I took some time to visit the page you provided the link for, and after reading through Piper’s extremely thought provoking sermon, I then moved on to Piper’s website where I was able to download a free copy of ‘Desiring God’ in PDF format:

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/online-books/desiring-god

Wonderful to have a new good book to read; I’m looking forward to exploring the doctrine of Christian Hedonism, and determining if it is for me a doctrine supported in God’s Word or not.

If I grasp the concept correctly, it is intriguing to think that some forms of self-denial are self-destructive and even anti-God in nature. For me, if it is a true concept, then it may well result in a dramatic transformation of my relationship with God and in turn my worship of Him.

The event recorded in 2 Samuel does appear to highlight David’s sense of joy in worship of God: I am inclined to believe that David was swept away by an emotional response to God. In 2 Sam 6:13 it records that the procession had travelled only six paces before David felt moved to make sacrifices to God, the reason given being the fact that David had left Obed-edom with gladness (v.12).

This would incorporate for me both self-interest and des-interest (or a more positive term might be God-interest). David experiences both personal joy and pleasure while at the same time being able to disregard self-interest, being wholeheartedly given to worship of God: a state of being in worship that I very much desire to experience myself.

Your comment reminded me of how I had been taught in the past by my Christian leaders, that obedience is of greater importance than feeling “Attend the worship service whether you feel like it or not; whether it benefits you or not; whether you feel you can contribute or not.” I now see how cold and mechanical in nature that is: not life affirming, but rather soul destroying. For all the good things that my spiritual home provided, unfortunately there was much legalism as well.

As I write I’m mindful of Jesus stating that He had come to give us more abundant life (John 10:10). I have often been troubled by that saying, for I have not experienced this reality, but rather the opposite, an ongoing sense of dying. It seems that many fellowships teach things that lead to greater death not greater life. Yes, God’s Word does teach about dying to self, but where is the balance in Christ’s body? Perhaps the doctrine of Christian Hedonism can provide the foundation that enables us to come to God for the solution, applied to us via His Holy Spirit: for if we refuse and actively fight against our emotions, would the Holy Spirit resist us?

Again, thank you Francois, my God return to you many fold the blessing His has give to me through your comment.

During the past week, after reading Chapter 1 of Romans, I’ve been thinking on the nature of humbleness, its relationship to pride, and how in practical terms a believer might develop greater humility and live it before God and others. Coming by ‘chance’ across your posting has provided me with yet another angle to consider this from.

One particular thought that I take from what you wrote is based on your comment regarding how we should come to worship, that we “…need to be less conscious of ourselves and more focused on him…”, to put off our robes so to speak.

However, I am inclined to think that David not only removed his royal garments, but actually put on the humble cloth of a priest: at this point in time I do not know if an Ephod would be worn beneath royal garments, if someone does know, and can provide a source, I hope they would post it here.

Could it be that rather than stripping down to under garments, as you suggest, David in fact exchanged his clothing, his symbols of authority, for the Ephod, a garment of submission and dependence, that he did this to make animal sacrifices to God, as mentioned in 2 Sam 6:13?

The Ephod, as I have come to understand it, is an outer, not inner, garment: other items, such as a breast plate, were worn over it. John Wesley writes that 1 Chronicles 15:27 states ‘…David was dressed just like all the other priests and Levites in this procession. The usual habit of the priests and Levites, in their sacred ministrations yet sometimes worn by others, as it was by the young child Samuel; and so David, who laid by his royal robes, and put on this robe to declare, that although he was king of Israel, yet he willingly owned himself to be the Lord’s minister and servant’, which in my opinion echoes David’s declaration to Michal, that it was the Lord who raised him up.

The story of David’s dancing, and Michal’s response, is for me primarily the issue of humility verses pride; David with no thought for his own status while Michal, seated up on high in the palace, appears to have thought for nothing else. Michal evidences both a preoccupation with status, and an apparent disregard for God and His priests, referring as she does to them as ‘foolish ones’ (2 Sam 6:20).

