Ricky Gervais is not rational enough to be a Christian

I love Ricky Gervais. I have watched the office many times over, and regularly re-listen to his podcast. The other day I was listening to the latter, and there was a conversation between Ricky and his friend Karl that went something like this:

Karl: Don't you ever get that feeling when you walk into a place and you say 'something's a bit weird in here'?
Ricky: What do you mean?
Karl: Sometimes I go in a place and it's like 'I think someone died here' or... [some other eg.]
Ricky: Well that's bollocks. You can't possibly know that. I believe in the laws of science and rationality.
Karl: So what would it take for you to believe that it is possible.
Ricky: That's impossible. For me it's a basic assumption. I'd have to fundamentally change the way I think. It's like if you said that 2+2=5, I couldn't believe it. I'd have to change my perception of what two-ism is.

It was something like that.

This conversation reminds me of the rich man who dies (in Luke?) who was going to hell and begged to go warn his family, and he is told that there's no point. Even if they see someone raised from the dead, they won't believe.

Ricky Gervais admits that he is like that. He will irrationally cling to science and so-called 'rationality' at the expense of direct evidence! I couldn't believe my ears.

What if you saw someone walking in a furnace? What if you saw someone fly into the air? What if you saw someone die, personally buried them, sat on a chair above the grave for... 2 years, then dug up the grave and they were still alive?

I could make the hypothetical as ridiculous as I like, surely, at some point, he'd be forced to concede that scientific reproducability (that is, in a fire you get burnt, humans can't fly, and once you're dead you're dead) does not constitute the sum of human knowledge, nor natural possibility.

This is something that really saddens me about the way the world views religion. You can't say 'Jesus didn't rise from the dead' because nobody else has, or nobody ever does. It was a one-off event! If Ricky Gervais were as rational as he claims to be, he'd look into the historical evidence for the resurrection, discover that it's unreasonable not to think the resurrection happened, and become a Christian.

But alas I don't think he's rational enough to be a Christian.

Daniel vs. The World

I just read Daniel 1-8. Awesome.

I only recently became aware of the chiastic structure of these chapters (well, 2-7). the pairs 2 and 7, 3 and 6, and 4 and 5 have striking parallels. The very centre of these doublets is the end of chapter 4 when Nebuchadnezzar is finally humbled, and glorifies God. I found the account of Nebuchadnezzar quite exciting. He is an interesting character - vicious and terrifying, yet at times kind of soft and ... likeable? His astrologers etc. are all fairly comical. I think the repetition of the language regarding these guys is intended to be quite funny. They seem to bumble about as a group, incompetent and generally useless.

In contrast to chapter 4, where Nebuchadnezzar is eventually found praising God, chapter 5 gives the very short but parallel account of Belshazzar, Neb's son. Just like his dad he glorifies himself, but unlike his dad he is struck down dead that very day. The end. This contrast really hit me.

Chapters 3 and 6 are the fiery furnace and the lion's den, respectively. Again, the parallels are unmissable. A king's decree, advisor's dobbing, the suggestion of salvation from death, and then the salvation from death. I noticed that in the former it is the three Hebrews who declare they can be saved from the king's hand, but in the latter it is the king himself who is hopeful of the Hebrew's deliverance. In the latter the advisors are finally put to death - something you've been waiting for since ch. 3.

Finally, chapters 2 and 7 are about dreams of kingdoms. Chapter 2 is Neb's dream about the statue of gold, silver, iron, and iron/clay which is then destroyed by a stone which becomes a great kingdom. Chapter 7 is Daniel's first kingdom dream, which is a similar story with an identical ending - an everlasting kingdom is established.

I liked reading this in one sitting. Something that really came through clearly was that Daniel and his housemates were put up against a kingdom, and, through the sovereign providence of God, won. They survived three kings, and made them all look like fools. Great stuff.

People's Thoughts on an article about God and Science

I just read this article about some of the comments Steven Hawking makes about God in his new book. It's an interesting read by a sensible Christian.

Even more interesting, I thought, were the comments people made afterwards. You should have a flick through them. It's a sad read, unfortunately; a worrying mix of irrationality, violent response, vague delusion, and most noticeably (for me anyway) hugely misguided truth claims.

Freeman Dyson

Freeman Dyson is a theoretical physicist (like me) and mathematician, and a Christian (like me). His services to physics and maths you may not find so interesting, but you can believe me that they were substantial, if not a little too esoteric for most to appreciate. In particular there are some things in what we call "Many-Particle Physics" which we couldn't have done without. So perhaps with Dyson I wouldn't have a job.


Anyway, he also won the Templeton Prize for services to sprituality (or some such wording).


I got some nice quotes of his from Wikipedia. First:

Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect

Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.

This is important for us Christians to remember. Of course science doesn't answer the world's religious questions. But similarly, we've got to stop using religious knowledge to dictate what science we "believe" 

Second:

Dyson disagrees with the famous remark by his fellow physicist Steven Weinberg that "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion."

