“The school is exactly what it says it is, a 'school' where we come to work on what it is to live the Christian life. The truth is that a follower of Jesus can only authentically obey if they are biblically grounded and theologically informed. Our conviction is that the church today stands in constant need of renewed worship and testimony- a determined struggle to seek faith with understanding.

“The School of Discipleship is a place of re-conceiving what it means to follow Jesus. It is a passage of grace, a time of re-orientation, a place where each of us gather for reflection and renewal in order to be exposed to the love and commands of the Triune God.”

I've been reflecting the last few weeks on some of the incidentals of church. The things unimportant in the scheme of things but important to me.

Now, there are some of you looking at the title of my post and thinking, "Communion, it doesn't get more important than that... David, I'm worried about where your theology is going." Well if you think that don't worry, if I am drifting out into the theological wilderness it is not over the importance of communion. My incidental issue is how communion, in regards to the communion wine, takes place.

[For ease in what follows I am going to use my name in the dialogue, you may supplant it with your own for better understanding... unless your name is also David. In which case I suggest that you leave it as is and save yourself the mental effort.]

Some context, at church where I grew up you go up the front to receive communion. First you receive the bread from the minister who says, "David, this is the body of Christ, broken for you". Next the lay assistant gives you the communion cup saying, "The blood of Christ, shed for you". This communion cup is a shared cup, the lip of the cup cleaned after each person and strong port used to help kill any bugs. It is also considered common courtesy to hang onto your bread and dip it in the wine if you are sick, have a cough etc... Also you can dip the bread if you have issues about the hygiene. However the norm is eat the bread, wait for the cup, sip from the cup.

At my current church communion is done differently, what I want to focus on is the wine. What we do, and when there are new people we have been reminded, is hang onto the bread and wait for the cup, dip the bread in the wine or juice (I will return to the juice in a moment). Dipping the bread in the wine as the norm is by far my single most hated thing at church. It is important to me to actually drink the wine, wine that we all as a community drink from.

That it is wine and not juice is important to me as well. It is a key part of my time with God at communion to have the taste of something that is literally bitter-sweet in my mouth, as well as the act of swallowing it. The bitter-sweet nature of the wine, as distinct from the bread, connects me to the bitter-sweet nature of the suffering of Jesus and the salvation that entails "The blood of Christ shed for you". The cost and reason remembered in one action, and drinking it from the same cup an action we do as a community. Now the drinking of wine may and should mean different things to different people (which is why I don't care if there is a juice option - as long as there is a wine option). The important thing here is that we do it together, but by dipping bread instead of drinking wine damages part of the experience, my reflection on Jesus' last meal and what followed.

Last night at my church we had a healing service. Let me start with what it was not.

There were no miracle healings; the blind did not suddenly see again, the deaf did not suddenly hear again, the lame did not suddenly become cool. People were not so overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit that when touched on the head by the Pastor they fell over in ecstasy. (This last one is important; we couldn't afford a lawsuit like what happened in 1996 in waterloo. - she did lose that case by the way.)

So what did we mean by healing? Did the service mean physical healing, yes. Did the service mean spiritual healing, yes. Did it mean healing for the world, yes. Did it mean healing the way we wanted it, maybe though probably not. There was and is an understanding that the God of Israel, Jesus and the Prophets is a God who heals. The Greek word we translate as Salvation (Soteria) applies here. (Incidentally Soteria is also the origin of the word 'salve' in English as in to salve a wound.) Soteria means to be made whole. If something has received soteria, it is made complete. This receiving of soteria is what I understand healing to be. I know it sounds trite, but God does not always give us what we want or ask for... but what we need

So what it essentially did happen was a prayer service. People would come to the front of the church and pray quietly with two elders (all prayers being confidential) for some healing. Before we started Peter (the minister) shared a story of how he broke his elbow. How it had meant he could no longer straighten his arm. How he had prayed for healing. And how he still could not straighten his arm. It had taught him that he is mortal, healing came in accepting the fact he could no longer do some things as he could before.

After people had been prayed over/with they would walk to Peter and be Anointing with Oil. Now anointing with oil is a Tradition that goes back to pre-christian times. Usually as part of asking for healing. In the case of Christianity when it is done (which is not all that often) a cross is drawn on the forehead. It is important that the deliberate irony of this is not lost. As Christians we take the symbol of where God suffered more than anywhere or time, what we see as the darkest moment in human history, and ask for our own healing knowing that in some way God will provide. What does this mean for us? I'm not going to comment further on that. I think this is one of those times where wrestling with the question is more relevant than any answer I could give.

I was one of the people who asked for healing during this service, I asked on behalf of someone who was not there. I am not going to share who or what I prayed for. But I can say there was no miracle healing, this person is still in real and genuine pain. So what will God's healing be? I don't know, I don't know when it will come, how it will come, or in what form it will come. In all honesty I probably wont recognise it when it happens, but by faith I believe God is there working away.

