Censored again

I often read news.com.au or theage.com.au to keep up with news and events in Australia and around the world. Many of the articles on news.com.au allow comments to be added, and from time to time I have done this. Not every comment of mine has included a reference to faith, but some of them have. Invariably, every time that faith in God is mentioned, my comment is either not posted at all or censored.

The latest example was in respose to this article about aliens. The article refers to a split in the SETI research community. In recent years signals have been beamed into deep space to try to contact aliens. Some scientists feel that this could pose a potential risk, that if aliens receive the message and they are evil, then earth is put at risk.

Anyway, I followed this up with a comment. This is the comment that was included:

In my opinion the search for extra-terrestrial life, is based upon a subconscious desire that there is something or someone "out there." It is based in a fear of us being all alone as the human race.

However, my comment went further. "We are not alone though. There is a loving God who is both "out there" and "right here". I am not even saying anything about the characteristics of this God. You can find this out for yourself."

This was a very tame comment. I was not pushing religious beliefs on others, rather throwing a different opinion into the debate. Obviously news.com.au were somehow put off by my mention of God. To me it is quite clear that they are not interested in free debate. Yet they still allow comments about religion being the cause of problems etc. Is this the future of Australian society, strong censorship against religious free speech?

Musical chairs in the Australian Football League

Like any good Aussie, I like my vegemite, Aussie rules footy and a cold beer. I reacted in shock when I heard back in June from a visiting Australian that crowds of 50 000 have been know to attend soccer league matches in Melbourne. That would certainly make for some culture shock upon my return to Melbourne. If you can see that I don't like the idea of one language dominating the whole world, you can also guess that I don't like the idea of one sport dominating the whole world. Soccer is so mundane and uncreative. I lament the fact the ice hockey is greatly decreasing in popularity in Russia and that young guys can be seen running around playing soccer in the snow. Why are we giving into this world deception in Australia too. Anyway, I take solace in the fact that the A-League only have 7 teams in Australia, and they are too afraid to play in winter because they know they would not get crowds during footy season.

So for now footy is still strong, and the AFL is working hard to keep it that way. The AFL are on a new expansion drive. They can see that Aussie rules is growing in popularity at that the market on the Gold Coast and in Sydney is ready for new teams. I am excited to hear this, and would love to see the AFL keep growing.

It is a tough question to know how many teams can really flourish (not just survive) in the AFL. If Adelaide is taken as an example, it may provide a rough mathematical formula for how many teams a population can support. Adelaide has a population of roughly 1 million people and comfortable supports two AFL teams. But could they support more? The Adelaide Crows have 47 000 members, but have had to cap membership there because Football Park in Adelaide can not hold more than 47 000 people. If there was a larger ground, Adelaide could surely have more members. If there was a third team, they could surely attract members can not get a membership with the Crows. So Adelaide could potentially support 3 or more teams. They do however easily support 2 teams. This is a ratio of roughly 500 000 people to one AFL team. The ratio is similar in Perth. Perth has two AFL teams and a population of roughly 1 million.

If this same formula is applied to Melbourne, how many teams can Melbourne support? Melbourne has a population of 3.7 million people. There are currently 9 AFL teams in Melbourne. At least two of these teams are severely struggling to survive. Melbourne used to have 11 teams. (I am not counting Geelong which has a separate geographical supporter base.) These 11 teams were supported by a then smaller population. As the competition has gone national (the best players from SA and WA always came to Vicotoria in the past) Melbourne has been less capable of supporting so many teams due to a diluted player base. It is my hypothesis that Melbourne can currently only comfortably support 7 teams, at an average of roughly 500 000 people per team. According to these crude calculations, two teams need to leave Melbourne.

