got a lot of attention –for one thing the new gravity wave detectors were the first instruments to see pick it up.

I believe God is releasing prophetic meanings and keys here as well. The event shows his nature and contains prophetic parallels.

Psalm 19 tell us "the heavens declare his glory" and "pour forth speech" and so there are things to tune into here.

Shaking the Heavens and the Earth

The neutron stars bend space as they spiral in to a final collision, which creates the gravity waves – that travel outwards from the event.

We pick up the cosmic tremor, like detecting the tremor of a distant earthquake.

I thought of the echo of Hebrews 12:26

“Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”

The passage says the first shaking was the voice of God in the old covenant. Thunder and fire came down on Mt Sinai – shaking the earth.

The Message describes it like this. They came to:

“a volcanic blaze and earthshaking rumble—to hear God speak. The earsplitting words and soul-shaking message terrified them”

Hebrews goes on to say we have better news , about Jesus, including “thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to a new covenant … ” (NIV)

But it still includes a warning and promise of one more heavenly shaking.

The silver is mine and the gold is mine.

When neutron stars collide, its nuclear powered fireworks. Huge amounts of energy and super heated matter gets released. For a few days the explosion gives off a lot more energy than a whole galaxy of stars; and its intense enough to make a whole range of new elements.

Gold gets made in the fireworks; lots of it. Maybe 3 times the mass of the earth in gold was made in this collision. We know because its all superheated, and we can see the frequency of light that clouds of hot gold give off.

So we’ve just seen gold being made in the stars, for the first time.

As I read the “shaking the heavens’ in Hebrews, I noticed its a quotation from Haggai 2. It’s a prophecy of the glory of the renewed house of God. And both shaking and gold are in view

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land.  I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord Almighty.  ‘The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the Lord Almighty. ‘The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,’ says the Lord Almighty.  (Haggai 2:7-9)

So, scientifically, gold is released by the joining of these dense and massive stars, and the heavens shake.

Prophetically, we see the glory of his promised covenant, the new house that fills all creation, is declared in the shaking and the new gold.

Solomon temple’s took lots of gold to build – but He knew God was bigger, and that all even the highest high heavens could not contain him.

So some key themes:

(1) The joining of any parts, is where the fruit is, where the new gold will be. In new joinings, in drawings together of various kinds.

(2) For example as the dense core of apostolic hubs connect – as hubs circle in around other, energy and light and new elements, new gold is released.

(3) Consider Adelaide and Bendigo as 'neutron stars' .

An ABC article about all this described Adelaide “as about size of a neutron star”. Others have prophetically seen Todd H like a neutron star. 

As the Todd’s connect, and as Bendigo (city of gold) and Adelaide, size of a neutron star, spiral in, dawn together by the weight of God’s deposit in each other, and each others hub, things happen; new things get released – energy and precious metals are released.

MILK & MEAT

2018
This year actually started, for our local Christian community, on meaty topics, like this.
Todd taught, on New years eve, as 2017 moved into 2018, a deep teaching on Melchizedek. And Elohim; sons of God. Its all connected with our identity and destiny, heavenly calling, and goes deeper than I can repeat here.

So we started the year with this.

So here’s a challenge: no-one need be leaving, to be blown away by the new wind, to get more on say 'righteousness teaching', when this heavy duty equipping is happening here.

Now I’m not even slightly concerned with where people go, and I put it like that for emphasis, to provoke the question - are we are focusing on milk or solid food?

Do we even know the difference?

Hebrews 5 and 6 says lets aim to move on from the basics.

“But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”

Let me frame that.

The MILK

As Christians we’re meant to grow. Peter says: drink up … in order to grow up.

“Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.” (2 Pet 2:3)

The message of righteousness – God takes away our sin, and changes us - is a healthy foundation. 

Those who drink a lot of it, will grow.

Some will say “I thought righteousness was the latest and greatest revelation to be revealed to the church – the new and powerful insight that we’re not sinners but saints?

Well. Its healthy foundations. And refreshing. But no, its not new.

Yes, the church might need to hear it again or more deeply. Its good content. And thank God for those serving that teaching.

But the scripture is clear: needing to hear another teaching on righteousness is actually a definition of infancy; its meant to be the basics.

