How to pay the Gospel Workers?

Apologies for not posting for a while. I have been working furiously to birth the next step up from a blog, into the internet world. Am very close to being ready to launch a new online theology journal, called 'Still Deeper'.
Will post details soon...

Meanwhile, the other thing that has distracted me from blogging is realising that there is a need to write some of the doctoral thesis. That is after all my day job!

So after some furious scribbling I handed a draft chapter in today. It is on Augustine's preaching on money and riches.

I won't bore you with details, but along the way I discovered all kinds of interesting things - so old fashioned and traditional that were you to put them into practice today you would be - well - radical!

For example, how should one pay for Gospel workers?

The issue is one of great importance that can cause considerable pain and heartache. Many modern approaches owe more to pragmatism and business methodology than the Bible. How did Augustine approach it?

Well, he seems to have adopted an approach that I have not heard of anywhere else.

He saw an important part of his ministry to be raising money for the poor. This was put into the thesaurus - the riches chest - and distributed.
The catch was that the church staff were supported from the same box. We can surmise this from a sermon where Augustine told his congregation off for giving extra financial support direct to gospel workers - to do so effectively favoured the ministers over the poor and robbed the needy.

As one may imagine, this had a number of interesting effects on the church finance - the church leader had to present himself as in some sense on the same level as the beggers. He had to not only raise support for them but experience their situation. His decision on the precise distribution of resources in the thesaurus was public - so he could make the decision about who would go hungry - Gospel worker or poor person? That would reveal his heart and allow the congregation to appropriately weigh their respect for his shepherding of them.

Interesting idea.... Pass the collection plate anyone?!

Stopping Jack Bauer

One of the best stories around on TV/DVD is that of Jack Baur's relentless pursuit of baddies, terrorists and kidnappers.
Several seasons of high adrenaline excitement have wowed viewers worldwide- can nothing stop Jack?

It would seem that something can. Due to a writers' strike the next series of 24 will probably be delayed till next year.

The pen is mightier...

Pondering Presupositional Presuppositions

I just finished reading Cornelius Van Till's 'Introduction to Systematic Theology'. It was much easier to follow than his 'Apologetics'!
Famously dense style aside, I think he has something very important to contribute to the way we preach, think about our lives and witness. I have been using his insights in evangelistic preaching for several years, and have found it opens a new depth of approach to convince. I am starting to ponder how his insights can stimulate more profound Biblical application in preaching, which goes beyond the normal 'Do this' and 'Don't do that'. Van Till gives the raw ideas: there is great need to flesh them out in practice to integrate winsome presupositional theological insights to rigourous exposition.

For those who would like to find out more - this is a terrific summary essay.

http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/phil/presupposition.htm

Archbishop - above reproach?

I have noticed that some think one ought to always be positive about ecclesiastical authorities. Certainly the NT does tell us to be submissive, and love should engender generosity in us.

However one of the greatest bishops ever, St. Augustine, once preached on how he expected people to view him, with an ironic spin on 1 Tim. 3:2:

'While a bishop ought to be without reproach, is it right for Christians to be irreproachable? We are bishops, but with you we are Christians.' Sermon 176A

Similarly, in Sermon 340 he says, 'For you I am a bishop, with you I am a Christian. The first is a duty, the second a grace. The first a danger, the second salvation.'

From Augustine we learn that a bishop should be reproached for saying and doing things counter to what should be found in a Christian. That gives a certain approach and basis for considering Archbishop Rowan Williams' recent statement on incorporating Islamic law into British law.

After reading the full lecture, available at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
and the radio interview at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573


I have a few questions:

1. Why is Rowan Williams so weak in presenting the possible arguments against acceding more legal power to Islamic Law in the UK?

2. Why is he so generous in representing the attitudes of Muslims who want the changes as essentially tolerant and reasonable?
He dismisses Muslims who would want to apply the less attractive parts of sharia law as 'primitivists' who will be silenced by a good lecture - but is it really the case that all Muslims will be the nice tolerant type Williams prefers?

3. Has the Archbishop considered the practical implications in the real world of his academic argument - on Christians and others? A bishop should be realistic and aware of the ways people will use statements such as this to push forward their agenda.

In these and other ways perhaps, one could be forgiven for doubting the wisdom of William's statements. Apart from anything - they are generous to a fault in talking of Sharia Law as being something which 'Depends for its legitimacy not on any human decision, not on votes or preferences, but on the conviction that it represents the mind of God.'
That may be the belief of Muslims, but a bishop should remember as Augustine warned, that he is to also be a Christian. And a Christian would want to say that while Muslims believe as Williams says - they are grossly mistaken in that belief. The mind of God is revealed in Jesus Christ - the only true and living God to whom one day all will bow. No exceptions. No opt outs. Phil. 2:5-11

How Many wives should we Pay for?

A lot has been done in recent years, under a Labour government, to socially re-engineer the family. One would think that the most dramatic change was the civil partnership bill, effectively legalising homosexual marriage for the purposes for finances and raising children. That move has been taken even further than was originally discussed publicly with the allocation of tax payers' money to finance surrogate pregnancies in order to give gay couples the children they demand. All that is no surprise to me - it was predictable from the original debates.

However a recent Labour policy on family - being kept quiet by officials and undebated in the public media - has even surpised me for its audacity.

The Department of Work and Pensions has decided, for the purpose of benefits, to recognise legally polygamous marriages. The marriage(s) have to have occured in another country where such arrangements are legal (Islamic countries). If they have so occured, then a man can recieve multiple benefits from the UK tax funded benefits system. It is pretty shocking that our tax system will now multiply the benefits a Muslim man gets given if he moves to this country with more than one wife - will it lead to polygamy being made legal in this country? What about a British person who wants to marry more than one woman - should we pay for them to fly to another country for the marriages? Why should the financial benefits of multiple marriages for Muslims be better in the UK than in the country from which they have left? Why have we not had a public discussion on this issue? How should the payments to a Muslim from overseas with multiple wives be reconciled with the fact that a British bigamist faces up to seven years in prison?

Nobody knows how many polygamous marriages are in the UK - guesstimates from Ministers mention the figure of 1000 - but nobody really knows either how many there are, or how many people will come to live in the UK partly to enjoy our generous state support of polygamy. The Department of Work and Pensions has decided to continue paying these extra benefits, regular payments of £92.80 for the first wife, and £33.65 per additional wife. On these released figures the bill for income support alone will reach £10 million. Plans are underway to offer council tax rebates and housing support in light of the fact that such a family needs a larger home.

You may be thinking that I am making this up - if you would like to read the Government's definition of a family unit for the purposes of Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit, here it is in all its understated, professional legal glory, taken from the Department of Work and Pensions web site:

Polygamous marriages

1.41 For a polygamous marriage to be recognised for HB/CTB purposes, the regulations state there must have been a marriage ceremony in a country which permits polygamy, and the marriage must be between the claimant and more than one partner of the opposite sex, the relationship with each partner being that of a married couple.

1.42 Any polygamous relationship formed in this country is excluded. In these circumstances, treat a second or subsequent partner as a non-dependant.

HB Reg 2; CTB Reg 2

1.43 If you are satisfied that a valid marriage took place in a country where polygamy is permitted, for HB and CTB purposes, the claimant’s family will consist of-

the claimant, any person to whom the claimant is married and who usually lives in the same household, and
any child or young person who usually lives in the claimant’s household and for whom they or any partner is responsible .

Quote taken from Housing Benefit Guidance Manual: Amendment; Part C1 - Aggregation of needs and resources. Available at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/manuals/hbgm/parts/ptc_01b.asp