The AFL have indicated that they would like to add teams in Sydney and the Gold Coast by 2010 or 2011. They have financially propped up teams in Melbourne for a while now. It would seem logical that the two weakest clubs in Melbourne, (Footscray) Western Bulldogs and (North Melbourne) Kangaroos, should be the teams to relocate. Both clubs dropped their suburb name some time back to broaden their supporter appeal and even to prepare in advance for a possible relocation. They could easily have been the Gold Coast Kangaroos and the Western Bulldogs (but in Sydney instead of Melbourne).

But the Kangaroos recently rejected a $100 million proposal to relocate by 2010 to the Gold Coast. They asked the AFL for an extra 12 months grace in making their decision. But the truth is that (North Melbourne) have been deliberating over a decision to relocate for years. They have flirter with Canberra, Sydney and the Gold Coast. The AFL have seen that the Gold Coast market is ripe and wanted to strike while the iron is hot. But the parochialism in the North Melbourne tribe has got in the way of common sense. They rejected the AFL proposal, and instead now intend to change their name back to North Melbourne again, putting to death any plans to relocate.

Fitzroy were smart to get out while they did. Especially as they avoided a take over (merge) by North Melbourne that would have ended in eventual death of the new merger anyway. In relocating to Brisbane the Fitzroy Lions kept much of their identity. Melbourne based Lions supporters enjoyed three successive premierships in this decade, and will be sure to see more success in the future. They can relax knowing their club will never die. In the game of musical chairs, Fitzroy and South Melbourne are the winners. They got the best pickings for future growth markets in the AFL. They both have steady memberships and large attendances at their games.

In the continued game of musical chairs there are still some potential markets to be filled, but they will never be quite as good as first cab off the rank in Sydney or Brisbane. North Melbourne have missed their chair. I think it is safe to say that North Melbourne's life expectancy is now limited. Their future is either a permanent relegation to the VFL or extinction altogether. Since their members have shown that survival of the North Melbourne name is more important than anything else, they should probably take the opportunity to drop down to the VFL before they do go bankrupt. When a 17th team from the Gold Coast does enter the AFL, they days will be numbered to less than 10 years. (They could go back to being the North Melbourne Shinboners and give up the Kangaroos name for an AFL club.)

Will the Western Bulldogs be stupid enough to miss their opportunity in Sydney. This is yet to be seen. But if they let their hearts rule over their minds, then they too will sink.

I still think that Tasmania and Canberra can host teams in the future. Tasmania has a population of 500 000. If games were split between Hobart and Launceston then most of that population would have the chance to see 5 games a year. But the AFL must first expand further in the bigger cities. This will increase their overall market share. The AFL will become a stronger brand name than the NRL or Rugby Super 14 or the A-League in soccer. When the AFL is clearly the strongest brand in Australia (it is not far from this now) then some of the smaller markets will also be able to support a team.

I am looking forward to an 18 team competition. I don't see how a two conference system could work well though. It would seem illogical to split the Victorian teams into different conferences. But this is a topic for another day.

North Melbourne have been foolish to give up their chance of relocation. The clock is now ticking on their existence. Footscray should not make the same mistake when their chance comes. If the bell comes tolling for St Kilda or Richmond, then neither should they.

Tower of Babel and linguistics

The topic of the tower of Babel came up in comments so I wanted to comment on it further. There are some references in chapter 10 that speak of multiple languages, before the story of the tower of Babel.

Descendants of Japheth
Genesis 10:5 From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their own nations, each with its own language.

Descendants of Ham
Genesis 10:20 These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

Descendants of Shem
Genesis 10:31 These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

The Genesis writer took the time to explain that the descendants of Noah's sons all had different languages. It is unclear precisely when the story of the tower of Babel is set. Obviously in the same era. But there is nothing indicating that the table of nations in chapter ten comes after the tower of Babel. Genesis up until this point comes in a roughly chronological order (i.e each major story happens after the previous- Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah etc.)

Genesis 11:1 says that the whole world had a common language and speech, however it does not necessarily mean that every individual spoke this tongue- although they may have. We need to escape our monolingual world view, and imagine that the people at the tower of Babel already spoke more than one language. I.e they spoke the common language and they spoke their own clan's language.

