Today I want to share a little about the famous 1662 BCP, as it’s often called for short. For a start, it has almost been as influential on the English language as the King James Bible! Think of such resonant phrases like “ashes to ashes, dust to dust” (Burial of the Dead), or “till death us do part” and “for better for worse” (both in the Solemnization of Matrimony). These come from the BCP, not the Bible! Of course, on the other hand, the concepts and phrases found in such prayer book services reflect deep immersion in the biblical worldview.

The Book of Common Prayer emphasised the centrality of the Bible as God’s word to mankind. It urged its systematic reading at some length, in the language of the people. So it was a book to learn of God, and by which to worship God with others or alone. But it was also a book to live, love and die to! Millions of English-speaking people—both believing and forgiven or indifferent and wicked—have been baptised, married, or buried to its words.

It has travelled the world wherever there were English colonists, traders or missionaries: Canada to Brazil, Nigeria to Sri Lanka. It has also been translated into Gaelic, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Maasai, Hausa, French, Dutch, Italian, Cantonese, Japanese, Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, Burmese, Fijian, Vietnamese and Inuit! Sometimes it has been a nation’s first printed book.

Now it is mostly ignored, a mere cultural memory, copies piled up in church cupboards or gathering dust on dining room bookcases. People today think of its old-fashioned language as being lofty and stately. But I understand that in its day, the BCP’s prose had a certain direct urgency and energy in its exhortations to do business with God, or rather to let him do business with you. And of course, for those who believe its wording is sacrosanct and should never be altered, the BCP’s own preface recognised that language changes over time, and its expression must be updated and adjusted to local circumstances. But its doctrine and patterns remains a legal standard for Anglicans, and its shape influences modern efforts today.

Of course the BCP had a history prior to 1662. The English Protestant Reformer, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer published a first version in 1549. It moved right away from mediaeval Catholicism but was only halfway reformed. It was soon followed in 1552 with a version that gave full expression to Cranmer’s Reformed evangelical doctrine, made politically possible under the keen young Protestant but short-lived King, Edward VI. It was banned under Queen Mary’s bloody counter-Reformation. It was restored under the moderate Protestant Queen Elizabeth I in 1559, but retreated a little from Cranmer’s clarity over the Lord’s Supper. And this pattern continued after the brief English Republic, when the Monarchy returned and as part of that BCP was restored in the standard form that we have today.

Apart from its biblical phrasings, the part I love best is that it ensures all our public praying and exhorting of one another is based solely on the worthiness of the Lord Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death for our sins. The Anglican monk Dom Gregory Dix, (with very Catholic leanings) said the BCP was “the only effective attempt ever made to give liturgical expression to the doctrine of justification by faith alone”. Long may its influence continue!

I was first alerted to the value of the NBD by Phillip Jensen. Year after year, at conferences for uni students and young workers, it was the first book Phillip would recommend from the bookstall, as an essential for any young leader, whether a Sunday School teacher, or a Bible study leader, or just a Christian who wants to know God’s Word better.

Today it’s in third edition, whose consulting editors are I.H. Marshall, A.R. Millard, J.I. Packer, and D.J. Wiseman—respectively a New Testament specialist; an archaeologist, classicist and orientalist; a leading theologian; and an Assyriologist! Three of the four editors have been professors at leading secular universities in Britain. The majority of contributors also have PhDs or other academic doctorates. They are more than qualified.

I understand that in the decades after World War Two, conservative evangelical biblical study was undergoing something of a revival, moving away from a fundamentalist (in the narrow sense) rejection of critical scholarship. The well-informed engagement of men like F.F. Bruce showed that conservative Christian scholarship was capable of proper academic rigour, and restored confidence in the intellectual credibility of evangelicalism.

I imagine that in 1962, the NBD was highly significant in making the fruits of such labours accessible to the much wider Christian audience in the churches.

In the 50 years since, there have been a total of almost 40 reprints of the 3 editions of The New Bible Dictionary! The current edition updated what was already a classic with more recent developments in biblical studies, ancient Near Eastern studies and archaeological finds, with revised and expanded bibliographies.

For the last decade, it has had a new print run almost annually, a remarkable achievement for a reference book, in what I imagine is a relatively small market in a global sense: serious, English-speaking, evangelical Bible readers.

And that’s who should buy a copy of the NBD—serious Bible readers!