"In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness". (Heb 5:12-13)

For others, the same message of righteousness – we’re not sinners any more, but saints of full inheritance - may feel like a fresh wind blowing over the land, a liberating wind of teaching from legalism or confused doctrine. A good wind, by and large.

But again, those who are tossed around by new winds of teaching, are also, by definition, infants. We're meant to be more stable.

"Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching" (Eph 4:15)

It doesn’t say the wind of teaching has to be bad or false to do this – just a breeze of teaching that picks people up and moves them, like a buoy without enough mooring. (The verse goes on to add “and the deceit and craftiness of man” – but that’s actually another, different, force).

I’m not, to be clear, implying the message of righteousness is somehow bad or crafty. It’s a clean and good wind. I've found the new wind moderately helpful, including grappling with some parts.

Nonetheless, how easily we are moved by these basics, shows how well we were grounded, how mature, or not.

 And its ok to need the basics again, if we need them, but we need to keep growing.

  I notice, that one of the things that this can do, for those drinking deeply, is to bring people into a season of intimacy. Thats also generally good.

I’m all for luxuriating in His goodness. Lying in green meadows, feasting with Him. I sense that as a fresh invitation as well.

 But we don’t stay here. The idea is we also grow, and there are further realms to master and even to be rulers in. We don't outgrow it - but we come and go from there.

A heartier meal

 We don’t always need the milk. We’re meant to move on. The Hebrews verse above has a note of frustration about that. I’ll get to what he wanted to teach as more substantial, meatier stuff, in a moment.

 One of the main ways we grow is via a fully functioning church. We’ve heard a bit on “5 fold” models in the last while, but its still coming online, still early days in recovering this model. So again:

 "Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching"

Once that has been established and done its work, we’ll be stronger. And yes, the righteousness teaching can be part of that.

So we need to go from being “milky” to “meaty” – to solid food, as Hebrews says. Now, what did Hebrews want to move on to?

Well, consider, tṣedeq means righteousness in Hebrew.

And melek speaks of a solid position of authority - it means king.

So together: melek tṣedeq means King of righteousness

That 'melek-tṣedeq' - is translated as Melchizedek.

Who, actually, is this Melchizedek, King of righteousness?

A deep and mysterious figure,. Appears in Genesis 14 - as priest of God Most High.

And as king of salem (peace) and so founder of Jeru-salem

He’s a mystery for us to seek out. Only mentioned in Gen 14, and Psalm 110.
And then finally in Hebrews 5,6,7.

He’s a king and priest of God Most High,. And has the the power of an indestructible life.
Jesus himself is “designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.”

So, in Hebrews 5, its this topic the author wants to get to, and says there is “much to be said” on the topic, but says they’re milky, so its hard to get them to hear or teach it. They need basics again.

And this Melchizedek, King of righteousness,  turns up in one more place – Psalm 110 and there is something important to note here

It’s a famous messianic prophecy that Jesus – who is “of his order” quotes., and it hints at the plurality of heavenly figures, and sounds like battle:

The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.
The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
The Lord is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
He will drink from a brook along the way,
and so he will lift his head high.

it shows that the young of heart and faith, as well as luxuriating with Jesus in intimacy, can be ruling in the midst of hostile enemies, willing in the day of power, engaging in battle, end times judgments.

Melchizedek, King of Salem, is a contested figure, surrounded by warfare. He first appears, to Abraham, after a battle. The author of that battle Psalm about him, which speaks of ruling in the midst of enemies, King David, was also the first conquer Jerusalem as part of the promised land. Josephus, Jewish historian, knows all this, and recounts the subsequent contested history of Jerusalem, as it falls again, in the terrible destruction of AD 70.  