My proposed (yet unprovable I know) hypothesis is that the common language was confused at Babel and then people could only use their clan's language after that point. Following this there was far less incentive to have a common capital in the world, and so the clans went their own way.

To me this indicates that multiple languages is a good thing. We often look at the tower of Babel as evidence that many languages is a bad thing. I don't see the result of Babel as a curse. It was discipline but not a curse. In each of the earlier stories involving people in Genesis, God gave out a punishment which was then immediately followed by Grace. So, I see that God was showing grace to the nations by forcing them into a place where they forged their own identity. The tower of Babel was dangerous because it was a clear possibility for outright control by a human being over the human race, which would make it harder for people to reach God. God removed this barrier when he destroyed the tower project.

Are you a monolingualist?

I come from a monolingual culture. People in Australia think that English is all you need. Yet around 25% of the Australian population now have a first language other than English. This attitude of monolingualism dates back to imperialism. The British empire set out to colonise the world. The attitude of imperialism was that the colonising culture was a superior one. The inferior culture would therefore benefit from speaking the language of the imperial force. This was a dominant world view of the age.

This dominant world view was influenced by a dual desire to spread the source culture's dominance but also by a fear of cultures foreign and unknown. Jesuit missionaries seemed to evade this damaging world view, but many other missionaries did not. Protestant missionaries in Australia, Canada, America and Africa held a very imperial world view toward the indigenous peoples of those countries. The indigenous peoples were often told that their language and culture were evil and demonic. To become a Christian meant to leave one's culture and language behind. Whilst at times these may seem like broad generalisations, they were grievous mistakes made none the less.

These mistakes were informed by a dominant world view to be sure, but how much did these missionaries seek to be informed by the Holy Spirit? These are not simple issues by any means. It does scare me though that these same problems exist in 21st century Russia. Russians are monolingual in their world view. Siberian peoples are told that their language and culture do not matter, even by the Russian church. These seem to be the exact same mistakes being repeated again.

Such attitudes often make me angry. It causes me grief to see a people have their language and culture threatened. I know that God loves minority peoples, their cultures and their languages. It is a challenge to modern day Australians and Canadians also to not be monolingual in our approach to society. Monolingualism is damaging in all ways. I truly hope that a change of government (even though I believe the Labor government in Australia will be grossly incompetent on an economic level) may reinvigorate the chance to save Australian Aboriginal languages. I also hope that I may play a part in saving indigenous languages in Siberia.

There is a lot to combat in the imperial mindset, world view is deep seated.

God is in favour of multilingualism. The story of the tower of Babel is testament to this. An interesting piece of trivia is that there were already multiple languages before the tower of Babel. It is just the common language that was confused at that event.

What should be our response to this problem? Respect the rights of indigenous peoples and immigrants to speak languages other than English. There is no reason that people can not be bilingual in their lives. Affirm others in their language and culture. You could even go so far as to learn their language in an effort to love them in a practical way. This will be one of the most powerful ways that you can love a person. Do not be afraid of the unknown. Seek to know and to understand. Do not shy away from the Muslim immigrant, love them, get to know them and their culture. Speak their language and in turn, speak the language of love.

Oh please?!!!

"Calls for death of teddy teacher
HUNDREDS of Sudanese Muslims are demanding death for the British teacher convicted of insulting Islam after her class named a teddy bear Mohammad."

A recent headline from the news. Ok, you skeptics out there who say that "religion"is the biggest cause of hatred. When is the last time you saw a mob of Christians get together and demand someone's execution because they insulted Jesus? I have to admit that I doubt Buddhists would be this extreme also.

Yes there has been violence between various religions at various times. But to me, the constant popular hatred that comes from the Muslim world is overwhelming. When the Pope said that Islam has a history of violence, many Muslims protested by burning down churches, as if to prove his point.

