CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day…

1. Kathy 1.5.11 / 3pm

   I’m planning on attending!
   Kathy Scott
2. Bill Muehlenberg 1.5.11 / 3pm

   Great! I’ll see you there then.
   Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
3. Kylie Anderson 1.5.11 / 4pm

   Oh Bill, you old softy, I didn’t know you were a romantic.

   Unlike the movies it is not a comedy of errors that result in the boy losing the girl. It is all the girl’s fault and he chases after her anyway.

   I’ll not only be there, I’ll be the bride! (Well part of the bride, anyway).

   Kylie Anderson
4. Paul de la Garde 1.5.11 / 5pm

   Hello Bill,
   Every Earthly wedding always has someone who is upset for not being invited.
   However, everyone is invited to this Heavenly wedding.
   Sadly, many will refuse this invitation and will regret it for eternity.
   I have already sent my acceptance.
   God bless.
   Paul de la Garde, Sydney
5. Mike Harrison 1.5.11 / 5pm

   What about us males? Is being “wedded” to Christ the right analogy?

   Mike Harrison, Cairns
6. Bill Muehlenberg 1.5.11 / 5pm

   Thanks Mike

   It is the one that Scripture uses quite often, so if it found to be problematic, one would have to complain to God about it.

   Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
7. Del Hannah 1.5.11 / 6pm

   Forgive me if I’m reading too much into this, but do you literally believe in Adam and Eve?
   Del Hannah
8. Bill Muehlenberg 1.5.11 / 6pm

   Thanks Del

   Yes I do. And if you are a Christian then so should you, just as Jesus and Paul did.

   Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
9. Kylie Anderson 1.5.11 / 6pm

   Anyone with a better understanding of Greek may argue with this but I am a son of God. In modern times everyone wants to be a son or daughter but when the Bible was written it was the sons who inherited not the daughters. Son is a much better word to describe the relationship than daughter just a bride is a good metaphor but groom is not. The husband is the head, the protector, the provider the wife is to obey, is to be loved. These metaphors are not about what gender we are but what the relationship is between God/Christ and His people.
   Kylie Anderson
10. David Skinner 1.5.11 / 6pm

    I must admit that I was not going to watch it but thankfully my cynicism gave way to curiosity.

    The wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton on 29th April 2011 transcended both monarchy or celebrity. It touched on things infinitely greater than the here and now or private happiness. The royal wedding, however imperfectly performed, ended up glorying the real King, Jesus Christ, the ruler not just of Britain, or the world, but the whole of the created order. It reminded the nation that without the Church, Westminster Abbey, the Word made flesh, scripture, the hymns sung to His praise and the assistance of Anglican ministers, this particular wedding ceremony would never have existed. How the many heathen glitterati and mockers of God, amongst those present at the service, must have been confounded by it, for it refuted everything they represent. Amongst the assembled guests there were celebrities and politicians who must have felt flattered at having been invited and yet revolted at the same time. It was an invitation that they could not have refused and yet inwardly must have raged against.

    William and Kate became visual aids of what every man and woman become when welcomed into the family of God. The bishop of London, Richard Chartres, in his sermon said, “In a sense every wedding is a royal wedding with the bride and groom as king and queen of creation, making a new life together so that life can flow through them to the future.”

    Kate was nothing more than a beautiful picture of how the church will one day be brought into the presence of her real bridegroom, Jesus Christ, who will be head over her and William – if only they allow, and come to a knowledge of the true King of Kings.
    The couple represented us all and no amount of political correctness, secular thinking, or even Kate’s progressive and 21st century rebellious omission ( aided and abetted by the Archbishop of Canterbury) not to promise to obey her husband succeeded in obscuring totally this truth. Was the Prime Minister, David Cameron or Teresa May, the Home Secretary, or other assembled abusers of power, dimly aware of just how much the traditional, opening address of the Dean Westminster, challenged to the very core their avowed intent of making gay marriage equivalent to that of marriage between a man and a woman? Were they dimly aware of the fact that marriage is not something to be defined by man or created by God merely to satisfy the personal, natural longings of a man and woman but that it also carries with it humanly impossible, heavy duties and responsibilities towards the rest of society? Methinks that for many of those present, it momentarily at least shook their confidence and arrogant assumptions.

    This wedding was a timely reminder of the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman and that it is created by God and not man.

    www.anglican-mainstream.net/2011/04/29/bishop-of-londons-sermon-at-the-wedding/

    David Skinner, UK
11. Matt Vinay 1.5.11 / 6pm

    God often uses analogies to help us to have a better understanding of what he’s like. The relationship between God and man can be explained through creation. Indeed I would argue, that this is a major reason for much of creation.