And thus was Jerusalem taken, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, on the eighth day of the month Gorpeius [Elul]. It had been taken five times before, though this was the second time of its desolation; for Shishak, the king of Egypt, and after him Antiochus, and after him Pompey, and after them Sosius and Herod, took the city, but still preserved it; but before all these, the king of Babylon conquered it, and made it desolate, one thousand four hundred and sixty-eight years and six months after it was built. But he who first built it was a potent man among the Canaanites, and is in our own tongue called [Melchisedek], the Righteous King, for such he really was; on which account he was [there] the first priest of God, and first built a temple [there],  and called the city Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. However, David, the king of the Jews, ejected the Canaanites, and settled his own people therein

(War of the Jews, Book XI, Ch 10)

(And we might add, after Josephus saw it fall in AD 70, when he estimated a million Jews died, and then one final desolation in AD 135, it was never a city of the Jewish people again, for nearly 2 millennia, until the end of another war, WWII, after another, worse, holocaust.  And even today, merely acknowledging this site as the capital city of Israel is controversial. Thats not to unconditionally endorse every policy of Israel -  although it is bizarre how often that nation is censured for even daring to exist, among nations pledged to destroy it -  its to point out the topic is always contested.) 
  

I heard someone say they aim to develop disciples along two main tracks : “intimacy” and “responsibility/rulership” - and it hit me. We need both in order to not be milky.  

And so, is it not time to take all the intimacy and peace, and grapple with the responsibility and rulership element, ruling in midst of enemies?  Not, to be sure, in that sort of war, but in the spiritual ones that matter even more..

  All this should frame the year, and in many ways it has. We started here, on the order of Melchezidek.
----
There is more implied here.  In so many ways we have barely scratched the surface. Lets not, as individuals and movements, be infants needing basics again, lets add responsibility and rulership to intimacy. We don’t want to lose intimacy – but be like David, both poet and warrior. More than the OT. Not less.
--------
Some want religion to the be the private possession and consolation of the individual, and to mean, basically, 'play nice' - like they imagine yoga, with a bit more commitment maybe.  Anything else, anything that looks like religion as foundational interpretation of history or reality, is dismissed as fundamentalism. But in the end, a map of reality has to deal with all of the data, and while this may be deeper in than some want to go, its nonetheless on the map.  

Laplace and those dancing atoms

(I used to have an education blog.  This was the 2009 post that marked the point where i moved from writing mostly on the creative potential of maths and science and learning with IT , to questions of God and faith. Both topics did, and still do, compel me, but seemed better to seperate the forums.  The old blog is currently off line, but i repost this one, from 2009. here, for a particular context.)

There is a famous account of Laplace being asked, when giving an account of his cosmology, of how the heavens worked - "where is the role ascribed to God?" He is supposed to have replied, “I have no need of that hypothesis”. That is, his system worked without saying – ‘this bit follows these laws, but this bit is where God comes in – the Deity adds a force here, etc’.

In less grand terms, we might imagine a cook who produces a book of recipes without any reference to Providence or Creation; and the recipes still work just fine without any overlay of folklore or piety that might have been customary in previous generations. The question is whether this omission is just a question of efficiency of communication - whether its just that there is no immediate need to mix cultural or religious context with the instructions on slicing tomatoes - or whether the separation goes to the very core of things?   Are carrots and communication and commerce all ultimately the blind consequences of dancing atoms, which are themselves the consequences of some random properties of quantum flux - a universe that happened to pop into being - or is there another realm of explanation and integration underlying all this- which all draw on for meaning even while ruling it off as ''not science''?

Short of positing God behind the Big Bang, the original event, this separation of technical detail from metaphysical perspective seems, to a scientific mind set, to be the most practical way to proceed, since science tends to wants only the minimum (and often reductionist) perspective it can work with. And indeed one does not really want an aircraft mechanic or brain surgeon saying – “we know we'll run out of fuel or anaesthetic but that bit is where God comes in”; the understanding wants to holds without predicating that sense of explicit intervention*. This is so well established as to seem unremarkable. vindicated by technological planning a million times over. The only question is how complete is this account and approach, not in terms of mechanistic gaps (lets leave that question - quantum impossibility of full specification etc - alone) but does the separation that makes sense in cookery or astronomy or physics, ultimately need to be reconciled with another frame of reference; indeed does it already presuppose one, however disregarded the assumptions are?

It's true to the history to note Laplace was evidently a theist and Christian. While he is known for viewing the universe as entirely mechanistic, he drives home the point by imagining a mighty intelligence able to stand apart from this and see all of history - and calculate the future - all from the deterministic path of the atoms. This imaginary intelligence is conceived as outside the system - variously described - by others - as a demon or God. This is hardly part of his science per se - since he disavows that hypothesis - yet his imagination still posits such an omniscient observer to illustrate the point. And while he certainly promoted a deterministic and mechanical view of nature, it is not clear he actually imagined every act of human will was predetermined by the blind and inevitable pathways of atoms. So we have a sense of another view or realm of human existence.

