Transforming Melbourne towards being car free

A strong argument against the car free concept is the presence of existing cities and peoples' dependence upon these cities for their livelihood. Moving towards car reduced societies takes a two pronged approach. Building car free cities is for the visionaries and for the people with financial access to such concepts. These new cities will likely be beacons for the concept. The other approach needed is to gradually transform existing cities to move towards a more car free lifestyle.

Many European cities have begun this process. They are gradually introducing car free districts. Car free districts become centres of lively culture and usually attract people to their charm. The city of Melbourne in Australia could take a number of steps in this direction.

Melbourne as a city was extensively designed as a city before the existence of the car. The inner suburbs of the city would function much better in a way that is closer to their original planning.


Trams

Melbourne prides itself in its extensive tram network that covers the inner suburbs. The fact is though that trams and cars find it very hard to co-exist in Melbourne. Trams and pedestrians have right of way at tram stops. Cars must wait for them to start moving again before being allowed to pass. This often means that a car trip in inner Melbourne is not a lot faster than a tram anyway. Many Melburnians would be loathed to get rid of the tram network as Adelaide and Sydney mostly did. Trams are a part of Melbourne culture and its residents wish it to stay that way. A process of removing cars from inner Melbourne would help trams to flourish in Melbourne again. They could run at much higher frequency and make mobility on public transport very effective.

Map of Melbourne tram network

The spaces vacated by cars could be given over to bikes. To make the city more aesthetically pleasing it would not simply be a matter of bicycles riding on the roads that cars once drove on. This of course would be the case in the early stages. In more advanced stages though roads could be replaced by landscaping that includes grass, trees, bike paths and foot paths.
Arguments against the model
An argument against this might be that some people live too far from a tram stop. This can easily be tackled by installing extra tram lines on some roads between the major arterials, so that no residents have too far to walk to a tram stop.
Another argument pertains to how delivery of freight, retail and grocery goods would be carried out. It is important to move away from a car dominated paradigm, and remember that there was a world before the car. There were also deliveries of freight and goods in those days too. The best way to tackle this issue is to have delivery hub depots. Depots would use some existing railway networks and tram networks. From the depots smaller electric carts with special permits would carry out delivery to the final address.

Trains

Melbourne has a very good rail network. Unfortunately it is about as good as it was in the 1890s when it was world class, second only to London, more advanced than New York and Paris. It was better in the 1920s than it is now, some lines actually having been removed.
Trains also do not get along with cars very well. There are currently 182 level railway crossings in Melbourne. The Victorian government have budgeted $379 million towards the removal of railway crossings. They have ten projects planned. At close to an average of $40 million per railway crossing, the over all project to remove all of the railway crossings in Melbourne could easily stretch to and beyond $8 billion.
Many people would say that trains are interrupting the smooth flow of cars. A cursory look at history will show that Melbourne had all of its train lines before the car came along, so it is not trains that are interrupting cars. In fact the historical population growth of Melbourne largely coincides with the development of its railway network. It is now, when the railway network is not keeping up with Melbourne's transport demands that people are beginning to say that the transport network is breaking down. The fact remains that Melbourne was planned around its train networks and will only function well when depending on its train networks.
A friend of mine came up with a brilliant plan to remove all of the railway crossings in Melbourne. Instead of removing them one by one and putting in bridges (this is a very slow process that takes years), each of the railway lines in Melbourne should be replaced by underground tunnels. This could only be done in stages, one railway line at a time. It would create some pain for the residents in that region while the project was being carried out, but after the fact things would flow so much better. A complete new underground train line could be constructed for much faster trains, which would cut down travel times immensely and make them far more attractive than the car.
When a train line is put under ground there is then a lot of real estate available above the train line. This could be used for various purposes. Bike highways could be installed which would enable cyclists to get to the city centre in record time. Much of the land could also be sold, which would easily finance the entire project. Every train station could have retail, commercial or residential property installed above it. This would not prevent bike highways passing through.


This proposed plan does not remove any cars from Melbourne as such. What it does do is make trains and bikes a lots more appealing and efficient, which would cut down the number of cars on the road. The current model of putting bridges in at level crossings is not creating any real estate or revenue to pay for the projects.

Map of Melbourne train network

New forms of transport
As roads are vacated in inner Melbourne suburbs a lot of land will become available for other purposes. Some roads could have either trams put in their place or new underground rail lines to link up with the rest of the network. This would enable badly needed circle lines to be implemented, making connections easier on a trip across the city.

Other roads could simply be removed and replaced with bike paths, foot paths and park land. (Light electric carts could use these paths to access houses for deliveries with a special permit.)

Car free district phased introduction

The obvious place to start with a car free district is the central business district. From the Docklands development in the west to Spring Street in the east would be completely car free. There is plenty of public transport already in place to meet the needs of the district. Commuters who drive to the centre for work would feel inconvenienced at first. But an increase in frequency of trams and trains would mean that they could drive to a train station if they had a long way to travel.

A later phase of introduction would wait some years until people had adjusted to the new paradigm for the city centre. Eventually Melbourne could become car free as far as the tram network already exists. Once new underground train lines had been developed, expansion of car free districts could continue for decades to come.

It has taken a century for humanity to become as dependent upon cars as we have. It may take a century to wean ourselves off them again. It would certainly take decades to transform Melbourne completely.

Increased cultural vitality

Cities of the world that have begun to introduce car free districts have found that street life and cultural activities naturally begin to increase in those districts. People naturally begin to flock to these districts from the outside to enjoy the new vibrancy that occurs on streets where people are happy to be outdoors. The lack of car noise makes the streets peaceful and safe for people to be on.

When the central business district has this appeal for a decade or so, it will become more appealing to expand car free zones.

Car free cities

[Blueprint for a nature immersed car free city.]


Imagine a city, town or region completely free of cars. Cities without cars are more peaceful, less pollutant by far, have closer social ties and are safer. Some are a reality, some are under construction, some are still a vision, some are quite science fiction. This list is a mixture of them all.