Weinberg's statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. To make it the whole truth, we must add an additional clause: "And for bad people to do good things—that [also] takes religion." The main point of Christianity is that it is a religion for sinners. Jesus made that very clear. When the Pharisees asked his disciples, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?" he said, "I come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance." Only a small fraction of sinners repent and do good things but only a small fraction of good people are led by their religion to do bad things.

Are we too Christocentric?

Do you ever wonder this?

At my old church in Wollongong, the slogan was 'to know Christ and make Him known'. I was always a little worried that the Father was not mentioned at all.

You can argue your way out of course: Christ is our access to God: our mediator. Jesus said that if you know him you know the Father. Of those who thought they were Christians but didn't 'get in' he says 'Truthfully, I never knew you' etc.

But surely the whole trajectory of the metanarrative of this universe is to know God. Isn't it?

Think of the parable of the travelling owner (or whatever the Bible editors call it). The owner of a place is away and so he lets it out. He sends his people to check on the place every so often, but the tenants beat them up and send them back. Eventually he sends his Son, and they kill him. When the owner returns he's furious, and his wrath is poured out on these evil tenants.

The whole point is the status of the tenants' relationship with the owner right?

And think of the Old Covenant. Jesus was completely absent (you know what I mean!). It was all about the peoples' relationship with God the Father. The original sin was committed against God.

The more I think, the more examples I can come up with. There's no argument to be had on this point. The entire point of everything is about our relationship with God.

So are we too focussed on the mediator?

Do we neglect God the father?

A new ethical concept (for me)

Firstly, once again, I must explain that I have moved house and it's been an ordeal, and so not many posts have come out of the last few weeks (did you know that German apartments don't have kitchens, curtain rails, or light fittings?)

A question occurred to me in the shower: Is it wrong to pursue something in any other way than the reasonable expectation of the actions performed within the end product? (that was a confusing question, I know). I'm not talking about utilitarianism, and I'm not talking about arguments from nature, though it does sound a little like both of these. In my reading on ethics I don't recall coming across this particular concept, but my reading in ethics is very limited.

An example: (as a Christian) the trajectory of dating is marriage. Whether someone will be a good marriage partner (however you want to define that, I don't want to get into it, but I will say that I believe physical attraction counts for something) is obviously the main criterion for 'dateability'.

But is it wrong to foster notions of romance that can not be reasonably expected within marriage? Is the world's view of romance wrong not only because of the extra-marital sex, and the 'follow your heart' at the expense of everything else mentality (etc), but also because some of the world's notions of dating and dateability and romance are unreasonable notions within marriage?

This is an ethical concept no-one has ever raised with me. It's like reverse-utilitarianism. Instead of saying that the ends justify means, I'm asking whether the means must match up with, or complement, the end.

As I say in the title, this is only new to me. I'm sure it was thought about a long time ago by someone much more intelligent. Any thoughts?

Psalm 9

Here is a sermon I preached at Nowra Baptist Church on Psalm 9 if you are interested.

Psalm 9 - Sing Because God is Just

All sin is equal

Ever heard that one? I have; in Bible Study, Church, Sunday School (many many times), and in conversation. It's quite a pervading precept of my-kind-of Christianity. But where does it come from? Nobody knows.

Now of course, in some sense, like most prevalent false statements, it has some truth to it. All sin leads to death. All sin deserves death. All sin separates us from God. Jesus blood is for all sin. And I'm sure you can come up with many others.

So if someone is using it to demonstrate that all sin needs to be dealt with, for instance in evangelism, then perhaps it's helpful.

But there is one enormously important sense in which it is categorically untrue, unbiblical, and, frankly, stupid. And that is in thinking that God has the same feelings toward all sin.

Passages abound. Almost every page of the Bible seems to have this concept. In fact, when does God ever, in the Bible, not distinguish between sins? God waits for the sins of the Amalekites to reach it's full measure. God punishes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ninevah, and Babylon who he called against his own people but later punished them for it. Is it that these people did 1000 sins, but other nations only did 500? Because if all sin is the same in God's eyes, then that's the only conclusion you can come to - and it's a silly one. Of course it's not about quantity! It's about quality! The sin of Sodom was really bad sin. The sin of sacrificing one's child is a particularly bad sin.

Now my Sunday School teachers assured me that 'there is no such thing as a white lie'*. I appreciate what they were getting at. Lying is bad, and claiming that nobody really got hurt does not exonerate you. But this doesn't mean there aren't really black lies does it? For the sake of not treating some sins lightly, we seem to have simultaneously rejected the notion of treating some sins heavily.  

I think this is really dangerous.

*This is a topic for another blog post. Spoiler alert: I think there is such a thing as a white lie.

(I've ranted about this before, and it may have been on this blog. I had a quick flick through and couldn't find it though, so I think I ranted about it elsewhere)

The Absurd II

A while back I talked about a book by Albert Camus, The Outsider or The Stranger, in which the main character lives and dies by the arbitrariness (?) of the universe.

This morning I was reading about the book Bear is now asleep, which is written by the father of the girl who died when she was hit by a goal-post. Remember that? Bear is now asleep is the final line of the song she was singing just before she died.