Indeed reconciling a mechanistic universe with any notion of self determination is an unresolved paradox for any single minded scientific view - since even those who are convinced the "God hypothesis" has been falsified and should be permanently dismissed, like to retain a sense of independent personal action and moral indignation, which hardly emerges from that view of the universe. Galileo, Descartes, Newton and most of the ‘scientists’ (a 20th century word) also embraced some version of faith... so whatever separation of science and religion we now see in their name, was not necessarily developed in them; that is, while they may have methodologically bracketed off theology from ‘natural philosophy’, it did not rule out general faith in Creator, or, for that matter, Saviour.

We tend not to bother with these aspects of their thinking; we’d rather pull Newton’s laws away from his theology; we ignore his lengthy attempts to use his new understanding of the heavens to reconcile dates and appearances of comets with biblical prophecy, just as we leave behind his prolific experiments in alchemy. Poor Newton, genius that he was, evidently didn’t attend popular schooling 101 to see how his science should have ruled all these aspects out of court (or so 101 asserts).  We also take a Cartesian ‘frame of reference’ as to mean a coordinate plane for geometry, or the logical frame of thinking that privileges cognition as a basis for identity- (I think therefore ....) Some might deplore the divided personality and view of the world that tends to arise from this approach - logical categories and primary qualities (mass, extension) here as the main game, while secondary qualities, and the human condition, take a much less privileged role over here; but nevertheless most assume we can rule off his references to a Deity, or ignore his own account of a personal vision that propelled him into philosophy, not least to address sceptical currents of his day. 

So popular history – including the science text book version - simplifies and purifies these ‘scientists’, extracts and codifies their science, removes most of the context; removes whatever theism was involved, and often casts them, or at least their science, as the enemy of the ‘stories of religion’. (Just as science truncates the ‘scientific method’ to the  merits of controlling variables and testing hypotheses, as a demonstration of logical purity. And, of course, that’s good, but its hardly all that’s going on in as a ‘scientist’ ponders the next step, maps their experiment to reality, deals with insight, etc.)

Above all moderns tend to imagine Galileo’s dispute with the Catholic church as the paradigmatic example of how religion has opposed the ascent and reign of science - uninformed by any subtler grasp of the history. (Peter Slezak, who happens to be atheist, has a much more nuanced view, he notes Gaileo's friendships with many of the cardinals, comments on his faith, and sees the real issue behind the issues is who had the right to interpret scripture – so while religion indeed ''got in the way’, both science and faith were politicised in a way that we forget and over simplify).

 In any case it is worth distinguishing between methodological naturalism as practiced by many of these ‘scientists’ (‘my method will proceed without direct reference to God; does not need that hypothesis’) and naturalism in a broader more encompassing sense; there is no God. They are not one and the same. Indeed, its arguable that the materialistic scientist in the latter sense, is much less common than many assume- - those who follow Newton and other early pioneers who reconcile theism with scientific method, seem more common historically. While we might not so readily proclaim on nature as a ‘second book’ of revelation today, it's notable that many still do not equate their science with atheism. (Claiming that the faith of historical scientists was just social conditioning of their day will hardly do to explain it; one might just as well see the explosion of western science as drawing on, depending on, an underlying faith in a rationally structured universe, which itself derived from this heritage -  i’m not the first to suggest that of course).

I’ve written various ponderous posts here over a few years, without broaching all this; but i’m feeling i need to write on that dimension.My own faith, for the record, is more immediate than it may appear from these writings, and i have no intention of defending it with reference to history or philosophy; trying to make its seems suitably reflective, intellectual, academically respectable. I’m not really going to make much effort to quote Whitehead, and the deep and insightful commentaries he writes on science, religion and education, as much as i did draw from his insights in earlier days. Nor Plantinga on methodological naturalism, or even CS Lewis, for a clear exposition of the reasonableness of faith, or a recent reading of Latour, on how the crossed out God is part of the modern set of pacts with has left us with multiple omissions in how we see science, society and religion. Instead of doing that, casting things in that respectable and somewhat academic light I’ve decided to start another blog  [2018: ie this one], which starts with a faith commitment just assumed up front, taken as given, not as needing defence or justification. Simple observation and experiences of faith as conceived and worked out in life, with a reflective edge i guess. There is overlap of course between the educative questions of this blog and faith - i reflected on it often enough when i worked in Catholic schools – and maybe opening the door in that blog will feedback here; or open other ideas that are better located here. I might thrash out more cross over post in this style.