From Aaron and Abaddon and Abba (not the Swedish band, but an Aramaic word for ‘father’!) through to Zacchaeus, Ziklag and Zipporah, it contains over 2000, mostly short, articles on the books, characters, places, key words and major doctrines of the Bible. It also provides background info on the history, geography and customs of Israel and the Middle East, and includes maps, family trees, line drawings, diagrams, charts and illustrations. For all that, it still occasionally frustrates me when I search for an entry on a particular topic, but find nothing there. I guess you can’t cover absolutely everything even in over 1200 pages!

In his endorsement of the NBD, the late, esteemed John Stott said, “I doubt if there is any better value for the money today. As a basic book for every thinking Christian’s library, it is indispensable.” Happy Birthday New Bible Dictionary!

Why do we need to change translations?

Our current translation of our pew Bibles in the cathedral is the NIV, last published in 1984 (NIV84). This Bible translation has undergone a major overhaul, with 5% of the text changed in NIV11 from NIV84.

As a result, we are told the ‘old’ NIV will no longer be published. Already it is getting harder to buy NIV84 when you go to a Christian bookshop. In addition, our pew Bibles are gradually wearing out – thankfully from good use – as there are two and even three Bible readings at each of our four Sunday services. This means that sooner or later, churches will have to decide which English version they will adopt for our public reading and preaching of Scripture.

As a Cathedral church for the region, we could also argue we have an extra responsibility to set an example of how to think through this issue.

What was the process in coming to a decision?

The main aim of my previous article was to encourage ministers in particular to help their churches make a decision via a careful and proper process. Here were my points on how churches might choose wisely, which we have tried to follow.

1. We decided not to rush, to take something like 12 months to decide. And I and others have now been thinking on this issue more than that.
2. We narrowed down the options. For me it was HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) and NIV2011. Despite our church’s reasonably high education level, like many other churches, I have judged that the ESV (English Standard Version) is too hard for public reading, with too much archaic language and many clunky sentence structures. HCSB and NIV11 are a good mix of accuracy and readability.
3. Pastoral staff used both options side by side and started to form impressions, from personal Bible reading, study and public use.
4. I involved others, especially leaders in the parish, since it should not be the Minister’s (potentially idiosyncratic) decision alone. Certainly this became a frequent topic of discussion among staff and also others.
5. Since a church Bible is for reading aloud, not just silently, we ensured the options got tried out for public reading. Both the morning and evening congregations got the chance to hear the HCSB used for all readings during one series, and then the NIV11 for the next, and we supplied the sermon text week by week in the bulletin. We gladly received feedback from members across the congregations. It is fair to say that there was no decisive weight of feedback one way or another.
6. I searched out academic reviews, and refused to rely on celebrity endorsements (or criticisms). I found a range of helpful material on the internet, e.g. from Rod Decker, and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, as referenced in my earlier Briefing articles. Since then I have continued to consult academic review material as it appeared. I have also personally consulted a number of faculty members of our own diocesan theological training institution, Moore College, for their advice.
7. We considered portability. It would be good to select a suitable translation that gains wide acceptance around your circles, rather than another good option that only a few choose. This is a harder one for us, since we at St Michael’s have begun the process ahead of most others.
8. We considered the matters of continuity. People get very attached to the Bible translation they have grown up with, and often even memorised. So if a new translation offers some continuity with that, all the better.
9. We considered the important gender issue, but tried not to make it the only issue we used to assess the translations. Where the old NIV had none, the HCSB has a mild gender inclusivity, (e.g. ‘person’ for ‘man’, where it’s generic). The NIV11 is more gender inclusive than HCSB, but not as much as the controversial TNIV. Notably, it used research from the Collins Dictionary organisation to argue its case.

 Why are you recommending the NIV11?

Leaving aside the matter of gender for a moment, from both the staff’s personal study and also from the academic reviews, it is widely agreed that NIV11 is an improvement on NIV84. Better lexicographical information has come to light from the ancient world, and better insights has arisen into the art of translation. Other improvements include such things as the restoration of some important little connective words, like “so”, “as”, “for”, or “then” left untranslated by the old NIV. In addition, some of the old NIV’s language from the 70s and 80s is out of date. E.g. an ‘alien’ then was a foreigner but is now an extra terrestrial from outer space! Although there is always an element of subjectivity, an extensive, book-by-book analysis by scholars of Wisconsin Evangelical Lutherans reported improvements out-weighed poorer choices by two to one ratio. So NIV11 is an improvement over NIV84.