Venice
Perhaps the most famous car free place in the world, a city of canals and boats, home to 70,000 people.

Fes-al-Bali

Fes-al-Bali in Morocco is home to 150,000 people, but with a population density of 550 per sq. metre, it is very crowded.

Cheung Chau

An island near Hong Kong city, the majority of the city has streets that are simply too narrow for cars. The city have developed tiny emergency vehicles though. It is home to 23,000 people.

Old City Jerusalem

Old City Jerusalem is also a historical anomaly. Home to 35,000 people it does not have any streets big enough for cars to drive on.

Iquitos

Iquitos in Peru is not particularly safe for pedestrians, but it is novel and therefore fun to include in the list. It is a city with virtually no cars, but motorbikes instead. This is because it is an isolated city, not connected by road to the outside world.

Masdar

Masdar is a new city under construction. It is located outside of Abu-Dhabi in the Arab Emirates. It will be home to 50,000 people and many clean energy companies. It will be the world's first completely energy clean city running on solar, wind and geothermal energy. At $22 billion, that is a fairly modest price tag for such a modern city. Hopefully it will create a blue print for new cities around the world.

You can read more at the official website here.

Science fiction lily pad city- Ecopolis

Designed by Belgian architect Vincent Callebaut, the Ecopolis is envisaged for a world plagued by rising sea levels.

Lobe city design

Designed by J.H.Crawford of carfree.com , the lobe city is based upon a concept of multiple districts each with their own metro underground train station. Each district then has a population of up to 12,000 people. All of their daily needs are met within their own district. A city made up of 100 or so districts would have a population of 1 million and take up to 45 minutes to travel across.

Why build a completely new city?

There are plenty of people who would love to live in a car free city. But there are also plenty of people opposed to such an idea. Instead of forcing people to transform old cities to car free ones, why not give people the choice of living in a new city better equipped for the purpose.

What is good or bad about the above cities?

Cities like Venice or Fes-al-Bali, Old City Jerusalem and Cheung Chau are steeped in history and culture and they would be intriguing places to live. Of course they probably have very few vacancies, and a move there requires learning a new language and culture.

A city like Iquitos would be unique and less congested than a car based city, but dangerous none the less with mopeds and motor bikes zipping everywhere.

Masdar is the most exciting prospect of the present day because it is a reality. I would be very intrigued to visit there once it is completed and see how it works. One thing Masdar is seriously lacking is nature. It is very concrete based in its environment. They however have worked very hard to make it aesthetically pleasing and the many fountains will surely make it a pleasant place.

The lily pad Ecopolis is novel and science-fictitious. I personally hope that such cities are never necessary, but having said that if people want to live on a lily-pad city it would certainly be very different. It would also be lacking in trees and birds.

The lobe design with multiple districts is a well thought out one. I might design a city differently none the less, but I think it is very likely to work. I would love to see somebody try it.

Another alternative?

There are as many alternatives as there are creative people in the world. My alternative though is a city based upon the idea of buildings and houses being merged with nature as much as possible. This would give the feel of living in a National Park, yet still have all the comforts of a modern city including the Arts and Sports.

My blue print for such a city is here.

A location for such a city?

There are many possible locations, but one such location is particularly appealing from an Australian context. French Island in Western Port Bay is already a car free zone. Seventy people live there and two thirds of the island is National Park. It has a rich Koala population that regularly exports Koalas to the mainland to keep the local population in check.

An ecologically friendly city could be built here that would not interrupt the flora or fauna at all. A high speed railway could be built from the island to the near by city of Melbourne, giving the residents of French Island access to the culture of a big city. The goal would still be to attract tertiary industry to the island so that residents could be employed there and have their community life there.

Imagine a city without cars (a city in a nature park)

A parkland area in central Helsinki where there are very few cars. Houses and apartment buildings are amongst the parks and gardens. Being there recently reminded me of my dream for a carless city.

The Dream

For some years I have dreamed of a city without cars. I think the first time I did this was back in 2003. I had been living in the country side in Canada for a couple of years. I had grown accustomed to a quieter more peaceful life. I then returned to work in Melbourne, Australia. I did not have a car at first, catching the bus to work every day. As I would stand at the bus stop I would watch the cars rush by, and I would listen to all the noise they made. My first reaction was not "if only I had a car too" but rather "those tyres make so much noise, imagine if there was no noise coming from cars."

Imagine if there was no noise coming from cars. I looked at the trees and the birds, and whilst I was happy that they still existed in suburban Melbourne, I dreamed of living in a place where they would be abundant. I sat down and began to flesh out my ideas on paper. I dreamed of houses and buildings almost hidden amongst the trees. Some buildings could even be built into the hillside, if hills existed. Or some buildings could be landscaped to be a part of nature, perhaps partly underground with some grass and shrubbery above the house. A life that is lived closer to nature is a more peaceful one, but this can still be done with modern comforts.

I mapped out what my city might look like. It would have an extensive system of underground railways. This would make travel to any part of the city possible within a short trip of perhaps no more than 10-15 minutes. Above ground there would not be roads as such. Instead there would be many paths for people to walk on and for bikes to ride on. There would be plenty of park land where there are no buildings at all, but the over all feel of the place would actually be that of park land, where animals would roam freely.

Obstacles

A paradise is often too good to be true, and many issues would arise with building such a city from scratch. The first one that comes to mind is- how would deliveries be carried out. There are multiple possible solutions to such a problem. Deliveries could be carried out by animal if people desire to keep one. Deliveries could also be carried out on electric carts that would only be available with a special license purely for the purpose of delivery. These carts would even be capable of carrying building materials should a new building be constructed. An underground conveyor belt system complete with delivery chutes would also be possible, but likely a lot more expensive.

Another issue that arises is enticing people to live in such a city in the first place. People like to live in cities because of all the cultural activities that they offer. Setting up in a new city always costs people money too and would be a disincentive.

It is worth pointing out that the benefits of such a city would be a far less stressful life, but also of much benefit to the environment. So much energy is spent on making cars in the first place, and then they require so much energy to run, and they present dangers to people. Cars also take up so much of people's lives as they sit in traffic, destroying the social fabric of communities. (The city I currently live in regularly has two hour traffic jams.)