The evidence is overwhelming. Islam is a religion of violence and hatred. It's time for those in denial to just jump ship.

To own a Dragon

I just finished reading Donald Miller's latest book "To Own a Dragon: Reflections on growing up without a Father." It was a very enjoyable read. His style is conversational, humorous, honest and touching. His experiences are not the same as everyone and certainly different to my own.

Without a doubt, no one is perfect, no father is perfect, except our Heavenly Father. This was certainly one of Miller's points. He learnt that he could not blame his problems with other men on those men himself, his father left when he was very young. He also learnt that he could not blame any of that on God.

The conclusion I have drawn after reading this book, is that in some ways it is not that hard to be a good father, if you are confident in the love of your heavenly father. The job of a father is simple: be there for your children, listen to them, tell them you love them, play with them, discipline them (but never harshly) and most of all, introduce them to their Heavenly Father.

I said so myself before Abigail was born, that she really belongs to God. My chief responsibility is to introduce her to her Heavenly Father, who she will need to trust for her whole life. So I have started talking to her about this. It has been kind of cute, the first time I brought it up she looked at me with a confused face, but certainly listened. Abigail so far finds it a lot easier to relate to Jesus, who is far more tangible, he did come to earth as a human after all.

Introducing her to her Heavenly Father, does not absolve me of my responsibilities. Rather, I am aware that she will gain her image of a father from me. But as John Mc Murray pointed out in the book, he apologises to his children when he deals with them too harshly or yells at them, as he does not want to distort their image of who God is.

I think this is good advice. Whether you are a father or not, whether you had a father or not, this book is well worth reading. We all have a Heavenly Father who loves us, and this is worth our knowing.

New Delirious? music.

I was doing some surfing on the internet when I remembered that I had not checked up what Delirious have been up to recently. Delirious are one of my fave bands, their music is high quality and they have a strong heart to worship God. The first bit of news that I noticed is that they played Moscow on October 31st. We were back in Siberia already and it would have been too expensive to fly there. Delirious have played some out there places including India, so you never know, they could still make it to Siberia some time.

The second thing is that they have vastly overhauled their website. It was a bit slow to load as it relies heavily on Flash technology. But you should head there none the less. When you get there go to the "Living Room" and you will discover a nice little gift- a free download of their new single from their upcoming album "King of Comfort" due for release in April 2008.

I've already downloaded it and listened to it a number of times and it doesn't disappoint. Which is more than I can say for Radiohead's new release. I haven't gotten round to that yet, but I will some time I guess.

Organic Church- review

This was a powerful book that shows how true transformational churches can happen, in ways outside the traditional church's mindset. Let me highly recommend this book.

In no way can I convey everything that this book speaks about because my mind is swimming with ideas and I am overcome with desire for a different kind of church experience.

The thing that strikes me the most is that there is no reason why any of us can not try this ourselves, today. There is plenty of permission and room to fail. There are many "radical" concepts that deserve to be comprehended and adopted. In a sense they are not that radical because they are things that the church has done in the past, but that very few churches try today.

Radical concept: Jesus is the captain of the team. How many churches have a pastor as the captain of the team? How many churches drop in attendance when the pastor is away, or people remark that they have missed him when he comes back? Imagine if one of these people were on your leadership team- Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa. Would not their personality have a big impact on the way the team works. Now imagine if Jesus were not only present on the team but the captain. Sadly, this is not the case in so many churches.

Radical concept: Do not expect people to come to you. When one successful church planter was asked why so many people had responded to Christ, his response was simple- Show up! The gospel can infiltrate whole networks of people and communities. But so often we expect people to leave their community and join something else when they believe. Imagine a church starting up inside a network of people who already exist, a ready made church appears very quickly as people respond to Christ.