*(Divine intervention may happen or be vouchsafed in other ways, and we might be well persuaded it's happened / happening,  but it's not part of science per se, which really has to limit itself to a smaller frame ("step out of the shot, honey").  Insisting divine intervention is written directly into the science is like claiming to know the life and loves of a lab technician by reading their best lab reports. We might admire the work but other, less scientific channels will be needed to get past a vague sense that someone is there, a logical mind of some kind, and to move to know the real person - it's ok to admit the science itself doesn't give a grid for that.  As soon as we start to conjecture  what the lab technician might be like, we've left the process of the science per se, as typically defined.  Once we know the person, we might admire    the work more, admire every detail of their technical handwriting, and find it a confirming evidence of who they are - but the pure process of science itself, it's  models and conjectures,  can't add that dimension of personal knowledge. )

2021 Post script :  now, that's the sort of view I got to, over the years.  Now, I wonder if quantum mechanics will end up positing "the role of the observer", into the science in a much deeper sense - the correlation with our thinking, the mysteries of how reality exists, tis observed, interacts with us, the processes of quantum entanglement of matter at larger scales. That's a loose grab back of wonderings, but maybe the subject / object distinction will be forced back into view, won't be so easily able to just suppress the observer into the dispassionate passive voice;  the subject's role in choosing the frame, their view of it, etc.   That's a loose philosophical wondering - and maybe it might not ever get into the physics per se, but i wonder if it's part of it at a deeper level. AN Whitehead's view of creation as coming into being every instant, brought forth by God, also appeals, there.  You can wonder these things as a scientist or a mathematician (Davies, Whitehead) - you just have to know you're generally doing philosophy, at this stage of things.

water into wine

I wrote this a year ago, and have let it age for a bit.  

The gospel is strange.   

Its strange like the rainforest is strange. Rich, deep, restorative, good fruits. 

Take a peek.  

Oh, and we know that Holy Spirit experience is often known as ‘new wine’; there can be a parallel realm of intoxication, and it can be startling, abrupt, to the cultured palate.  And that Jesus of course turned water into wine. 

 A friend dropped my  daughter off last night.  They’d all been together after school. 

The friends daughter is at the local high school. They’re all bright, joyful girls,  with the normal ups and downs.  They’ve found something in their faith that many adults would envy, more up than down, but deep as well. Happy kids, who like playing music, games, chatting online.  And who love God.  

The older girl and another friend  are in the same language class at the local high school. A  couple of days ago, they were studying at lunch time. It must have been a bit dry, and they giggle about a memory of something.  

Others want to know what’s funny, so they open up on the unlikely topic.  The private joke was a reference to a word that one of them found themselves repeating once, in a recent spiritual encounter. The rolling currents are still close to the surface. So they’re bold enough to own the moment, and disclose it, not particularly needing to sidestep the raw, potentially awkward material of tongues. 

So the exotic story – a repeated word in a God encounter  - is met with typical year 8  scepticism in the high school.   

“So, if God is real, turn this water into wine. Jesus could, right?”   says one, pushing forward a water bottle. 

There’s a current of joy running through these two.   A little intoxicated perhaps, from touching on that high moment from a week or so previous. 

They’re a little taken aback at the challenge but don’t melt in panic and fear.  They’ve seen a lot of unusual things in recent months. And not playing the deferral game.  

They look at each other.   The bell goes for end of lunch.  

 “Well, we can pray.  Don’t blame us if it doesn’t happen though. God might not want it to”.    

So, they get  the original sceptic who issued the challenge,  to pray.  Which initially sounds like. 