Plan of implementation

- Tax incentives for corporations, companies and businesses to set up in the new city. All would be tax free for the first ten years of the city's life. Following the first ten years there would be a gradation process. Full taxes would not be paid until the city was already 50 years old.

- A modern city would likely only have tertiary industry. Heavy scaled manufacturing if needed in the the vicinity of the city would happen outside the city.

- As corporations choose to set up in the new tax haven, workers would also need to be enticed. All residents of the city would be on a similar tax incentive scheme to companies. Wages would still be kept in line with the rest of the country, ensuring a tax minimum life for the new residents.

- (These tax incentives are necessary to entice people to try something new. Once the first such city got off the ground there would be a deepening desire from other people to join the new car free life.)

- Assuming both industry and workers are present in the equation, there needs to be other factors necessary to entice residents. Cultural facilities such as concert halls, theatres, entertainment complexes, sporting facilities for public participation and professional sporting stadiums would be built. Securing a professional sporting team to make the city its home would be a big part of the equation.

- The city would be built completely away from the car grid altogether. In the 21st century very fast trains exist that can travel to 400 km/h. Such a train would connect the city with the rest of the country. An airport would not be necessary, and would not fit in with the philosophy of minimising oil use in the world. If the city is on the coast of a country, then it would also be serviced by shipping.

Why plan a city?

The idea of planning a city from scratch is not such a crazy one. Cities have been planned in the past, and they are usually peaceful places to live. In Australia the cities of Adelaide and Canberra have been extensively planned. Adelaide is a far older city than Canberra. Both cities of course depend on cars, but even their planning has resulted in free flowing traffic, even if there is the noise to live with. Planning a city goes a very long way to making life there comfortable. The inner suburbs of Melbourne were planned, but the growth past that point has made for a messy city.

How would such a city be financed? From a variety of angles. Corporations would take part in building their share. They could even have shares in the city. Investors and entrepreneurs could put up funds, to which they would undoubtedly see handsome returns. It would of course require assistance from government, and it would of course require visionaries to build and invest in the dream.

Parting thoughts

The dream is a worthy one to see come to fruition. The world badly needs to be set free from the burden of cars. The world badly needs more environmentally friendly solutions for the future. The carless city could indeed be the city of the future and not a pipe dream.

I may be no real expert in city planning. I have taken the path of linguistics in my life. That does not mean I can not have opinions on issues of the environment and sustainable, ecological and healthy living. It is my humble hope that such cities will come about in the world. If you happen to be an entrepreneur or politician feel free to run with these ideas. Heck, even feel free to take the credit for yourself. I would just be happy to see it happen.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix issues:

Existent cities

But what of the cities that already exist? Surely they can not just be shut down and replaces by the city of the future? Well, no of course not. Existent cities would need to evolve towards being carless over time. Taking the example I know best, I will speak of Melbourne in Australia. I do not live in Melbourne anymore, but I do hear the complaints coming from there that the roads are buckling under the strain, as is the train system. Melbourne needs to bite the bullet at some point before things get better. All of the level railway crossings need to be removed from the city. (There are currently hundreds and they slow down traffic a lot.) Underground train lines should be put in where ever there are above group train lines. These lines could be newer and higher quality with much faster trains, cutting down travel time extensively. (The Moscow under ground Metro is a lot faster than the Melbourne above ground Metro.) The land above the railway lines could be partly sold to pay for the venture and partly established with "bike highways". Bike highways would enable cyclists to travel into the centre for work without having to fight traffic or stop for red lights. This is just one example of an evolutionary step that needs to be taken in Melbourne. In time, some roads could be replaced with more underground train lines beneath them and bike highways above them. Gradually the city could be weaned off its addiction to the car.

Location of new city

Where would such a city be built? Around the world different countries would afford different opportunities. Again, in Australia I can think of various locations for such a city. Australians are very coastal people. It would be a difficult draw card to build such a city without people having access to the beach. Suddenly that means that there are very few apparent vacancies around the country. But this is not actually true. 

A variety of options exist:

- An isolated part of the South Australian or Western Australian coastline. This would require a lot of work to revegetate and irrigate. It is perhaps a good location for a future city, but may have drawbacks in drawing people there initially.

- A tropical part of the coast of Gulf of Carpentaria currently uninhabited. This would not have problems with vegetation, but not all are drawn to a tropical climate.

- The most densely populated state in Australia is actually Victoria. In some ways it makes sense to find a coastal location in Victoria. A location half way between Portland and Port Fairy is currently being used as farm land and has a highway going through it. The highway could be moved to go north of the proposed city. Portland already is a large deep water shipping port which could easily service the city.

Carfree cities already around the world

There are actually some places in the world that already are car free. Most of these came about due to historical reasons. Venice in Italy with a population of 70,000 is one such example. It exists on a network of canals. Fes-el-Bali in Morocco is the old part of a newer city. It is only a small area covering 2.4 kms by 1.6 kms, but has a population of 150,000.

Other such parts of the world are more often islands that never allowed cars in the first place.

Each of these historical places that are car free are however not immersed in nature as my proposed city is, nor do they have mass transit systems.

Finally, there is one modern city that is being established as car free. Masdar is near Abu Dhabi in the Emirates. It also will not be a nature immersed city, but it will be energy clean.

For more information on car free locations around the world there is a website worth reading: car free.com

There is also a list of car free locations around the world on wikipedia.

The genetic history and future of the human race: Africa the key to our salvation.

It sometimes takes me a long time to develop my seed thoughts.

Reading and writing (literacy) is approximately 5000-6000 years old. Civilisation is approximately 5000-6000 years old. There are many people (young earth subscribers) who are deeply influenced by their literal/ literate/ literacy based world view. They find it hard to believe in a world before reading and writing existed. They find it hard to believe in a world before civilisation existed. They find it hard to believe in a world before the Bible was written down on paper. They are therefore limited in their view of the world to come up with statements such as "the world is 6000 years old". I consider it no small coincidence that their calculation of the age of the world is the same period as that of civilisation and literacy. If we can expand our thinking beyond a world of civilisation and literacy then the possibilities of explaining history broaden greatly.

