Christian Life

I’ve just read (in the transcript online – I’d got home long before this point) Andrew Brown’s conclusion to the programme:

But what can we change? What should our arrangements be? We can’t disentangle the problems of children from those of adults. The government, too, sends families mixed messages. They are to be, in Gordon Brown’s great phrase, “hard working families”. But do the hardest-working families have the happiest children? The evidence suggests that they don’t and that it’s the family which plays together that stays together. In fact it’s hard to resist a rather heretical conclusion. Most of what we have seen as the peculiar horrors of modern childhood seem to arise from a lack of authority: they can, in shorthand, be blamed on the Sixties. But that was a complicated decade, with good as well as bad; and one of the distinctive attitudes of the Sixties was a distrust of money, and a belief that material success should not be the measure of everything. We’re never going to get away from a society that cares about status. But one in which status is measured only by material success makes us, and our children, needlessly miserable.

I had to laugh out loud in the car on the way home from standing committee last night. I often have Radio 4 on in the car, engine starts up for a ten minute journey, and I catch some snippet of something.

Last night, the programme was Analysis, looking at the UNICEF report that said Britain’s children are amongst the unhappiest in a developed nation. No, the laugh-out-loud (shortened to LOL, by the way) moment wasn’t the continuity reader accidentally calling us an undeveloped nation, although that was funny.

Looks like David F is about to deliver a splendidly helpful talk.

Yes, the notes on his blog leave us with a lot of gap-filling to do. But better to have these notes to fill the gaps in that not even have those. Thanks, David.

A risky thing to claim – that we should expect to fight and lose.

Numbers 14: The people are judged for what? Deciding the enemies are too mighty to be beaten.

That was then. Since then the enemy has been beaten. Dare we risk angering the Lord in a similar way?

That's exciting news.

Phil Sowerbutts is to be the next vicar of Castle Church, Stafford. He starts after Easter.

Welcome to Lichfield Diocese, Phil - it'll be a joy to work near you.

Exodus says 600,000 (rough numbers). So does Numbers. Some modern scholars try to say it can’t be that simple.

Arguments too and fro will be many – but may I note the contribution that Numbers 3 ought to make?

Note to self.

There is a debate when it comes to Exodus 12-13: Do the firstborn Israelites inherently belong to God, or do they belong to him because of the Exodus? From memory, Peter Enns goes for the former, but I could be wrong about that.

Numbers 3:13 - (I have all the Levites by substitution...) "...for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine: I am YHWH."

Isn’t penal sub lovely.

Lev 9:24: “And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the pieces of fat on the altar, and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.”

Exodus 23:1-3: You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.

I’ve got so tired of hearing people, who find irresistible appeal in Open Theism, citing Mark 7:24-30 that it’s time to say something. The appeal is made without consideration to: (i) the Chalcedonian need not to confuse Christ’s two natures, and (ii) the dynamics of human relationships that are playing out. The claim is: Here is an example of God changing his mind.