I am interested in the mortgage stress issue in Sydney, and in particular, Western Sydney.

See for example the National Nine News online article titled, More home owners defaulting on loans.  See wider, a Wesley Creditline whitepaper suggesting that a significant percentage of the Sydney population face anxiety about personal finances.

Elsewhere in the forums, I posted a note about a ministry event I am due to host in St Mary’s on October 19, 2008.  There were two subsequent queries / concerns addressed to me (repeated below on this current page).  I will post my response to these queries, and any future queries, under this general discussion topic.

The first of the two queries / concerns is:

What happened to “Giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s?”

Jesus is Lord over all the earth, but I would still end up in jail if I walk out of a shop without paying for a widescreen TV I liked. Using the “Jesus is CEO of this store and has forgiven my debt” argument ain’t gonna cut it I’m afraid.

I note that the theology of the drama ministry purposes to be aligned with N.T. Wright’s exegesis of Romans.  For one of N.T. Wright’s wider academic discussions relevant to the tribute question, please see Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans.  Here, the introduction notes: “There is a quantum leap now being made from the old way of reading the Bible, in which certain political ‘implications’ could be drawn here and there from texts which were (of course) about something else, and the occasional concentration on rather isolated texts — one thinks of the ‘Tribute question’ in the synoptic tradition, and of the notorious first paragraph of Romans 13 — as being the only places in the New Testament at least where real ‘political’ issues came to the fore...”

If you are asking me how I would apply Jesus’ response to the tribute question, I propose the following (based on Matthew 22:21): “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God [the Script Writer] the things that are God’s [the Script Writer’s].” Per the information on Our Performances, Jesus is the Script Writer of the Allegiance Drama Body. 

On the second statement about the widescreen television, do our eyes weep for the person taking the widescreen television (re the moral epistemology titled Grace above knowledge I mentioned earlier)?  If you wish, please restate your second statement more clearly.  I find the statement hard to address.

The second of the two queries / concerns is:

Will Jesus forgive home loan debts?

All well and good, but what will he do for us renters?

The Allegiance Drama Body invites wise Christian leaders to participate and help discern Jesus’ will for the performances.  The following is only one suggestion (I note again that I am seeking wise Christian leaders to help shape the performances):  One scenario for the performance could be that the people who are no longer paying off a monthly mortgage debt (if their debts are forgiven?) give their surplus money to others who are paying rent.  Also, perhaps when some people who hold investment property come to believe that Jesus is the CEO and Shareholder of Australia’s major banking institutions, they may wish to give half of their investment properties to the poor.

help discern Jesus’ will for the performances....
The following is only one suggestion (I note again that I am seeking wise Christian leaders to help shape the performances):

Well, if we want to know what Jesus “will for the performances” is don’t we just go back to the bible, and maybe also digest what some Sydney Anglican groups have already published on that? “Cash Values” from Matthias Media would be a good start.

I’m no fan of N.T. Wright’s broader re-categorising of how we are saved, let alone his political take on things. The “church and state” debate is complicated enough without injecting Wright into it.

One scenario for the performance could be that the people who are no longer paying off a monthly mortgage debt (if their debts are forgiven?) give their surplus money to others who are paying rent.  Also, perhaps when some people who hold investment property come to believe that Jesus is the CEO and Shareholder of Australia’s major banking institutions, they may wish to give half of their investment properties to the poor.

Something about the “Jesus is CEO” line makes me shudder. It smacks of some form of “Christian communism” — or some “ism” — and it scares even me. Many here will tell you I’m far lefter/greener than they are comfortable with, so the fact that I’m uncomfortable is saying something!

The basic questions here seem to be what do Christians do with money?

Are we all destined to seek (and serve!) the “McMansion McLife in the McSurubs McMammon”? Or would the rich amongst us give their money to the gospel, so that clear Christian teaching on the place of money in our lives might change our hearts, kill some greed, and we turn around and find that many of these problems are already solved by Christian generosity? Maybe if we focus on the gospel primarily, instead of insisting Jesus is the CEO of the banks (when He isn’t, the bankers are!), then we might come up with some general priorities for money in all sorts of context, even those Christians that might actually be the CEO of a bank.

Many here will tell you I’m far lefter/greener than they are comfortable with

Dave,

I don’t know about the “comfortable with” phrase. But, when I was growing up as a young lad, I do recall my mum telling me to eat all my greens ;)

I’m on an Aussie version of “Atkins” at the moment that gives me heaps of meat to eat (ug! Grok kill mammoth and eat in one sitting!) but sadly also includes mutant amounts of greens as well. I sit there munching and munching and munching and Joy starts laughing at my face. Green things start falling from my mouth as my distressed bottom lip starts quivering, and Joy cracks up as I complain that “If I eat another leaf I’m going to turn into a bush!”