Radical concept: New believers are capable of leading others to Christ, Baptising and Discipling. The traditional church behaves as if someone needs plenty of training first before they are capable of leading anything of significance. This has happened time and time again in the movement mentioned in the book. New believers lead their friends to Christ and baptise them, themselves and a church starts somewhere in their network of friends, be it a home, coffee shop or sports club- a location that their network already existed in.

There are many more radical concepts in the book, but I wanted to put just a few teasers our there for you. These ideas are bound to upset people in the traditional church, especially people who want to hold tightly to their church buildings. But I think that the church needs to be set free from the four walls that restrain it, and be let loose on a needy and waiting population. For the skeptic, let me say that the organic church movement has grown to 700 churches in 32 countries in 6 short years, with 10 000 people already a part of it. It is a revolution that has only just begun. Where as many mega churches will max out around 10 000- 700 small organic churches have exponential potential in their coming growth.

Why not start a church on your street today!

My eschatology

So, I have been paying out on the eschatology of others, but have not been prepared to play my cards on the table.

Let me map it out a bit for you. The first important text that we must read as Christians when forming an eschatology is Matthew 24. Jesus had spent his ministry turning the Jewish world view on its head, ushering in a radical new "upside down kingdom." The disciples didn't always get it. So in Matthew chapter 24 they had just been in the temple and the disciples had been marvelling over the temple. Jesus had to tell them all over again, "Haven't I been trying to tell you guys, that its not all about buildings and locations? The father wants worshippers who will worship Him in spirit and truth. Believe me when I tell you that this temple is going to be totally destroyed anyway, not one stone will be left standing on another."

Now when the disciples heard Jesus say that the temple would be destroyed, you have to remember their Jewish world view. They would have seen this as the end of the world, and the time for the messiah to rise up and defeat the enemy. Perhaps they were already beginning to accept that Jesus was not going to play that role, the first time round, but surely he would if the temple was destroyed? The temple was everything wasn't it? Not to Jesus.

Jesus warned them about the destruction of the temple because he knew it would be a big deal to them. But he also had some clauses to give them. "When you hear of wars everywhere, do not be alarmed. When you hear of earthquakes everywhere, do not be alarmed." Some how today we get so caught up in the physical world, that we can not see the forest for the trees. I constantly hear Christians saying that wars and earthquakes are evidence of the end times. They are not! Jesus even told us to not read those events that way. Besides wars and earthquakes have been part of human suffering from time immemorial. I don't see how we can count them as signs of the end times, they are simply part of the fallen world we live in.

Jesus did give a sign that would signify the end. "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then (only then) the end will come." Firstly we need to take some responsibility for this. Many believers just sit around and think, "hurry up Jesus, I wanna go home," but don't help out with the chores so we can go home. If the end is ever going to come then the gospel must first be preached to all nations. At last count there are still 6000 ethnic nations who do not have the gospel.

So, it is my premise that people take the Bible and try to shoe horn in their own interpretation. People feel the end must be close, so they pick up the Bible, find texts that are surely referring to the end of the world, and then reinterpret it to their own ends. True, not all of Matthew 24 is referring to AD 70 and the destruction of the temple, but a good portion of it is. Jesus was trying to teach the disciples how to discern the difference, so that when AD 70 rolled around they would know that the end had not actually come, and they would remember to preach the gospel to all nations.

Every time some new terrorist attack happens, or when WW1 and WW2 happened (people thought they were surely the end of the world- many eschatological theories were put forward to argue this); or when there was great conflict in the Cold War, we have to resist the temptation of thinking the end is near. We have to put our hands back to the plough, get back to work and continue to preach the gospel to the nations.

Here is another premise: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (St Paul writing to his beloved church in Ephesus from prison in Rome.) Paul could easily have been tempted to have a human enemy, but he was smarter than that. He knew his real enemy was the devil and his demons. We are in a spiritual war and we should not forget that. It is so easy to be tempted into having a human enemy; Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union during the Cold War (and some are convinced that Russia is still a baddy because of this Cold War theology) and now the Muslim world. But we are told to realise that we are not to seek a human enemy, our war is not against flesh and blood.