    Indeed when one reads Genesis 2, one can see great parallels between God’s creation of woman from man and God’s creation of man. The deep intimate relationship between man and wife has much to teach us about God.

    The New Testament has much to say to help us understand the Old Testament. You cannot truly understand one without understanding the other.

    Consider another example, Matthew 23:37 (NIV) “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

    Whilst clearly God is male, he cares for his people, like a hen cares for her young. But he wants a relationship and will not force his love onto anyone.

    One should also consider that in addition to the fact that woman was formed from man, that when marriage occurs, the man and woman become “one flesh”. What was separated is now re-united. Man is made complete by woman, just as woman is made complete by man.

    Whilst male and female are different, they are very similar and are to live in harmony. Thus it is possible for a man to be a husband to his wife, but at the same time, trust, honour and obey God.

    Matt Vinay
12. David Skinner UK 1.5.11 / 7pm

    Perhaps, if for no other reason, the monarchy, yesterday, justified their continued existence. No politician, no Marxist or Muslim fanatic was allowed a foot anywhere near this celebration. Perhaps it was sign, encouraging us to persevere in proclaiming the Kingdom of God.

    David Skinner, UK
13. dennis.newland 1.5.11 / 9pm

    All the genetic scientists of any note have come to the conclusion that the human race came out of two people.
    I mean seriously does anyone reall think that a half a million or so people suddenly appeared on this planet???
    If your still attached to that old evolution furphy you might also ask how self replication came to be replaced by the joining of two opposites. Was there still self replicators whilst the male female thing was being developed. Surely that would be devolution?? Was it only when opposites morphed into male/female and joined that humans became an earlier version of us??? Why would anyone seriously believe that junk when simplicity is so much more logical and believable. (Yes God is supremely logical, if he wasn’t things like quantum physics just wouldn’t exist) I.e. Just two people of a different gender created by God to populate the earth. More obvious, more plausible and actually recorded as Gods work. Are there any ancient documents that exist to back up the fairy story that is evolution?
    Dennis Newland
14. Del Hannah 1.5.11 / 10pm

    Yes, sir. Count me in as a bible-believing Christian.

    Thank you for your response, Bill. Most reassuring. What I fail to understand is why so many churches are embracing the evolution myth, the Catholic Church in particular? Creation is far more logical. Why should we brainwash children into thinking they’re just monkeys?

    Del Hannah
15. Keith Lewis 1.5.11 / 11pm

    Yes it was a magnificent spectacle. Where else can you have so many people of the world witnessing a Christian marriage? It even touched our Prime minister. I had a sense that God’s blessing was being displayed over this union of William and Catherine. Being one of those odd balls who believes in the British Israel doctrine it added sense of destiny to the ceremony because one day Jesus will take up that throne and seat it in Israel with His new bride. Then by God’s amazing grace the bride will begin to rule and reign with Him for 1000 years.
    Keith Lewis
16. Mansel Rogerson 2.5.11 / 10am

    Hi Del,

    Unfortunately many Churches and Christians are influenced more by the world and its foolishness than they realise. Having come from a scientific academic background and belief in evolution myself, I appreciate first-hand what a formidable mental barrier years of evolutionary indoctrination from schools and the media can build up.

    Ministries such as Creation Ministries International are crucial for breaking down these walls and allowing people to see the truth. Their website: www.creation.com is fantastic for all things to do with defending the Bible, particularly Genesis 1-11.

    Mansel Rogerson
17. Mansel Rogerson 2.5.11 / 12pm

    I couldn’t help noticing, but many atheist websites have become very quiet after the royal wedding . Like stunned mullets, the shock of seeing a third of the world’s population revel in an overtly Christian celebration of the Christian institution of marriage by a family whose power stems from an explicitly Christian legal basis seems to have been too much for them!

    Mansel Rogerson
18. katherine fishley 2.5.11 / 2pm

    This seems to be more on the Great Wedding than the recent one but it prompted me to pray that they would think about who they made promises before if they haven’t already.
    It would be great if Will, unlike his father, went back to wanting to be a Defender of the Faith.
    Katherine Fishley
19. Tim 2.5.11 / 3pm

    Dave Skinner: Before we get too carried away with the “Christian” wedding, there were enough contradictions to cancel any hope of an evangelistic outreach. How on earth would a Muslim have any hope of understanding Christianity when “celebrity guest” Elton John rocks up with and his homosexual partner, with (US) reporters detailing even more of the horror;
    “These two have a brand new baby, born on Christmas day”
    “They do indeed”
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpAMGJ8tpsc