“Yo, Jesus my homey,  turn this water into wine” 

“No,  you’ve got to pray like you mean it”  

The classmate, maybe getting a bit influenced by these two now, gives it a go. “Jesus, if you’re real, please turn the water into wine” 

One of the believing pair tastes the water. “Nup, still water” .. .and passes it to the sceptic.  Who also tastes it.  Her eyes widen.  “Its wine”. 

The first takes it back – and the smell, and the taste, confirm a change has taken place. The third friend also tastes, and all  three agree, and double check, against any shadow of emotional delusion, that the goodness has materialised in the bottle. 

I know how reliable this account is, can triangulate other aspects, of family, character,  occasional taste of wine at dinner.  It will be third hand to any reader, but I know they're not smelling bubble gum and imagining things. 

Taste and see that the Lord is good.  

So …  the kids finish a quarter of a water bottle between them.  

When I hear the story later that day, I wonder what the school policy should be.  “In the case of students turning water into wine, they should refrain from intoxication. “.  Although the  Education department is probably more afraid of proselyting than alcohol, it seems.  

They don’t need to worry – the students don’t think to keep any of the wine, to prove anything to a wider circle. As if scientific models of proof and widespread conclusions are how they were thinking, or what this organic moment needs.  No, its like in the original story, the “first sign by which Jesus revealed his glory”, as John puts it.  It’s an inner event, intimate, off the radar of the crowd around them. That story makes the point that only the servants, behind the scenes, knew what really happened.  The terms of this event have a similar obscurity.

So no demonstrations to the principal’s office or at assembly.  Just a little moment with a few year 8 friends.  And they just go off to maths when the bell brings, leaving the chips to lie where they fell.  

The friend who tasted the wine wants to come along to a meeting with the group who has help spin up this faith.  

 I happen to hear all this, from one of the girls, later in the day, after afternoon tea has fed the teenage hunger.  She had already told the story a couple of times to Christian friends –happens to be the day they all meet after school,  and so engages in the story again, and yet, in a balanced way, also not thinking too extravagantly about it.  No artifice and no wide eyed hype. 

 “After all, we do believe in God”.   And “Well, mum, we couldn’t not try … its just normal to share”.  Mum, who hadn’t expressed her own faith in high school in this outward manner, doesn’t think its normal, and is drawn to  a fresh wonder at what’s happening with these teenagers.  She believes its like Jesus to do this, feels like Him, but seeing it, on a normal Tuesday, is another thing.    

We have all seen a lot of healing miracles in recent months.  Their idea of ‘normal’ is moving into a different place. 

(Interestingly another Christian in the class had been rather offended at the initial conversation. Not at the ecstatic tongues – she knew about that.  But “you cant just pray for a miracle to happen”.  Something to follow there  .. .what patterns did she think were being broken in this direct and bold faith.) 

And a footnote for those who might like a stronger taste of reflection.
Those used to the refined wine of reflection, might think up other ways to frame this. For example, the account of Babel, a Genesis story, might still have some cultural credibility in some circles (though possibly not at the state high school).  Thus, Melbourne Uni’s language studies building, has long been named the Babel Building – an ironic reference to the original story where God fragments language, in order to frustrate humanity’s unified but fallen attempt to build a tower into the heavens.   

And we might help them pause and  reflect that the original Acts 2 outpouring of the Spirit, can be seen as a reversal of that Babel division, with all the diaspora Jews hearing the “praises of God in their own language(s)” – a sign that babel is undone, and new foundational unity is blessed, as the church is born. Thats for reflecting on later, perhaps.

They actually might be interested in all that context -  they're tuning in deeply, and it is a language class after all -  but in the moment the wine of encounter is too fresh, has too many bubbles fizzing,  for that sort of reflection. These two students  just moved with the experience, not sliding this moment onto the table with some clever references. That can come later. The new wine is fresher than that, probably fresher in them because served without any of that.  

Veggie Tales for Grown ups, part 2

Eating our veggies (part 2).

I heard someone say once: The good news about church is … its like family. The bad news about church is … its like family.

I like Anglican church. Its like family. I know its gentle ways. I know its goodness. I also know what it is to be ‘confirmed” into an agnostic state at 12, to go an Anglican school, live in an Anglican college, and find the faith so gently hidden, whittled down to traces so gently positioned, that I, and all my peers, seemed to miss it.