Now doubting we are in a great spiritual war. We fight with prayer and the enemy lashes back the only way he knows how, by inflicting violence on people, and deceiving people into a physical battle. The gospel is making great inroads into the Muslim world. I routinely hear stories of Muslim people having visions of Jesus and then following him. An exciting one came a couple years back. All of the men in an Afghan village had a vision of Jesus. Shortly after that there was a screening of the Jesus film in their village, then the whole village believed. These events can not continue with out a major shift in the future. Christians in Afghanistan still are extremely careful about revealing their faith to others. I have heard stories of husbands and wives turning up at the same secret meeting and realising they are both Christians. There are ants eating away at the inside of the mountain of Islam and one day it will collapse. Today there is still a strict anti Christian facade, but once they are in the majority, then the regimes will begin to fall.

The devil knows this is happening. It has already been happening long before September 11. But I think the terrorist jihad is a rallying of attacks that are designed to draw us into a physical battle. Then some how we can believe that it is right to have a human enemy, and that this will surely lead to the Armageddon that we are all expecting. I beg to differ.

We are exhorted to not fight physical battles in scripture. We are taught how real the spiritual battle is. But in the west, we are often blind to spiritual things and we fail to understand the spiritual battle for what it really is. What if Armageddon is not a physical battle field? What if it is a spiritual battle field? The angels and demons are already fighting a great battle. I contend that we could already be in the middle of the great Armageddon of scripture, and that we are missing it. We should be taking up spiritual arms in prayer and not thinking about human enemy political states. This is a call to battle and you are needed.

Let me outline a little further how I interpret the book of revelation. Revelation is a book that has so often been misinterpreted by people seeking to find theories about the end of the world. Jesus came to earth as heaven's representative. He was God in the flesh. Jesus bridged the gap between heaven and earth, from God to man. When John received the Revelation of Jesus Christ it was an opening of heaven for human eyes. From man to God. It was an "opening" of heaven. In Russian the word for the book is actually "opening". But we seem to have lost that meaning in English, even though it is what the word means. Often people will say "I had a revelation." But this is not what the book of revelation is about, it is about a glimpse into heaven.

So if the Book of Revelation is set in Heaven, then it would follow that things would seem a little strange and hard to understand at first. The seven lampstands in the early part of Revelation that refer to the seven churches of Asia Minor, is how the churches were viewed in heaven. Chapters four and five describe God's throne in heaven and the worship of God before his throne. This book is not really about earth as such. The opening of the seals are in heaven. The seven trumpets are blown by angels in heaven. Yes they are looking down on the earth and earth is the subject of great interest, but all of this is from a heavenly perspective, with eyes firmly rooted in the spiritual realm.

Chapter 12 refers to more events happening in the spiritual realm. It refers to the devil falling from heaven (in this context he is referred to as a dragon) and taking a third of the angels with him, "and there was war in heaven." The second half of the chapter is actually referring to the birth of Jesus, in the spiritual realm. This was how the birth of Jesus was viewed from heaven, the dragon tried to kill Jesus, which refers to the massacre brought on by Herod, and the flight of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Egypt. Revelation is a book set in the spiritual realm.

The events following this are also set in the spiritual realm. But it is important to realise that there is no strict time line in Revelation. Chapter 12 referred to an event from before the creation of the world, and then an event set at the axis point of human history. But there is a great war that started before the world and is continuing today. The early church were also a part of this great war. Revelation was first of all written to the early church, so of course it would have had immediate reference for them. So the persecutions of chapters 13-18 can specifically be seen as referring to the first century Christians who faced terrible persecutions under Nero and Domitian. It is stupid to argue that it does not refer to these events. Of course people can argue that prophecies can be multi layered, and they can be, but we need to remember that the content of chapters 13-18 is primarily referring to the early church. There is a lot that we can learn however, about how we should respond to persecution, based upon the encouragement in these chapters. For one who endures persecution and "overcomes by the blood of the lamb" the glorious paradise of heaven awaits. This is our encouragement.