    And why was he there? Because he happened to be a “good friend” of that girl who got very mixed up after she married an even more mixed up Prince Charles.
    With all their Christian trappings, the royal princes and princesses can’t seem to hold a marriage together any better than your average wash-up Hollywood celebrity.
    Queen Elizabeth seems to have a bit of an idea about Christianity – if only she had taught her children.
    But then the history of British royalty is a sad tale of divorce and scandal.
    Not to mention Will and Kate have been shacking up since 2006, on the invitation of the lovely Charles.
    I think I’d rather they leave the Bible out of it.
    Fakity, fake, fake.
    Tim Lovett
20. Mansel Rogerson 2.5.11 / 5pm

    Hi Tim,

    I quite agree with you about the inconsistencies and lack of sincerity.

    You rightly point out there was Elton John with his ‘partner’ in sodomitic fornication. Then there was the Archbishop of Canterbury best known for wanting to bring sharia law to Britain. And the Bishop of London’s sermon was Deistic throughout and contained a number of theological clangers. Finally there was the omission of the wife’s promise to obey her husband as the Scriptures clearly require for a marriage to actually be a marriage relationship in the sight of God; rather than just a fancy dress interlude in the process of shacking up.

    Given all this however, I was amazed that these humanists were somehow prevented from hijacking the day far more than they did. The liturgy was basically straight from the Book of Common Prayer, we had many prayers in Jesus’ name, and some quality hymns. With all the faults, it far exceeded my expectations.

    I wouldn’t be too pessimistic about the positive effects it could have on the general feeling towards Christianity either. No-one’s going to learn any deep theology from watching the service, but it may prepare people’s attitudes to be more receptive in future.

    Mansel Rogerson
21. R. J. Stove 2.5.11 / 5pm

    Thank you, Tim. I was wondering when someone would mention the awkward fact of the royal couple’s cohabitation. Of course the Lukacsian-Marcusian sexual revolutionists who now call themselves “conservatives” over at Quadrant, and suchlike deserts of pagan pseudo-Toryism, have managed to obscure this simple fact.

    Then again, you won’t find there any details of Windschuttle’s or Christopher Pearson’s Marxist backgrounds either. I was fighting against Marxism and all its works at an age when Windschuttle yelled himself hoarse in praise of the Vietcong.

    Ever since the Queen signed into law Harold Wilson’s and Roy Jenkins’ abominable Abortion Bill (1967), the choice has been stark. You can be a supporter of the House of Windsor or you can be a pro-life Christian. You cannot possibly be both.

    R. J. Stove
22. David Skinner 2.5.11 / 5pm

    Tim Lovett, I agree with you 100%. Indeed you have only scratched the surface of the depraved and degenerate condition of not just those present but those of us watching. Initially I was not going to watch it, preferring instead to go for a walk alone in the countryside. But, I found myself watching it with my wife for five hours and my heart, in spite of my negative thoughts, becoming strangely warmed.

    It slowly dawned on me that the wedding became a picture, a symbol, a visual aid, like “seeing through a glass, darkly” no matter how imperfectly of a much greater reality.

    We cannot ignore the fact that no wedding so far in all of history has been watched by so many people. What was it that caused a hunger for significance in the human hearts of two billion people to break the strongest cords of disbelief, cynicism and political correctness, “as a whale goes through a net“? (apologies to John Adams)

    It was simply that every culture has deep within its psyche love stories of the handsome prince coming to rescue and marry the rejected and unworthy girl. There is a connection between Cinderella, Hosea and the rest of the Bible, that culminates in the wedding described in Revelations. Where indeed, Tim, is the equivalent in Islam?

    The wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton was a fairy tale come to life, complete, dare I say, with ugly sisters and a wicked queens, both straight and gay.

    But then the whole of the Bible is a love story of God wooing that which the world rejects. During a sermon, Sunday night, a brilliant young evangelist reminded us that Martin Luther set the reformation alight not with Romans ( faith alone) but with the Song of Solomon and in particular Chapter 2: 16, where the peasant, Shulamite girl says “ My beloved is mine, and I am his.”

    Looking at the expression on Kate Middleton’s face (now the Duchess of Cambridge), she was not marrying him for what she can get, but because she genuinely loves him. May God put a hedge around them and let us pray that her human love eventually transcends into Christian love.

    We live in hope, Tim, for nothing is impossible with God.

    webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MmLSZ5QEtc0J:www.ondoctrine.com/2lut0917.htm+martin+luther+song+of+so

    David Skinner, UK
23. R. J. Stove 2.5.11 / 6pm

    Feelings, whether expressed by Mr Skinner or by me or by anyone else, are no match for hard facts.