Oh no. I just saw the time. It’s 4:39. That means dinner is only an hour or so away. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh! Bleeeeewwaaaarrrrrgh! Blooohoohohoooohaaaarrgh!

(sorry, I think I’m developing an allergy).

Dave Lankshear - 02 October 2008 06:40 PM

“If I eat another leaf I’m going to turn into a bush!”

Yes, but I’m sure that it wouldn’t be a ‘george w. bush’.

Dave Lankshear - 02 October 2008 06:10 PM

without injecting Wright into it.

What about injecting Dave into it when he’s clearly not (W)right! ;)

Cheers,
Andrew

I’m sorry if I miss something here, but what’s the point in trying to set up a theological Aunt Sally (And I dont know enough of N T Wright- or any other theologian to comment on this).

There are two issues here as I see it. The first is pastoral, what as a church can the body of Christ do for those who are suffering mortgage stress? Can we for example have co operative home loans, -that is people lending money even at perhaps normal interest rates and the church on lending that money at the same rate (its been done on small scale for years- families often do that sort of thing). Can the church ‘buy’ equity in some houses- something vaguely similiar to that was advocated by the Nobel Laureate J E Stiglitz in the American news magazine “The Nation” though he was adocating the purchase of the bonds - in the long term the investment should have a positive return. I am sure there are many more ways beyond just emergency relief (though that too may be very important).

the second is prophetic and evangelistic, What a great chance to preach that greed is not good, that there are more enduring values then McMansions, that people matter.  The Archbishop of Melbourne called for a colonial day or repentence when the Victoriain ecnonomy collapsed in the 1890s* I remember that Canon Hammond founded “Hammondville” to give those evicted a home and 70 years later its still going strong, a testament to the forethought and vision of the diocese in an earlier age.

And it would do so much more then a lot of the ideas that seem to be tossed around - it would get out to where (As an earlier thread noted) the church in Sydney seems to have gone - the middle west

* This is referred to inM Cannon’s the Land Boomers -an excellent book which I dont have to hand so I cant give you the page reference but I do urge you to read it and see just how history repeats itself - or as my desk calender notes “the worst thing about history is that when it repeats itself the price goes up- Bush wants 700 billion to protect his cronies and that bail out will do little to protect the main st banks in the USA)

Dave Lankshear - 02 October 2008 06:10 PM

Well, if we want to know what Jesus “will for the performances” is don’t we just go back to the bible, and maybe also…

Dave,

Your post has some broad themes, but I will narrow in on (what I consider to be) the key question.

Broad themes include:

(a) The interpretation and authority of scripture
(b) Existing Anglican material
(c) Reservations with N.T. Wright’s theology
(d) Church and state debate

I propose the key question is, “What is the primary meaning of ‘the gospel’”?

The answer we give to this question is related to themes (a), (b), (c) and (d).  For instance, the answer is related to the way that we interpret scripture.  Existing Anglican material like “Cash Values” (thank you for suggesting this material) may assume a particular meaning of ‘the gospel’.  Concerns with N.T. Wright’s theology may mean that we have not read what he has to say specifically about ‘the gospel.’ Lastly, our understanding of ‘the gospel’ may be related to how we see issues of church and state.

The question is critical because the Allegiance Drama Body purposes to announce and believe ‘the gospel’ as the primary response to mortgage stress.  So we are getting to the heart of the response to mortgage stress that I am advocating.

I answer that the primary meaning of ‘the gospel’ (and as articulated on the ministry website under Our Theology) is the good news / royal messianic proclamation that the crucified, buried and bodily risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world.  For an importantly nuanced discussion of this primary meaning, see [N.T. Wright’s essay titled ‘Gospel and Theology in Galatians’ (PDF)].

Building on this answer and assumption, and because kingship is not appreciated by the Western worldview, the Allegiance Drama Body uses modern-equivalent terms for kingship.  For example, Governor General, Prime Minister, Minister for Defence, Chief Justice, Shareholder, CEO, etc.  Then, to help announce Jesus’ Kingship in modern-equivalent terms, we distribute Jesus’ business cards.  Business cards communicate job title and professional status in a symbolic and publically recognisable way.

The basic questions here seem to be what do Christians do with money?

For me, the basic questions are not what Christians do with money, but what Christians do with ‘the gospel.’ What does it mean to believe ‘the gospel’?  To say to people, come and see?  What does faith, allegiance, and loyalty to the King (and CEO, Shareholder, etc.) look like, and how do we respond now, cooperatively, bodily, on stage (and on earth) as in heaven, as a faithful bride?  Here, the Allegiance Drama Body is purposed to be a special example of a faithful bride, beautiful and attractive to her husband, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I suggest that when you and I are talking about ‘the gospel’, we have a different primary meaning in mind.  This is most apparent to me when you say, “Maybe if we focus on the gospel primarily, instead of insisting Jesus is the CEO of the banks...” For me, and according to my answer to the key question, to announce ‘the gospel’ is to announce that the crucified, buried and bodily risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world (and in todays terms for kingship, the CEO and Shareholder of Australia’s major banking institutions).