In terms of the HCSB, we did see some idiosyncratic drawbacks, such as inconsistent translation of terminology like Christ or Messiah in the NT, Lord or Yahweh in the OT, good news or gospel in Romans, along with capitalization of pronouns for deity, etc.

However, we would be glad to see it (and the ESV) used at St Michael’s in personal work and study. And I completely respect those in other churches, who adopt either of these excellent translations as their ‘pew Bible’.

In terms of a comparison between HCSB and the NIV11 (and other translations), an analysis by evangelical Southern Baptist lecturer Dave Croteau over a wide variety of test passages and issues rated the HCSB and NIV11 as almost impossible to split and ahead of other candidates, (with ESV also close).

Evangelical blogger, Tim Challies, explained why he preferred a translation on the more literal end of the spectrum, such as the ESV, to one on the paraphrasing end. Now sometimes, the NIV has been spoken of as ‘dynamic equivalent’, moving some way along to the other paraphrase end of the spectrum. But notably, on Challies’ range of test examples, both the NIV84 and NIV11 were usually similar to the ESV, rather than CEV or NLT. It is fair to conclude that the NIV is a fairly conservative translation that is closer to the formal end of the spectrum.

On gender, I have written here before that, in general, I find the NIV11 to be a notable improvement over the controversial TNIV, and although at points I would prefer alternate renderings I find its use of gender inclusive or gender neutral language to be within the bounds of acceptability. It’s worth noting that a fair reading of the controversial verses in question, e.g. 1 Timothy 2:11-15—even in the NIV11—will still sound very strange and conservative to a newcomer brought up in the feminist modern world.

John MacArthur is a hugely influential North American preacher for several decades now, influential before John Piper or Rick Warren or Mark Driscoll. His preference for word-by-word exposition is well known. He also shares a conviction that the gender distinctions in Scripture are precise and deliberate and should be kept intact. But notably Pastor MacArthur was willing to publish his strongly selling Macarthur Study Bible notes in an NIV11 version.

In his words,

“No matter what version of the Bible people are reading, I want to be able to help them understand the meaning fully and accurately. The NIV is the most widely used translation in the world, with millions of users. Some prefer it because they find it easier to read than other translations. All English versions of Scripture have translation problems and ambiguities. That’s one of the major benefits of a good study Bible. The notes and other tools built into the volume can highlight and clarify the proper meaning—or at least give a more precise understanding of what the original text actually says. My prayer is that these insights and explanations, together with the acclaimed readability of the translation, will help illuminate the true meaning and unleash the divine power of Scripture for NIV readers.”

Conclusion

John Woodhouse, Principal of Moore Theological College, gently suggested to me that perhaps I have been too scrupulous on this issue, placing too much emphasis on getting it exactly right which translation to use. E.g. MTC uses different translation each term in their chapel to emphasis to their students that a variety of translations are well within the bounds of acceptability. So we should not fall into the trap of thinking one is clearly better than all the others. So although for reasons of practicality and consistency in our public gatherings, we need to make a choice, his words reassured me as we selected a new pew Bible translation and encouraged me to praise God for several good options.

However, the NIV has been the Bible translation that a couple of generations of evangelical Christians have almost uniformly grown up with. So one very large factor in favour of adopting NIV11 is in the continuity it provides, since NIV11 keeps 95% of the text of the original NIV. Familiar memory verses and the scriptural echoes that rattle round in your head will normally be unchanged. So in the end, our research suggested that NIV11 was an improvement over the old NIV, of approximately equal quality to the HCSB, and that there were no features sufficiently poor to rule it out. It’s the NIV11 for us from here.

However, it frustrated me. As Scott Stephens, the ABC’s Online Editor of Religion & Ethics said, “The Q&A panel was comprised of the two most divisive and respectively reviled proponents on either side of the debate”. There was little common ground on the common good. I was sad to hear that our Anglican Archbishop, Peter Jensen, was unavailable overseas.

Cardinal Pell obviously tried hard to prepare well, and was ready to engage on physics and biology, as well as theology and ethics. But on the science side his answers sounded a little like an undergraduate preparing for exams with a few choice quotes, but not necessarily a deep understanding. Likewise on climate science! Religious leaders ought to be very careful pronouncing on detailed science issues, unless they are genuinely qualified in the area.