Chapters 19-22 are referring to events at the end of time. The same applies to Matthew 24:29 onwards. But Jesus promised these events would not occur until the gospel has been preached to all nations. So we are too early at this point in history and we have a lot of work ahead of us.

I think we are in a great spiritual war right now, possibly even in the midst of the great Armageddon, a war for peoples souls. But we serve a victorious King, and we will win the war on Jesus' side. I have great hope that multitudes will come to Christ in the coming generations. The body of Christ is growing on this planet. Every time a demon is defeated and cast into hell, that is his end. That is why demons fight so hard for their spiritual strongholds, they don't want to face their end, and through prayer, when they are defeated, they do. [Where am I getting these ideas from? Jesus spent much of his ministry casting out demons, notably when he cast out the legion, they begged him to no be sent to the abyss. It was Jesus prerogative to let them go into the pigs. But if Jesus did not send them to the pigs, he would have sent them to the Abyss- hell.]

I would far prefer to have hope that the nations will come to Christ and in numbers so great one day that the believers will be the majority in this earth. I wonder what would be so bad if this were true?

This was actually the position of the church in the 1800s as the gospel spread around the world and people responded. But it was world war 1 that shattered these hopes. World war 2 followed shortly after and people began to think of human enemies and forget about the nations. Then the Cold war followed after world war 2. By this stage people were finding it a bit too hard and wishing Jesus would just come back and end it all. There was a time in the 60s during the Cuban Missile Crisis when people really believed the world was going to come to an end. It was an easy mistake to come up with a human enemy. This is when it became fashionable to have Russia as the enemy. It made good James Bond movies, and it sold plenty of cheap Christian paperbacks too. But it was giving into the temptation of having a human enemy; forgetting about the real enemy and forgetting that Jesus told us to preach the gospel to all the nations.

There are some people today convinced that Russia is going to close again. I remember people saying it in the early 90s. People had put so much of their stock in an eschatology that had Russia as the enemy, that for their belief system to work, they could not live with a Russia what was not the enemy. People prophesied and told me that it would be closed within 10 years, i.e 2001. Every time Russia makes new laws these same people say it all over again, "Russia is closing." This is just nonsense. In the 90s Russia was very open, because they needed to economically rebuild and decided to allow help from the rest of the world. Business visas were given freely to reach this goal. In recent years Russia has been booming and the government has decided that they no longer need so much outside help. This does not mean that people can no longer get visas to come to Russia. It just means that the application process is much more similar to another western nation. People can not just get business visa after business visa to come and live in a western country. They need to either get a work visa or residence permit. Russia has decided to fall into line with this pattern. This is not an indication of Russia closing, rather and indication of Russia stabilising. So the Cold War eschatologists are gradually having to give their theories up.

If the Cold War eschatology is wrong, then perhaps a more modern version is needed (tongue in cheek). Enter Islam and Arabs as the new enemy. James Bond movies just weren't working so well with Russia as an enemy any more. The Arabs seemed more terrifying. Today Arabs make better enemies at the movies (following September 11) and they seem to make better enemies in cheap Christian paper backs as well. This is the same old lie rehashed again. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

The gospel must first be preached to all nations and then the end will come. (Jesus.) The earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (Habakkuk.)

What a glorious end it will be. Vastly different from the eschatology of cheap Christian paperbacks.

Organic Church continued

The first third of the book was very powerful, full of passion, exciting stories and evidence that a new approach to church planting is needed. The book is 230 pages long, but I feel that it really should have been 130 pages. I have no problem reading a book that is worth reading, but I do have a problem reading dead weight. The first 70 pages are action packed, the last 160 pages should be stripped in half.

I am labouring through and hope to have something more exciting to share soon. The problem is that the book is self published, no one told the guy to make it more palatable.