With that preface I would like the permission from you the reader to speak of dates much older than 6000 years ago. I hope this does not offend you. Just remember, I interpret every word of scripture as true, but I do this in an oral sense. That is I know that many of the stories were constructed orally. For example, when the Spirit of God hovered over the waters, I am happy and comfortable to know that the Spirit of God hovered over the hydrogen gases. Hydrogen, being the first and most basic element, is the element from which all other elements come. All stars are made of Hydrogen. "We are all made of stars" has some truth to it. So, since the word "waters" at the start of Genesis can be used to refer to Hydrogen (and still be true, correct) this then helps explain how oral stories must be understood. When the oral story of creation was first told, there was no such word for Hydrogen, so water was the best word to describe Hydrogen, even though the story tellers had no idea what Hydrogen actually was. And in fact the word Hydrogen comes from the Greek Hydro for water. The two words are closely related. Water is made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. In such a context it is easy to see how a day need not be 24 hours. I don't want to enter deeply into that debate, except to say that a literal  interpretation is not called for but an oral one is, especially since the story is many thousands of years older than writing itself.

I will now enter into the topic of the genetic origins of humanity. A while back we watched a documentary series from the BBC that spoke of the origins of humanity. There are still many questions in this field from a scientific perspective. It is true that the documentary series treated the ideas as fact instead of hypothesis, but there are still some interesting points to ponder.

My approximate take on the facts are as follows. Humanity itself is about 50 000 years old. Why? Scientifically it is postulated that speech is about 50 000 years old. Many linguists, psychologists and also philosophers argue that language creates identity and without language there is no identity. That makes a person who has no concept of language at all.... well... I don't believe such a person exists in the world, even Helen Keller had language.

At some point in our genetic past there is an important genetic dichotomy at play. Before getting to that I want to comment on the existence of "Mitochondrial Eve" a single human being from whom all modern humans are descended. Where ever in history this person is placed (up to 150 000 years ago) this is a very interesting fact. The existence of "Y Chromosome Adam" is also a very interesting fact. The fact that these two people are separated by millennia is unimportant when we consider the hypothesis that Noah could actually be the "Y Chromosome Adam". The stories of the Garden of Eden and Noah are likely separated by many thousands of years in true history.

Another interesting oral story has a genetic picture to highlight. The Y chromosome has a stick missing. From this stick comes another X chromosome. When God put Adam into a deep sleep he broke off a stick from Adam's one X chromosome and left behind a Y chromosome. From this chromosome stick he created Eve. That is, the "rib" in the Genesis story (the story of Gene-(tics)-is) actually a chromosome, not  a literal rib. This is because oral people from many thousands of years ago did not have a word for "chromosome" but only understood such words as bones and ribs, as they understood the story that God gave them. The word "rib" in the Genesis story is an oral representation of the scientific "chromosome". This means the word "rib" is no less true, but a literal rendering of the word "rib" is actually incorrect. An oral rendering is required.

The genetic dichotomy I was referring to earlier? Some where in the genetic history of humanity there is a dichotomy between the people living in Africa and the people living elsewhere in the world. I personally think the location of Eden was either in Eastern Africa (possibly Ethiopia) or even off the coast into the now Indian Ocean. So this makes it easy to consider the "out of Africa" hypothesis. Everyone in the human race who is not African is descended from a small genetic pool. All of the people who are African are from a much more diverse set of genetic pools. I am satisfied that this is a genetic fact. DNA research has shown this theory to be sound. It in no way threatens the integrity of scripture what so ever. But it of course does threaten the (young earth) narrow approach.

This brings me to a very interesting set of new hypotheses. Since we (non-Africans) are genetically less diverse than Africans, it follows that marriage between an African and non-African will always produce a stronger genetic outcome than marriage between two non-Africans. That is, if every non-African married an African from now on, then their offspring would have much stronger immune systems. My hypothesis is that this increased immunity would go a long way to combatting disease in the world. Therefore, Africa is a key to medical security and the future integrity of the human race. We need Africa. Africa needs us.

A spiritual hypothesis can also be drawn from this. If Africa is the hope for the world on a genetic level, then wiping out Africa would be very dangerous for the world. Yet it seems that Africa is always under the most attack in the world. I personally think that the devil would like nothing more than to wipe out Africa, because by doing so there is a much better chance of wiping out the entire human race. So the intensity of the spiritual battle is centred on Africa. There are always more wars, famines and troubles in Africa than anywhere else in the world. The spiritual battles between the growth of the Body of Christ in Africa and the intensity of Black Magic is always at its strongest in Africa. The metaphorical (sometimes spilling over into literal battles) battle between the advance of Islam and the advance of Christianity in Africa is also more intense there than anywhere else in the world.

Africa is where it is at. Africa is key to the world's future. The twenty first century belongs to China and to a lesser extent India, on an economic level. But I think there will come a day when Africa will develop too. This may be a century away still. Perhaps the twenty second century will be the century of Africa in the world.

Hypotheses are fun. An oral understanding of the world opens up our thinking to many new hypotheses.

And so my seed thoughts continue to develop.

A season of detox

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

This is a serious question that I am asking myself. Not because I think it a worthless thing to do, but rather because I really want to follow Jesus. I don't want to follow any man. I don't want to follow the church. I want to follow Jesus.

A major error in Christianity is that people are led to believe that to be a good Christian they must be actively involved in a church. But at subtle levels Jesus is pushed out of the church. Churches and people in them are so caught up with their programs, with convincing people to attend them, run them, financially support them, that they don't have any time left to actually follow Jesus.

I have long known the institutional church to be diseased with this structure of man, preventing the average person from fulfilling their priesthood in Christ. To be a follower of Christ means to also be a priest of Christ. As Jesus is the high priest, all of his followers must also be priests. If I can not be a priest of Christ, then how can I be a follower of Christ?