Cardinal Pell’s best point here was when he suggested science can tell us how things happen, but nothing about the why. Why was there a Big Bang or a transition from inanimate to living matter? And nothing about ethical problems of life, like “Why be good?” This drew out an honest answer from a Darwinian materialist, when Dawkins said

“Why?” is a silly question. “Why?” is a silly question. You can ask, “What are the factors that led to something coming into existence?” That’s a sensible question. But “What is the purpose of the universe?” is a silly question. It has no meaning.

But Christians welcome the why question. As Cardinal Pell replied, it’s “a very poignant and real question” to ask, “Why is there suffering?” By contrast, in chapter 4 of his book, River out of Eden, Dawkins has said that the universe has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference” and that such things as the crashing of a bus are just “meaningless tragedies”. This is honest atheism. It rules questions of purpose out of bounds and ridicules those who ask them, but has little comfort or meaning to offer of its own.

Cardinal Pell is creedally orthodox, and conservative on personal and sexual ethics. However I am very unhappy at having him as a spokesman for biblical Christianity. Because on Q&A, he managed to insult the Jewish people, question the existence of Adam and Eve as merely mythological, forget whether or not God actually inscribed the Ten Commands for Moses (it’s Exodus 24:12, 31:18, George!), stated that atheists can certainly go to heaven, and pushed the unbiblical ideas of purgatory and transubstantiation (that the bread and wine of Holy Communion literally turn into Christ’s body and blood, but don’t taste any different).

Worse still he said nothing defending the historicity of the central Easter event, the resurrection of Jesus, which is, I believe, a strong point for us. And he did not point people to Jesus for salvation. In fact, of the two, it was the atheist Dawkins, who clearly stated the meaning of Christ’s cross in these words, although sadly only to mock it as a “horrible idea”:

…the fundamental idea of New Testament Christianity […] is that Jesus is the Son of God who is redeeming humanity from original sin, the idea that we are born in sin and the only way we can be redeemed from sin is through the death of Jesus.

Ironically, as God once spoke through Balaam’s ass, Richard Dawkins spoke the truth there.

But God our Creator has set us in a world of beauty, where people—at their best—can paint and sing and write great depths of meaning and magnificence. But sometimes their works require a little effort to penetrate and appreciate those depths.

This year, in an effort to do something different with my wife, Karyn, I’ve determined to try and read one poem a week with her. I am using a book I discovered called A Year with George Herbert by Jim Scott Orrick, subtitled A Guide to Fifty-Two of his Best Loved Poems. I wish I’d chosen something easier at times, but there are profound gems in there.

Take this poem I share with you for Good Friday! I needed to consult the dictionary (hence my hints) and re-read it. But wait till you read the last two lines…

THE AGONY

by George Herbert (1593-1633)

    Philosophers have measured mountains,
Fathom’d the depths of seas, of states, and kings,
Walk’d with a staff to heaven, and traced fountains
    But there are two vast, spacious things,
The which to measure it doth more behove¹:
Yet few there are that sound them; Sin and Love.

    Who would know Sin, let him repair
²
Unto Mount Olivet; there shall he see
A man, so wrung with pains, that all his hair,
    His skin, his garments, bloody be.
Sin is that Press and Vice, which forceth pain
To hunt his cruel food through every vein.

    Who knows not Love, let him assay³,
And taste that juice, which on the cross a pike⁴
Did set again abroach; then let him say⁵
    If ever he did taste the like.
Love is that liquor sweet and most divine,
Which my God feels as blood; but I, as wine.

This Good Friday, I pray you can rejoice in the sweet liquor of Jesus, who loved us and gave himself for us. Though it was won at the cost of his blood, taste it as wine.

This morning John Woodhouse is continuing his series in 1 Timothy. You can follow tweets at #MTCchapel - esv.to/1Tim6.11-16.

First the funny…

• Malcolm Turnbull: Options for Lent – give up (a) alcohol or (b) talking about Rudd/Gillard?
• Jonathan Holmes: If everyone gave up (b) no one would need (a)

[Explanation for those outside Australia. There is a leadership tussle within the federal party of government, between current PM Ms Gillard and the former PM she deposed, Mr Rudd. Mr Turnbull is a prominent member of the opposition party, who was himself once ousted as party leader in a similar showdown! Mr Holmes is a media commentator.]

Then there are people like Noel Piper who twittered, promising,

“Beginning tomorrow–Ash Wednesday–I’ll post daily Lenten Bible readings to turn our hearts toward the cross.”

That sounds like it’s heading in the right direction! And indeed, my esteemed older colleague, Reg Piper, from whom I learn so much, published a great little daily Bible study guide for Lent in 2011 called Ephesus and the New Humanity, which many people found helpful.