If you wish, please articulate further why “the Jesus is the CEO [and if I may add, Shareholder] line” causes you concern.

It is the basic shape and premise of Our Performances that King Jesus really is the CEO and Shareholder of Australia’s major banking institutions, onstage (and on earth) as in heaven.  Then and depending on the will of the Script Writer, the bankers you speak of may or may not have the same authority (or receive the same allegiance) in the onstage world – it depends on how the play is written.  Jesus is the husband of the bride, the bankers are not.  What does it look like when Jesus is running the show?

It may be important to here note that per the information for new actors, actors may well be called to follow Jesus’ example of taking evil upon themselves, while prayerfully groaning in the power of Holy Spirit, and responding with agape.

Tell me, as Jesus is bodily in heaven, how are we to take his directives? Memo’s? Commands?

As Jesus is not physically present with us, I’m sticking with the mandate we find in the bible which is one of individual salvation bringing us into the family of God, the church, which has been able to survive and thrive under multiple political regimes. Stop reading Wright and start with some Augustine, because it sounds like you are trying to cut out one of the “2 cities” we inherit.

Basically I accept the Moore College view of the division of “Church and State” which is a concept we find the Apostle Paul advocating in Romans. We cannot legislate godliness. So until there’s a massive theological shift in the conventional understanding of “Church and State” I’m sticking with the Moore College view, voting for the political party I think will do the least overall damage to society, and getting on with the real business of gospel work — my scripture teaching to the kiddies.

Meanwhile I continue to shudder at the idea of Australia being the modern world’s first Christian theocracy.

Dave Lankshear - 06 October 2008 04:25 PM

Tell me, as Jesus is bodily in heaven, how are we to take his directives? Memo’s? Commands?

Surely you’ve heard about communicating through cyberspace via the internet !
And I’m also sure that in Heaven they only use iMacs ;)

Come on! In Heaven everyone has a Mac-Pro 8 core with the full 32 gigs RAM, and the next CPU ugprade automatically built into the pricing package!

I thought everyone was just lead by the spirit in heaven! That’s how all good Christians hear God today after all!

Dave Lankshear - 06 October 2008 08:57 PM

Come on! In Heaven everyone has a Mac-Pro 8 core with the full 32 gigs RAM, and the next CPU ugprade automatically built into the pricing package!

Yes- that’s what I meant to say. I was just using the term ‘iMac’ in the generic sense like “Apple” - and didn’t want to make others feel inadequate and under resourced for their heavenly experience. In other words - it is not ‘PC’ to talk about the ideal perfect computer preferences on this thread.

‘PC’ to talk about the ideal perfect computer preferences on this thread.

Touché!
(Or is that Tissh Boom!)

Peter Kirsop - 03 October 2008 10:46 AM

I’m sorry if I miss something here, but what’s the point in trying to set up a theological Aunt Sally (And I dont know enough of N T Wright- or any other theologian to comment on this).

Do you mean of my stating that the ministry strives to stand by N.T. Wright’s interpretation of Romans, while nevertheless remaining open, alert and willing to learn from other interpretations?

I had not before heard the phrase, “Aunt Sally”.

I now understand it can mean setting something up to be deliberately and subsequently knocked down.  While I have set up an assumption, no, it was not for it to be deliberately knocked down.  The opposite was the case – I set up the assumption in order for it to stand as a solid foundation for the ministry.

Alternatively, the phrase can refer to creating something for the purpose of attracting negative attention.  While I do not like negative attention, I do appreciate that negative attention may be associated with the assumption.

It may help if I comment on my perspective of the assumption:

Without being specific, I believe that Christian theology in society (including colleges, book stores, popular opinion, tradition, etc.) suffers a misinformation problem.  Simply, there is a lot of erroneous or inaccurate theology about.  Then, I observe that much Christian theology stems from Romans.  Depending on how we read the epistle, we may, through time, create an array of theological assumptions that subsequently influence colleges, book stores, popular opinion, tradition, etc.  But, rather than standing by a particular college, book store, popular opinion or tradition, I am identifying a common root (Romans), then defining (by selecting N.T. Wright’s interpretation of Romans) a set of assumptions about the common root, and standing by those assumptions…

Importantly, the ministry ultimately strives to stand by St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by standing by N.T. Wright’s interpretation of Romans.  As mentioned above, and as noted on the ministry website under Our Theology, the ministry is to remain open, alert, and willing to learn from other interpretations.  The ministry stands by N.T. Wright’s interpretation of the epistle not because it is N.T. Wright’s interpretation (as much as I admire and respect N.T. Wright and his scholarship), but because it is the clearest and most coherent interpretation of Romans of which I am aware.

Please advise if you wish me to further articulate my reasons for creating the assumption.