I desire to be a follower of Christ, therefore I desire to be a priest. To do this, I must be allowed to minister in the priesthood of all believers. Sadly the institutional church does not allow me to do this, and in the process prevents me from properly following Jesus.

I have decided to take a season to detox from the institutional church. I still very much love my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not forsaking them. But I do desire that we can all minister to one another as our High Priest calls us to do.

In my season of detox so far, some lessons have gradually been coming to me. One was that I realised that in my time in the institutional church I had very few friends who were not believers. I had some, but very few. I was also quite bad at being friends with these people. I subconsciously expected them to conform to the sub culture of which I was a part. The sub culture judges people who are different. I now have more non Christian friends than at any time in my life. But something is different. I am sharing the gospel on some level with all of them. In the past I almost kept it a secret from people that I was a Christian. I think one of the reasons for this is that I am not afraid of having to bring these people to church. I can simply introduce these people to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

Part of the toxins that I have swallowed is that I have believed that by practice that I need to attend a ritual temple ceremony (the Sunday morning service) to follow Jesus. In fact, religious Christianity places a very high emphasis on this "sacrament". This has been such a central part of my belief that it is hard for me to imagine that I even can follow Jesus when not attending the temple ceremony. Of course this is a thousand times ridiculous. If I can not follow Jesus outside of the temple ceremony, what good is such a ceremony? My life must be made up of 24/7 passion and commitment to my suffering King.

So I think I am in another stage of my detox now. I am allowed to follow Jesus outside of the temple. I am allowed to Love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength. I am allowed to love my neighbour. I am allowed to exhibit the fruits of the spirit. Most of all, I don't need the endorsement of the temple religion to do so. I only need the endorsement of the King and High Priest.

I am free. But clearing toxins out is a distasteful experience none the less.

When was the world created?

I have always been afraid to post about this topic on my blog, because I am afraid of getting in trouble with a lot of Christians I know for believing something different to them. It's not a major doctrinal point in my opinion. But recently I noticed a fellow blogger post on it, so I got some courage up. He's even quite a conservative evangelical (the kind I am afraid of getting in trouble with), so what the heck?

Here's what I had to post on his blog. I wonder if anyone will bother to respond to my thoughts, I'd love to start a discussion on it:

I am tired of people saying that they read Geneis "literally". It is not a literal text, it is in an oral text. As such it is full of oral devices and ancient oral world view. For us to force our literal world view upon an oral text is very bad analysis of a text indeed.
We can be guaranteed that when the stories of creation were composed the date of creation was not in the slightest bit part of the topic.

In our oral telling of these stories to some Sakha people here in Siberia, we actually started with the creation story of the garden, Adam and Eve. We then moved on to the next story in the garden, when they disobeyed and ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Later we went back to the creation song in Genesis 1, where "everything God made was good." It was quite a surprise to our friends that everything was good, as the world we live in is not good at all. They found the second two stories easier to understand.

By the time we got round to the creation song about everything being good, they were ready to interact with this, as the other two stories had made sense to them. This is certainly what Genesis 1 is all about, contrasting the good and perfect Creator God from all the evil gods in the world around. (Not about when the universe was created.)

(Qualifier, "oral" still means true, just a different filter, a different part of the brain, a different way of viewing and describing the world.)

Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna

My parents in law put this book in my hands a few years ago. It was a sample copy from their book selling business. It never made it on to their distribution line. Perhaps it has too controversial a sounding title?

I started to read it back then, but never continued with it. From my previous posts it is obvious that I have thought about topics of organic and home church for a long time.

More recently I bought Frank Viola's "Reimagining Church" on Amazon Kindle for the iPad. I began to read it, and felt really discouraged. Why? Because I so badly want what is written about in his books, in fact I have even had glimpses and tastes of "organic" or "open particapatory" or house church in my life in the past. But it just feels so impossible for this to happen where I live in Russia right now. I can't imagine any of the Christians I know being interested in organic church. So I put the book down. But I did sign up for Frank Viola's twitter feed. I did this, because he requested to follow me first.

Then Frank tweeted that his book was available on Kindle for $2.99 (it is now $9.99 again), I decided to get it. (I didn't bring many hard copy books here to Russia.) I seem to be a lot more frustrated with my church experience here in Russia, that I was again ready to read it. I also read Neil Cole's "Organic Church" while here in Russia.

One of Frank Viola's recent tweets was a quote: "Once your mind has been stretched it is impossible for it to go back to the shape it once was."  Over the years my mind keeps getting stretched further and further....

I will not give a full review of this book here. What I will do is implore you to read it. Frank Viola and George Barna have done extensive research in backing up their claims in this book. They have hundreds of references in their bibliography and hundreds of footnotes to substantiate their premise.

What is their premise?  That much of the practices we have in the modern institutional church are pagan in their roots and not biblical at all. The book calls us all to authentic worship and expression of the Body of Christ. They are very gracious in their approach towards the institutional church. They have some very important things to say. Everything they say is carefully researched and carefully lines up with scripture.

I know that I need to make a change in my life. I am completely and utterly stuck about how to do this.

I am now on to reading Viola's next book "Reimagining Church", which while full of hope will probably only make me sad about all that I am missing out on in my own Christian walk.

Help me Lord!

Mars Rover "Spirit" and Titan probe "Huygens"- both instruments of worship.

Over the last couple days we have watched a couple of space exploration documentaries. The first was called "Death of a Mars Rover", produced by National Geographic. The second was "Destination Titan", produced by the BBC.

I am always fascinated by space exploration. I have the greatest admiration for the scientists who are involved in these endeavours. Some may think that their activities are a waste of time and that they are of "no earthly good." Nothing could of course be further from the truth.

It is an easy temptation for humanity to be short sighted. Much like in Christianity, people get focused solely on the salvation of the individual and do not stop to realise that God's purposes go way beyond salvation. God's purposes are to establish his eternal kingdom. Salvation is just like getting the citizenship certificate, to say nothing of the civil responsibilities, as well as dreams and aspirations of the King and his citizens.