On the other hand, a leading public Australian Christian leader, Tim Costello (whom I admire for his gambling reform campaign) tweeted:

It’s the beginning of Lent and 40 days to focus on what matters most in life. To love God, our neighbours and the world good place to start.

I realise Twitter only gives you a very limited letter count, but this sounds like an invitation to a potentially Christless Lent. And what matters more in life than my efforts to love anyone are God’s efforts to love sinners like me – perfectly executed in the death of Christ.

Over on Facebook, a Matthias Media author, John Dickson, gave some suggestions…

Lent begins … and here are the rules (for Reformed Anglicans, anyway): 1. 
Choose something from which to abstain as a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice at Easter. 2. Abstain from it from Wed 22 Feb until Easter Day, excepting all the Sundays of Lent – which are Feast days in the Christian calendar (and so the 46 day lenten period adds up to a 40 day fast). 3. Think of Christ’s death for sins just a little bit more than usual. 4. Don’t show off
. Enjoy.

Apparently, it’s “Reformed Anglican” because it’s in the Book of Common Prayer, and a commenter pointed out that Cranmer’s newly minted collect for the first day of Lent threw away the heavy fasting “by works” emphasis and prays…

Almighty and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all those who are penitent; Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Another commenter, also a friend, said,

Need to recover the Christian calendar. 40 days of intensive wrestling in prayer is good for the soul.

It’s hard to argue against all this. But the “need to recover” sentiment helped me work out why I’m a bit worried. Why do we need to recover Lent? It’s not a festival or season commanded in Scripture.

And (maybe I am being insensitive to the relaxed way language is used on Facebook) it worries me to talk about “rules” for Lent. Because none of John’s rules are terrible, unless you think the first rule means you must or should abstain from something for Lent.

But I don’t think fasting or any particular abstention is ever urged on us as a spiritual necessity at any particular time. And why should we “think of Christ’s death for sins just a little more than usual” at Lent? Is there ever a day we should think a little less of it?

As I say, I am being picky. But I’m a little uneasy at how excited everyone seems about Lent. Yes, it may be Anglican. Yes, it may be used for useful purposes. But no, Lent isn’t commended, let alone commanded, anywhere in Scripture as far as I can see!

All this forced me back to the Bible to reflect a bit more. (Finally!)

Firstly I thought of Romans 14…

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. (NIV84)

OK, Paul happily accepts people who consider certain days or seasons as more sacred than others. I should assume the absolute best about my Christian brothers and sisters, even if I don’t share their view on special days or seasons. And I am sure that however Noel or John or Reg or Peter acknowledge Lent, they absolutely do so to the Lord and give thanks him. Clearly Lent can be and is used for good purposes.

Romans 14 continues…

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. [...] 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.

So it’s crystal clear: I must not judge brothers who choose to observe or emphasise Lent.

But… there is that stumbling block thing. We must be concerned for the weaker brother. Because difficulties might arise for him from our attitudes or actions with one of these disputable matters.

And here my mind turned to Colossians 2…

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

The Bible testifies that humans have an inveterate tendency towards turning religious ritual – even good religious ritual like prayer or song – into a substitute for trusting Christ and God’s provision of mercy through the cross.

Colossians itself warns us about those who get all enthusiastic about not handling, not tasting and not touching (Col 2:21-22). There is danger there that such religious works displace grace.

And so I am still a bit worried that all the enthusiasm for Lent, all the urgings of the need, wisdom, or great spiritual value of giving something up or adding some special activity could unwittingly lead some others in such a direction (not withstanding warnings against it).

Probably not for the urger. But what of the urgee?

The reality is Christ. Do we need anything more?

This twit will give the last word to another tweeter, Glen Scrivener (of the superb King’s English website, celebrating the message and language of the KJV!) Perhaps his tweet gets it righter than me!

Neither Lent nor refraining-from-Lent means anything. What counts is the new creation. Galatians 6:16

Actually, let’s make Galatians 6:14 the last word, for the best context of all!

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

(I wrote yesterday of the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin which also occurs this Sunday, which not even many Aussies know much about.)

The Judsons became pioneers in Buddhist Burma, a nation of tyrants and no freedom of religion, of war with Siam (i.e. Thailand), of cholera, malaria, and dysentery. Six years passed before they saw their first convert. In that time, their first two children died. A few years later, Judson was imprisoned and tortured. Caring for him over those 17 months broke Ann’s health. Eleven months after his release, she died, soon followed by their third and last child.