    Hard fact: concubinage is not marriage.

    Hard fact: Kate Middleton was a concubine of years’ standing.

    Hard fact: in its abject refusal to hold the line against legalised abortion, legalised contraception, legalised sodomy, no-fault divorce, “gay civil unions”, etc., etc., etc., the House of Windsor is not part of the solution, but part of the problem. (Most present-day monarchists will remain blissfully unaware of this until the day when they are given their terminal injections, thanks to the legalised euthanasia which the monarchy will also have obediently signed – who can doubt it? – into law.)

    Hard fact: I myself shall one day answer before God for my wasted years spent defending the indefensible, in the shape of the modern monarchy. Among the reasons I became a Catholic was, as Chesterton put it, “to be absolved from my sins.” And among these sins, my drivelling sycophancy towards the Windsors is one of which I am particularly ashamed.

    R. J. Stove
24. David Skinner 2.5.11 / 7pm

    R.J. Stove, all that you say about the House of Windsor is true but the fact remains that no other wedding would have attracted a third of the world’s population as this one and I do believe that it was an object lesson to all those conforming to Hegelian philosophy, both left and right, who were in attendance. Let us hope that there was something in that service that convicted them all, including the Queen.

    David Skinner, UK
25. Tim 2.5.11 / 7pm

    David Skinner: I like what you say. I’m not so much countering you as highlighting the poor example aspect. But speaking of nothing being impossible for God…
    Isn’t it amazing that all sorts of people actually do get saved today? This always amazes me. And this miracle happens in spite of the teachings of the Archbishops of Heresy, the examples of the Dukes of Adultery, and all sung to the tune of Sir Elton Pagan.
    But since grace is available to a ratbag like me, God can answer the prayers of those praying for this marriage – just like He seems to honour “Long live our noble Queen”. Wow – she’s a good 85!
    Maybe the words should be “God save our Royal Family…”
    Tim Lovett
26. Mario Del Giudice 3.5.11 / 3pm

    Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but I have heard it compellingly preached out of the scriptures that the bride of Christ is actually the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2 & 21:9-10), which is arrayed in fine linen which is the righteousness of the saints (Rev 19:7-8) whom the bride and groom call to attend the wedding (Rev 22:17). Unless of course the bride calls herself to the wedding and is one of the guests to her own wedding, which as far as I’m concerned would make little sense.

    While we are called to love our wives as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25), this does not specifically allude to the Church being the bride.

    Mario Del Giudice
27. Bill Muehlenberg 3.5.11 / 3pm

    Thanks Mario

    I don’t want to belabour this issue, but a few quick points. Revelation is of course a book loaded with symbolism, imagery, metaphorical language, and so on. So great care is needed in how we seek to interpret it, and we need to guard against saying anything too concretely about the book. And the two sets of texts you mention need not contradict each other. The verses in ch 17 and ch 21 refer to the same thing, while the verse in ch 22 refers to a different matter. So there is no contradiction here it seems.

    Also, it is not just Ephesians that we must deal with. There are in fact heaps of such texts all over the Bible, telling us that Israel is to be seen as Yahweh’s bride, and that the church is the bride of Christ. Just for starters, here are a few that can be mentioned: Isa 54:4-7; Isa 61:10; Isa 62:4,5; Jer 31:32; Mark 2:19,20; Jn. 3:29; 2 Co. 11:2; and so on

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
28. Mario Del Giudice 3.5.11 / 5pm

    No need to show my post if you prefer, but just for the sake of discussion, I would suggest that Isa 61:10 merely compares to a bride, Mark 2:19-20 suggests that the disciples are the children of the bridechamber and therefore not the bride, John 3:29 shows John the Baptist as being the friend of the Bridegroom. Admitedly I don’t have a response for the remaining scriptures, but Ezekiel Ch 23 shows Samaria and Jerusalem as the unfaithful brides, not Israel and Judah.

    I do not dispute that Jesus is the bridegroom, merely the identity of the bride

    Mario Del Giudice
29. Bill Muehlenberg 3.5.11 / 6pm

    Thanks again Mario

    But the biblical imagery of brides, weddings, betrothals, adultery, unfaithfulness, and so on all speak to the relationship God has with his redeemed people, in both Testaments. The bride of Christ is simply just one such image, and it of course refers to his redeemed people throughout the ages. No need to overcomplicate things here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
30. Graeme Rule 7.5.11 / 5pm

    An excellent coverage of the great hope of all believers. The fact that we still see though a glass darkly means, we so often reflect in different way as we ponder what goes on in life.

    Graeme Rule