That’s costly, missing God for years. I needed to go looking well outside its tea and scones. Maybe local family is a deeper question there.

I also know that the deepest thing I saw for 20 years, happened back in Anglican church. Buses pulled up outside that place, 3 nights a week, bringing people from all round the state, to the renewal. The ‘Toronto blessing’ had landed in Vic in an unlikely, faithful little church. We were in a good penty church by then, old school in its depth. But even there, some of us travelled across Melbourne a couple of nights a week, for the deeper presence in this little Anglican church. Solid preaching and worship, then they’d push the chairs back, for a few hours of gentle prayer ministry. A third of the room rolling in joy and laughter . A third lying still, or deep in tears. And how deep it went. A third chatting. Sometimes carried people who couldn’t stand, pinned to the floor, out to their car at midnight. And good old tea and scones served out the back. Packed every night – every night at least half were new people, by the show of hands. 

It was a bit controversial in Vic Anglican circles (much less so in the UK, where a third of the churches were opened up in renewal).

But when we discussed that season, as we started a new prophetic meeting (affectionately dubbed ‘fruity Friday’) a couple of years ago, the fire just rolled in again. We were soon all lying on the floor, weeping, (or touched in flames of joy).

Even churches that aren’t into 5 fold models of leadership, don’t aspire to go after all of the things of the Holy Spirit, can be training grounds. So, recently, I learnt a lot about God, and myself, and even the prophetic, at the local Anglican church. We’d landed there, looking for a safe place. (Sometimes you need that – but that’s another story.)

They didn’t really do spiritual gifts– just avoided those passages - but a couple of us were asking questions. Do you want this word that is stirring? They wanted to be biblical, so after a couple of years of discussion they opened up a regular section for spiritual gifts in an evening service.

The drawn out process was not comfortable, but grounded me in making a biblical case for the gifts, and a fuller experience of the Spirit, which is really the point. It was gradually influencing some.  

The expression was a 6 week preaching series on the Holy Spirit, and a regular 5 minute window each Sunday night, for the next couple of years (“We come now to the part of the service where if you have a spiritual gift, a word, a prophecy, a tongue, some gift of healing, that you feel to bring, now is the time”).

If you missed that 5 minute window, you missed it for the week. The tightness of that constraint was actually good training. It was like a narrow beach you could surf from just the right angle.

It taught me to move quickly when the impression of the Spirit came, to collect thoughts and scriptures quickly.

Some people got healed in those windows. At 7, my daughter started to have visions in those moments when the wind of the Spirit gently blew. I learnt to watch her for the counter attack in those times as well – new openings can be contested.

God would often – almost invariably - place something on me in that window. I resisted it once, feeling it wasn’t right to go up every week, wanting to create more space (there was a little flow of others). But the conviction about missing it was worse- in that place it seemed He wanted me to move with it each time (that can change in different seasons & places though).

They also opened up a prayer and praise night, which was often deep and powerful.

We also ran a small group, which looked a bit like ‘fruity friday’, improvising our way into deep things. We probably needed that extended freedom.

I met John Steele at that church - passionate Anglican minister preaching on the baptism of the Spirit - and he taught me a lot, in a year of meeting in his home.

We left that safe and sturdy Anglican church when the assistant pastor left to go to Tassie – we knew our 6 years there were up. God even let us know when they would go – they had asked us to pray into their 5 year plan for staying there, but before we all left the car park that night, Deb and I both heard something; the year they would actually go, only 18 months later. It unsettled them at first, and it wasn’t what we wanted to hear either, but it panned out that way.

Church reformation is good. Returning to biblical forms of leadership is very good. Being open to the Holy Spirit is excellent. But even when some of those principles are in question, the local fellowship can still be a family, a key place for growth, at least for a season. We pushed into some teamwork, in spite of the clergy-laity divide. We stepped on each others toes occasionally in that process, but we sorted it out, and growth happened.

So, just an example, that even when some things don’t seem fully optimal or released in all we value, even these forms of family can be places of reciprocal blessing. They might be giving us vegetables when we wanted icecream. Or we might be advocating for meat and wine when they were serving bread and water. Or a bit of both, shared meat and drink. Either way it can be good.