In a similar way many people do not realise the value of exploring the universe. But I can think of few things of greater value. Space exploration has intrinsic value in itself. We have a duty to understand the universe around us. We have a duty to explore it. In fact this can even be worship. To learn more about God's universe is to glorify him for creating it. For this reason I have the greatest admiration for the scientists who work to explore the solar system and the universe- even if they don't agree with my premise.

Of course there could be far more practical reasons for space exploration. There are undoubtedly many minerals available in our solar system that could be used on earth and to further our exploration. But until we discover minerals that are in low supply on earth (or even non-existent on earth), space mining is on indefinite delay. There can be no doubting that commercial incentives would push space exploration at a rapid pace. Sometimes I feel that this is needed, as on the whole space exploration is moving quite slowly. I still find it a shame that a base has not yet been established on the moon. Science just doesn't seem to be a big enough motivator for the general public, although it is a very worthy cause.

In the two documentaries, remarkable stories were told of success against improbable odds. The Mars rovers were supposed to only last 90 days. But one of them lasted seven years, and the other is still going. Even the stories of their survival, for me are a clue that God is in favour and support of these scientific missions. I can hear God saying, "sure, explore as much as you can, I know you are looking for life in the universe and I know you don't want to be alone on earth, so keep looking, the more you look and the more you search, the more likely you are to find ME." I can hear God cheering along the endeavours to explore Mars and Titan.

The probe that was sent to Titan (in 1997) nearly did not make it. And it even came down to the last three minutes of energy on the probe for it to collect that data that was planned. Success came down to the last second. Now scientists are hoping to send a "boat like probe" to sail the seas of liquid methane on Titan.

The Mars Rover "Spirit".

The Titan probe "Huygens".

An artists impression of Huygens landing on Titan.

I remember watching a documentary on what earth would be like 10 000 years after the last human was gone. It was speculated that perhaps Mt Rushmore would be the last remaining evidence of humans. All other structures would have disintegrated and disappeared. What would someone think if they found Mt Rushmore's presidential tribute? It would have the same unexplained aura as does Easter Island or Stone henge. What does it say about our world?  Perhaps it even says that America worships it's presidents.

But then it has been mentioned that the Mars Rovers will not decay as there is nothing to cause their decay, and that they will likely remain as they are for millions of years if no one goes to Mars. I think it is  a far better testament to humanity to see us exploring the universe, than leaving marks of worship to presidents carved in mountains.

A subtle error: idolatry in the camp of Protestants?

[Before I give my opinion on the topic of Evangelicalism vs Charismatism, I should give full disclosure of myself. (Full disclosure allows people to filter any biases that I have.) I invite you to read the full disclosure before or after my essay. It can be found at the end.]

I first joined an organisation with strong evangelical roots in 2000. I was a member of the Church of Christ at the time. Later in 2004 my wife joined with me, and we were evangelical Anglicans at the time.

The statement of faith of this particular organisation does something that many other evangelical bodies do. It lists its first item as:

WE BELIEVE that the Holy Scriptures, consisting of Old and New Testaments, were originally given by God, divinely inspired, without error, infallible, and are entirely trustworthy and the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice.

I have no problems with the wording of this item as such, but I do have a problem with it coming before the Triune God in the statement of faith. This distinction is subtle, but very important.

Evangelicalism was born in the age of the modernist enlightenment. In the context of atheists arguing with logic that God could not possibly exist, protestants began to formulate their logical arguments of response. Christianity descended to these quarters, from something of mystery (God's ways and thoughts are not our ways; the Spirit blows where it pleases (John 3); no mind has conceived of the mysteries of the gospel (1 Corinthians 2)... etc), to logical systematic theology, ending up with such simple notions of "four spiritual laws" and the sinner's prayer.

Modern evangelicalism sought to explain all matters of faith. It sought to build a logical framework that could not be disputed. Step by step, the bible was dissected into easily understood and irrefutable logic. A point was reached where modern evangelicals could easily explain all things about God, as they understood the Bible in entirety. There was no room left for the Spirit to blow where he pleases. In modern evangelicalism the Spirit is only allowed to blow according to the strict formulas that are logically understood by a mathematical deduction of theology. In short, God was caught in a box, he had been captured, never again to be released.

I have often wondered why Evangelicals are so afraid of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is because rampant pentecostalism has exploited the Holy Spirit for its own materialistic gains, and hyper abusive spirituality. Or perhaps that is just an excuse on the part of evangelicals. Perhaps they are afraid of the Holy Spirit, because they don't want God to escape from the box, where he can easily be controlled. Evangelicals often don't seem to believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, even though this is frequently evident in Acts. They claim that conversion (at the point of the sinner's prayer) brings the Holy Spirit. Even in Acts there were believers who had not yet received the Holy Spirit, such as Apollos. (See my earlier post.)

I have had my times to examine how the evangelical culture of my organisation operates. This has most often been in the context of international conferences. The first of these times was in Europe in 2007. A speaker attended the conference to educate people living in Europe on how to relate to post modernism. People were asking questions such as "how can we communicate the gospel to these post modernists", while I just sat there and thought "hello, I'm sitting right here, I am already a post modern Christian." At the end of the question and comment time a brave man stood up and said something that shocked the whole room at the conference. He said, "we need to go the God beyond the scriptures."  There was a collective gasp across the room. How dare he question the Evangelical God contained within scripture? (Sarcastic emphasis, my own.)  In reality this man was not for a moment saying that he did not believe scripture, he was just saying that God is bigger than scripture, and that God still has freedom to move outside of scripture. Evidently he had struck an evangelical sacred cow.

I sat there cheering this man along as he spoke. Later he was made to apologise before the conference for his errant statements. I participated in a discussion with him and some other leaders of the organisation after the session ended. The argument was made that we can only know who God is from scripture. I disagreed. I argued that we can know God in the following ways:

 1) Through the witness of God in creation.

For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (The Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans.)