Explaining why she went to Burma, Ann wrote to a friend,

I feel willing, and expect, if nothing in Providence prevents, to spend my days in this world in heathen lands… I have about come to the determination to give up all my comforts and enjoyments here, sacrifice my affection to relatives and friends, and go where God, in his Providence, shall see fit to place me.

A comfortable life for their kids was not the Judsons’ great ambition.

Instead it was to see many Burmese converted to Christ and saved for all eternity from sin and judgement.

And by the time Adoniram died, there were 8,000 believers gathered in 63 churches; the Bible was translated and a Burmese dictionary complete. Today there are hundreds of Christian churches in Burma, often struggling, but tracing their origin to the Judsons’ work (many of them Baptist, since the Judsons were baptistic).

I imagine there are also Burmese congregations, often comprising refugees from that land, in a number of Western nations around the world. Certainly there’s a wonderful newish ministry at the reformed and evangelical Wollongong Baptist Church – our good friends just down the road from us at St Michael’s. It has services both in Burmese and Karen languages!

I am remembering to pray for their ministry this week. A number of their kids are in our SRE (Scripture) classes in our local public schools and they are lovely. Some of the Burmese refugees have some sad stories though.

Of course, numbers were not the real marker of the success of Adoniram and Ann Judson. Their success 200 years ago was seen in suffering, patiently enduring hardship and opposition for Christ’s sake.

Note: Readers in the know will realise that I have drawn heavily on John Piper’s biographical sketch of Adoniram Judson entitled “How Few There Are Who Die So Hard!”. Simply inspiring.

And to those few readers who have never checked out Piper’s back catalogue of biographical sketches of Christian leaders, check them out right now! (Audio is great to listen to for personal challenge and edification, though you usually need over an hour per talk. The full text is great to return to for the detail to use as excellent sermon illustrations.)

Lastly, a friendly thank you to Joy Horn over at Evangelicals Now for her excellent annual round up of anniversaries of relevance and interest to the evangelical world (at least those of us who care a bit about history!)

Because Australians are not always very good at history and The Briefing originates here, I think they are worth noting. They may be of interest to others too.

The first is the bombing of Darwin, during World War II. It began 9:58am, 19 February, 70 years ago, in 1942. For the first time, the effects of a war which had raged mainly on the other side of the world – albeit at the cost of thousands of Australian soldiers’ lives – were felt on home soil. Arguably it was the most dreadful emergency of our history.

It was widely feared then that the Japanese planned to invade Australia, though it seems more likely to historians now that Darwin was attacked for its wider strategic defence value (as a port and airfield staging post for the war in South East Asia).

Today, most Australians know next to nothing of these events, perhaps because Darwin’s population then was much tinier. Details were also kept from the great bulk of Australians down south, presumably for morale’s sake.

Perhaps it’s also because most Australians aren’t very interested in history (certainly not as much as my superficial impression of North Americans). But I have been surprised to discover that [sources: frontlineaustralia.com.au (pdf); National Archives]…

• music and theology
• theology of work
• end of life ethical matters
• acts of God and natural disasters.

The latest CASE magazine thinks all about Christmas: its incarnational theology, its marketing, its use in literature and so on.

A couple of articles also bemoaned the lack of serious Australian poetry and song connecting Christ’s nativity with the Australian context.

I doubt I will ever make a contribution to solving that problem. But I was reminded of the brief friendship I made with Adrian Lane, who was tutor at Moore College for one year, when I was a very green young theological student, and before he went off to teach at Ridley.

He was very kind to me. More importantly, for the purposes of this blog, he is a published poet with his volume Southpaw. I hope he won’t mind me sharing his Australian Christmas contribution…

Southern Christmas

The season’s wrong, the reasons wrong
We only want to party
The light is long, the heat is high
Drought makes brown, wind makes dry:
No candle for a baby.

But the season’s right, the reasons right
We must indeed have party
For God has come to heal his home
So sail and swim and rest and feast:
It’s God who makes the party.

The flame’s been lit, the darkness gasps
Soon will the serpent’s head be crushed
This peasant king, this shepherd lamb
The others know and kneel before
Has made his home the undersphere
All for love’s sake has chosen poor:
He’s in our hands! –
Never will south be honoured more.

If you are into poetry, especially Aussie poetry by a Christian, you could order Adrian’s book from Ginninderra Press (scroll down, or search in this page for “Lane”).