Yesterday I was invited to a talk by UNSW Visiting Professor Robyn Williams. Professor Williams was speaking on the topic of his new book Unintelligent Design. Now since I haven't read the book yet (it is now next on my non-fiction reading list) I will not be engaging his arguments too deeply at this point. What I thought I would talk about was the event itself, my immediate reaction and some discussion of what Intelligent Design is and is not.

Robyn Williams was introduced by the Dean of Science, Professor Mike Archer I have heard Archer speak before (he is an excellent lecturer) but I have noticed in the past that he tends to ridicule anyone who holds a different view from himself. Yesterday I saw that taken to the next level. Quite frankly Archer reminded me, right down to the same style of language used, of bloody minded conservative Christians that I have met. You all know the types I am talking about, so convinced that they are right that they only hear what they want to hear when someone disagrees with them, and stereotypes all who disagree into the same category.

Williams was much better on this count, he is someone who came across as respecting other people's views. He is willing to openly disagree with them. The times where he stoped respecting the views of other people was when they began to impinge on what he saw as core to his understandings. (His core beliefs if you will...)

So the key point of contention that Williams has in not Creationism or Intelligent Design, though he does disagree with these, but rather that they are not Science. As such they should not be taught in a Science classroom. Now for what some of you may find controversial, I agree, Creationism and Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.

Now you may have noticed that I have listed Creationism and Intelligent Design as two separate things, which is because they are. Creationism is the understanding of a 'biblical' six day creation. There are those who believe this so much that they publish 'scientific' journals and magazines to prove their point. Now the science in these journals is incompetent at best and a deliberate distortion of the facts at the worst. (Yes, I have read a fair few of both creationism magazines and journals.) To say that you believe in a biblical six day creation out of your beliefs and understanding of the Bible doesn't bother me. However the science does not bare that out - nor can I see how it ever will. I don't want a sub-standard pseudo-science taught to my children.

Intelligent Design on the other hand is a belief that there is an intelligent designer behind what we see in the world around us. This I do believe. However, there is insufficient proof to state if there is on, just the same as it can not be scientifically proven there is not one. Science is evidence based and can not address a matter that can not be measured by empirical proof. So, whilst I do believe in Intelligent Design, it does not belong in a science class.

I think that those who push to have Intelligent Design in science classes have missed the point. Not only of what science is but of who God is. Most people I have heard argue against Intelligent Design in the science classroom have simply said that Intelligent Design is a matter for faith not science. They are right, God is not something that can be proven by scientific means, to assume that greatly limits how we perceive God, makes God to be something less.

I am reading Plato's Republic at the moment... it is surprisingly good reading (its first person narrative - so really it is like listening to a conversation). The main theme of the book is not how to found a republic but rather a discussion of justice (the full translated title of the work is Republic: concerning justice).

But here is the thing; it is not justice as we understand it. The word used is in the text is one of my favourite ancient Greek words, "dikaiosune" which not only means justice, but has connotations of morally right. In many modern bibles for example it is translated both as justice and righteousness, depending on what the translator feels fits the meaning best. Justice usually used for what is morally right in the corporate sense and righteousness for morally right in the individual sense.

This naturally, for me at any rate, brings me to my own faith... Take for example the discussion of righteousness in the first half of Paul's letter to the Romans. Throughout the first half of the letter Paul connects righteousness to faith. eg Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith". Similarly an argument is made that without faith no-one is really righteous... but then let us stop for a moment... What about justice, how does that change the way we look at Romans?

Righteous is a word about the individual. But if we say someone is a just person then it is different from being righteous. If someone is just then they look out for others and what is right for others.  "The one who is just will live by faith" simmlarly Paul then goes onto make the arguement that without faith you do not have true justice... How does this sound different or the same?

Now I think it is important to remind you that the word dikaiosune does not mean justice or righteous but both at the same time... My understanding is then that someone (such as myself I hope) who lives by faith would exhibit dikaiosune (justice AND righteousness)... but what is that? Is it as Plato suggests in the Republic* that, dikaiosune in a person occours when reason (the logical mind) is in charge followed by spirit (the part of a person that leads to bravery and the like) with appitite (i.e. desires for food, sex etc...) subordinate to both. Once this happens inside a person they will act this out to others and the world

I think the understanding of faith and dikaiosune in Romans can be described in a similar way to Plato's understanding of dikaiosune. That is dikaiosune in Paul's understanding can only be achieved when a person has faith and trust in God. That is a person submits to the one who is perfectly dikaiosune, in this way the person with then themselves be dikaiosune and act towards others in justice and righteousness.

*I need to remind you here that I am currently reading Republic at the moment... i.e. I have not finished it, so there is most likely an incomplete attempt at describing Plato's thoughts on dikaiosune.