I.e- not only is it possible to believe in God from looking at creation, it is also possible to recognise his eternal power and divine nature, and worship him accordingly. I would argue that this is the first witness that every human being receives, not scripture. As the Christian Astronomer Hugh Ross says "God's book of creation, and God's book of scripture will never disagree with one another."  But it is very important to acknowledge that God has another "book" apart from the scriptures.

In the ensuing discussion I threw forth the question- "which Bible did Abraham read when he came to faith?"  This is also a very important question. God taught Abraham how to have faith, and so forth he taught his descendants (of which we are a part).

I would argue that Abraham had God's book of creation, as well as the oral stories that make up the first 11 chapters of Genesis- the prehistory of the the Bible. This was indeed a lot. In fact we see from Genesis that Melchizidek had this same faith and so did Job who lived in the era of the patriarchs. But most of all Abraham had an active living relationship with the Living God. They related back and forth. Dare I say that he even had a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

2) Through the witness of the saints. This may be a bit scary for some evangelicals. It may even sound a bit Catholic or Orthodox. But think about it for a moment. Early believers in the Old Testament all talked about their belief in "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."  It was the witness of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by which they believed, not by a huge body of scripture that we have today. Think about how you came to faith yourself. My guess is that you received the testimony of another believer. This testimony was then confirmed by the Holy Spirit speaking to you, prompting you and then convicting you of sin and righteousness. I know that I came to faith this way myself. It was only much later that I began to understand about the Bible, and how it is useful for teaching and discipleship (2 Timothy). Even Paul, in the context of saying that Christ's death and resurrection are spoken of in the scriptures (he is referring to Old Testament prophecies) goes on to list the testimony of 500 witnesses who saw the risen Christ. (1 Corinthians 15). This witness of the 500 is paramount in establishing his claim for the validity of the entire Christian faith. "Without the resurrection of Christ, we are all fools." So Paul argues that we can be sure that Christ rose because of the witness of the saints. And to add a little fuel to the fire the writer to the Hebrews lists the Heroes of the faith who are our "cloud of witnesses" in chapters 11 and 12.

3) The witness of scripture. In reality, scripture becomes a good way to underline and confirm the witness of creation and the witness of the saints. Also, scripture is a collection full of the testimony of the saints, recorded for all time. Just as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, words spoken without love are as a clashing cymbal; in the same way words on a page do not impact the lives of others without the embodiment of the love of Christ. The words of scripture are as often used to falsely condemn others as they are to point to Jesus' love. This does not mean the words of scripture are somehow bad, it just means that when people do not act in love they have a way of twisting the words of scripture to their own ends. Jesus exhorts us that the world would know that we are his disciples by our love for one another. So even when we use the words of scripture, the testimony of the saints remains imperative.

When it comes to the Bible and God, which came first? It is nonsense to say that we believe in God because the Bible tells us so. This is circular reasoning (and even according to an evangelical framework of logic, must fail the test). The Bible is God's word spoken to us, for sure, but it is like a photo negative that needs to have light come through it for people to see it. The words of scripture are understood under the illumination of the Holy Spirit. We believe in God because of his witness to us through his creation. Later we believe in the Bible because it came to us from God, via the testimony of his saints through the ages. The Bible is a sure and reliable testimony because of the the first two witnesses. God spoke through the prophets. The prophets wrote the words on to the page. Through out the ages, and even today God continues to work through the Holy Spirit and though people. I believe in the Bible because it comes from God. I don't believe in God because it comes from the Bible.

These ideas become controversial in evangelical circles. An evangelical is usually comfortable with the words on the page, but becomes uncomfortable when asked to trust the Holy Spirit while closing the book. But God will never contradict himself, so it is possible for the evangelical to come back to scripture at a later time and find out that the things the Holy Spirit has said remain in the same vain. But we need to learn to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice." Sometimes we don't have time to open up the book, and we need to respond to the voice of the Holy Spirit immediately in our lives.

Another moment at an international conference came recently. Sadly the speaker said something classically evangelical, and classically in error. He wanted to encourage evangelicals to seek the Holy Spirit more. But as his talk unfolded, this was not what he did. He pulled out two scriptures as his proof texts, and then put them through an evangelical filter:

Colossians 3:15-16  Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Ephesians 5:18-19 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord.

The speaker then went on to explain that these two scriptures are so similar that they are essentially the same, and that therefore "the word of Christ" (which he explained is the Word of God; which is the Bible) fills us with the Holy Spirit in our lives. He used the texts to explain to us that reading the Bible more would fill us with the Holy Spirit. He went on to subtly twist these words and make people feel guilty for not having good enough "quiet times". Following his talk there were people in tears, repenting for not reading their Bibles enough. He had successfully condemned them through proof texting an evangelical maxim, that God can only be known through the Bible, and that if you are not reading it (as much as him) then you are not filled with the Holy Spirit. In my opinion his talk was nothing short of spiritual abuse. Pentecostals have been (rightly) accused of spiritual abuse. They have used their position of "touch not the Lord's anointed" to say what ever they please and exert power over people. But this was the evangelical equivalent of spiritual abuse. This man, because he was a "learned bible scholar" and speaking from the pulpit was not to be questioned. His interpretation of the Bible was the "correct" one, and with it he wielded great power. I was saddened and shocked. He had spent an entire sermon, with other proof texts too, telling people that the Bible is essentially the Holy Spirit. This fits into the evangelical trinity: Father, Son and Holy Book.

It is a subtle but grave error that evangelicals can often make. The Bible contains the words of God given to us via his saints. (Yes they are all true- I am not detracting from that for one moment.) But when the Holy Spirit is pushed aside and replaced by a book, this is nothing short of idolatry. This may be hard for people to see. But ask anyone- who is greater, God or the Bible?- the answer must surely be God.