It seems to me that Micah’s feelings towards David are deeply rooted in the fact that he, a simple shepherd, has been raised in place of her own father, something which would provide very fertile ground for the development of her attitude towards her husband. Indeed, David’s response to her taunt includes mention of how her father had been displaced, with David being raised up in his place, which very much speaks to status.

Believe it or not this was intended to be a short post. Nonetheless I have very much enjoyed writing these comments, and I thank you Ian for motivating them. God bless you, and all those who read your thoughts.

I can’t believe now that I rejected God for so long, it seems another life….I pray all come to Jesus as once he is king of your life it’s so much better and you know that at least He loves you.

God Bless You.

I manage the Lake Moogerah Caravan Park. Just wondering if your camp is to be held at Camp Moogerah or with us. Just that I don’t have any booking here for your group and want to confirm that you are actually going to Camp Moogerah. Look forward to hearing from you. Regards Robyn

Thank you and Happy New Year from Lucy, Evan, Elijah and Elmo <3

We are able to organise a Christianity Explained course at your convenience. One method that is popular is for us to coordinate someone who is close by to come to your home one evening each week for the six week course. The sessions normally take approximately one hour. If your home is not suitable we have some alternative venues.

In the sessions you do not need to know anything about the Bible. You won’t be asked to read, pray or answer questions. You will be given every chance to discuss.

You are welcome to give us a call (or email) and we can make some further arrangements.
Our contact details:
John and Angela Hamilton
Phone: 07 3371 2512
Email: john@metrowest.cc

Looking forward to hearing from you further.
Kind regards,

John & Angela

Kind regards
Tracey Laing

Roger

The content in particular is very good; I get the strong image of a church leadership that has a genuine, down to earth commitment to God, through Christ.

Well done!

See: http://www.citybibleforum.org/sydney/sydney-staff

Is this something that someone who has never played a musical instrument can get into ?!?!

I have a friend living in Brisbane with her husband. Both are elderly and very lonely – they are exZimbabwean farmers. They live in Cleveland – any chance they can be put in touch with other Zimbabweans?

Thanks Jenny

The venue is also great for kids and it is important to have a good sunday school for the children and youth.

Really good to see Ian (or was it Bruce) inspired people to “go the extra mile” (literally!

Jeff.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/media/video/war_religion/

See ya
Dana

The first and second World Wars, arguably the largest conflicts in history, did not have religious roots. The Cold War and associated physical manifestations in Korea & Vietnam were not religious. Nor are many of the tribal conflicts in Africa.

Ideas (whether religious, atheistic/social or tribal) can be very potent tools for directing human aggression, but does that mean that they are inherently evil? It seems to me that the common denominator in these situations is not an idea or even brand of thought (such as religion), but rather humanity. We seem to be exceptionally good at hating and conflicting with one another.

Richard Dawkins thesis in The God Delusion is that faith is the enabler for the spread of destructive/divisive religion. He asserts that faith by definition must always shutdown independent thought, disregard evidence and thereby allow unchallenged dissemination of destructive ideas. This is certainly not my understanding of faith as expressed by Jesus and his followers in the Bible.

I’m looking forward to the talk.

Jeff.

In other words, it is impossible for us to keep the law. This leads us to the conclusion that we NEED a saviour because we can’t do it ourselves.

All this complexity means that there are lots of arguments, “loops holes” and ways of convince yourself your not a sinner if you really want to.

The simplest way (I think) is to take the Bible at face value (assuming you acknowledge it authenticity) and the fact that what it says is reflected in society.
A more specific way – on a personal level – that I could suggest is to read through some new testament letters such as Ephesians and see where the bar is according to God. It is not just about what it says not to do, but also what it says we should be doing. If anyone can honestly assess themself with sober judgment and conclude that they do this and always have, than maybe they are not a sinner. But I would really like to meet them!

Thanks for your comments.

I have checked out the sites you recommended and share your concerns. However, I don’t think we need to find a conspiracy in CJ’s high profile… let’s face it, he is a great preacher!

As regards the leadership fiasco (really serious stuff) in the SGM affiliated churches, do you think that this can be laid at CJ’s door? I understood that he has been out of the active leadership of the organisation for some time now?

But I stand to be corrected….

Regards

Ian