Allow me to offer a different interpretation of the scriptures given. (Admittedly I also have my biases, but I surely hope that I am allowing the scriptures to speak instead of forcing them as my own proof texts.) At the time that Paul wrote his letters, the "scriptures" were what we now know as the Old Testament. When he exhorted believers to let the "word of Christ" dwell richly in them, what could he have meant? I would argue that he was not referring to words on the page. Many of those early believers would not have had words on the page. They would have had stories yes. But until Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them down, they did not have access to many of those particular words of Christ. But they were not lost. They had the Holy Spirit! In fact, this was the whole point. Jesus told the disciples not to worry when he was leaving, because he would send the Holy Spirit to them who would lead them into all truth. Was this just for the disciples so they could then later write the stories down? No! It was for all believers, the Holy Spirit was abundantly made available to all flesh at Pentecost in Acts 2.

So this scripture is referring to the believers all getting together as priests, all sharing a word of wisdom with one another, all keeping one another accountable, all bringing songs to worship the King, all bringing words of prophecy to glorify the Lord and encourage one another. When they all did this together it brought a full, wholistic and broad body contextual representation of the body of Christ, with Jesus as their head. This was the actual Word of Christ. Just as John teaches us that Jesus is the Word made flesh, the full participation of all priests in the royal priesthood of all believers brings about the Word of Christ, Jesus incarnate, this time not as flesh walking but as the Spirit blowing amongst us. The Holy Spirit is the Word!  The Bible is not the Holy Spirit. It is all a question of priority and sequence.

To remove any confusion, it comes down to our definition of the phrase "the word of God."  The Word of God is a person. John teaches us this. The Word of God is not the  Bible. The Bible is the words of God, but not The Word, that must be reserved for Jesus and the Holy Spirit.


DISCLOSURE:

I was raised in the Lutheran church. The Lutheran church is a liturgical church that recites the Nicene creed every Sunday. One of the things I like about the Nicene creed is that it declares faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while only mentioning briefly the scriptures in the context of Jesus raising from the dead. It also mentions that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets (a reference to the scriptures). But the scriptures are never placed in priority before the Triune God.

My family flirted with charismatism and pentecostalism when I was a child. There was a charismatic renewal movement in the Lutheran church. This mostly happened outside of Sunday services in home groups and at retreat style camps. Over the years it did creep into some congregations. This happened more successfully in South Australia and Queensland. In Victoria the Lutheran church carried out a campaign against the charismatic renewal. Over a period of about 20 years they successfully "assassinated" all sources of what they believed to be heresy. This resulted in a lot of people being hurt and abused, including my parents. I left the Lutheran church at the age of 16 in this environment.

My teenage years included membership in a more rampant form of pentecostalism under the banner of the Assembly of God. I was actively involved in the youth group and Sunday evening services. It was in this time that I experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and took on the concept of boldness for Jesus in my faith. In those years I erred on the side of boldness but lacked gentleness and respect. Over the years I learnt the importance of gentleness and respect for someone, when sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Never in my experience though have I rejected my pentecostal experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is still very much a part of who I am. 

For some years I did subscribe to the notions of the prosperity gospel that are regularly preached in the pentecostal church, under the likes of Kenneth Copeland and many others. I now consider those doctrines to be in error.

In late teenage years I became involved with an independent charismatic church. It had a lot less hype than the Assembly of God. This church was on a devolving journey away from institutionalised religion. Over the years the pastor stopped calling himself a pastor, and simply became an elder, along with other elders in the fellowship. The building we met in evolved from hard chairs and rows, to couches and soft chairs in a circle. The style of worship evolved from one priest led to open participatory worship. People began reading books with titles such as "The Open Church".  As a fellowship we began relating to an itinerant Apostle.

I was eclectic in my worship experience. For all the years that I went to the devolving open fellowship, I also continued to associate with hard core pentecostals at a church my sister attended. In those years I also experienced the "laughter phenomenon" that came from the Holy Spirit via the Toronto Blessing. While such experiences have not been normative in my journey- they continue to line up with my relationship with the Holy Spirit as a person who is gentle and loving, yet also extraordinarily powerful.

In my early twenties I left behind both the hard core pentecostal circles and the open church circles, and landed in an extremely post modern embryonic emmergent church. It was called South Melbourne Restoration Community, and was a member of the Australian Churches of Christ (a protestant denomination- not the Boston movement). This fellowship was led by the now famous Alan Hirsch and his wife Debra Hirsch, along with other leaders who are no where near famous, but desired after the heart of God also. My six years in that context led me through a lot of post modern questioning that has been very helpful in my faith. It enabled me to find synergy in all of my previous Christian experiences.

I still look back fondly on my years in South Melbourne Restoration Community. I consider them to be formative, but not conclusive in who I am as a Christian. Alan Hirsch used to talk about "simplicity before complexity" and "simplicity after complexity."  We were all exhorted to wrestle with our faith, to go through the complexity and come out the other side into a deeper and purer simplicity. That is, a simplicity that is grounded in the Eternal God and an active relationship- having tested the truth, but not a naive simplicity that is founded in dogmatism- i.e accepting something as true just because other people say it is, and should never be argued with.

After my time in the post modern emmergent church, I moved to live in Saskatchewan, Canada, where I married my wife. At the time there were no such concepts in Saskatchewan. I sought out a Vineyard fellowship, which advertise themselves as holding the tension of the "radical middle." The Vineyard of course are far from perfect, still being an institutional church. We even currently attend a Vineyard fellowship in our city of residence. It often disappoints for its shallowness.

During this season in the Vineyard in Canada the actual fellowship began to implode under crises of personality in leadership. (A problem that should not exist if everyone is allowed to participate in ministering- but often exists when personalities compete for leadership.) My wife and I again became eclectic, attending the Vineyard sometimes and also the childhood church of my wife, the Anglican church. At first I resisted the Anglican church, because I had come to dislike the stuffiness of a liturgical church. But at such a small country side fellowship it became easier to slot in and appreciate the good things.

Upon returning to Australia, my wife and I sought out an Evangelical style Anglican church in Melbourne. This is the closest that I have come to being Evangelical. Many of the attitudes of people are quite evangelical, but not the same as the Baptist evangelicalism of America. The Anglican church in Australia is still a liturgical church, that recites the Nicene creed (even if the evangelical variety no longer do this every service).