It's a terribly sad story. I really feel for this couple.

I haven't read this book. It may well be insightful and touching and worth reading. What struck me about it was (at least the editor's idea of) the point of the book.

The first section is about the random-ness of life and death. If only she'd been walking on her mum's left side, if only they'd been a couple of seconds later, or earlier etc. The final point seems to be something like life and death are random and unpredictable, but love lives forever.

This is such a sad annihilationist view of the world. It's not his little girl's love that lives on, but their memory of her. It's her legacy. It gets her nowhere, but is some sort of solace for the parents.

I just can't buy into this sort of perspective. It's one thing to think "remember how lovely she was and how much we loved her", which is great. It's another to attach some sort of existential or even meaningful weight to this. It has none.

Maybe I'm too concerned with the girl, and too little concerned with the parents, because I can't help but think you can't take love with you. Just as people say about money or clothes or other possessions, you can't take these feelings with you, and so essentially, at the end of the day (your life), feelings, like money, are meaningless (on their own).

It's sad that when someone dies one must try to attach meaning to the waste and the sadness. But there is none. Within an annihilationistic (?) worldview, the world is random and unfeeling, and I have to agree with Camus, not this poor guy.

Really sad stuff...

Same-Sex Adoption

In the next couple of weeks, NSW parliament will vote on ammendments to the adoption act of 2000. The recommendations being put forward are to allow same-sex adoption.

Not surpsisingly, churches are discussing how to respond. My old church forwarded around some documents about it. There were 6 talking points. I'll include the first sentence of each in the vain hope that you'll get the gist of what the rest of the paragraph must say, and then my brief response. Spoiler alert: at the end of the day, I think in a secular society, I am pro-Same-Sex Adoption.

1. Best interests of the child paramount.
This is very important of course, and is perhaps accidentally neglected at times in the discussions (on the parliamentary level or otherwise). An extremely important point really. We mustn't allow our sympathy for would-be parents sway our decision.

2. Same sex relationships are not marriages.
This is either a legal technicality or a religious distinction. Besides, property law already blurs the boundary, as I believe it should.

3. Recognition of same sex adoption may lead to recognition of same sex marriage.
This is irrelevant.

4. Marriage provides the best environment for raising children - thousands of years of human history demonstrate this
This is not necessarily true: see the next point. Thousands of years of human history are completely irrelevant. Firstly we cannot account for the entirety of human history. Secondly, if Christians are taking the Bible seriously, there are cultural reasons why it is this way, which are irrelevant to a secular nation. Thirdly, from an evolutionary point of view, the particular survival of predominantly heterosexual cultures is plain, and the development of certain prevailing opinions about homosexuality, unavoidable.

5. Fitness of potential parents - Homosexual people have more emotional problems on average.
This may be true but the data is undoubtedly swayed by the effects the prevailing culture has on people who are homosexual. Therefore I don't think one can say this is intrinsically true. So then, people who are homosexual have a higher incidence of particular problems, but many will not. As adoption is treated on a case-by-case basis (as it must always be), then it is simply a matter of considering each same-sex couple individually. If they fulfill the adoption criteria, you cannot possibly make this argument cogently.

6. Precedent in other jurisdictions.
Universal suffrage would never have happened if we actually thought this were a valid point of view.


I can't get past point 5. There are plenty of abusive and unfit heterosexual couples. We must treat each case on it's own merits, and so at the end of the day we are stuck with our own opinions of the 'appropriateness' of same sex parenting, which I just don't have any data against except that God doesn't like it. That's good enough for me, but I can't enforce it on a secular community....

Any thoughts?

Emergence

I've been away on a conference and then have been organising a move. So I'm sorry for my lack of posting (not sure who I'm apologising to... the net? Anyway...)

I have lifted these excerpts directly from another blog. All the details of where it comes from are given there. But the topic is emergence. I love emergence, I think it's such a fantastic concept, it's really important in my area of physics, as well as many other fields. It's great. Anyway, it's also a bit heavy, so I hope the ideas will blow you away as much as they did me:

This account of the dynamical theory of chaos leads to a metaphysical picture of a world with an open future, in which the laws of physics are emergent-downward approximations to a more subtle and supple reality and in which there is downward causation through information input as well as upward causation through energy input. Such a metaphysical picture can accommodate both human and divine agency.

Subatomic particles are not only not “more real” than a bacterial cell, they also have no greater privileged share in determining the nature of reality.

.... If apparently open behavior is associated with underlying apparently deterministic equations, which is to be taken to have the greater ontological seriousness—the behavior or the equations? Which is the approximation and which is the reality?

....epistemology and ontology are intimately connected. One can see how natural this view is for a scientist by considering the early history of quantum theory. Heisenberg’s famous discussion of thought experiments, such as the gamma-ray microscope, dealt with what can be measured. It was an epistemological analysis. Yet for the majority of physicists it led to ontological conclusions. They interpret the uncertainty principle as not being merely a principle of ignorance (as Bohm, for example, would interpret it) but as a principle of genuine indeterminacy. In an analogous way, it seems to me to be a coherent possibility to interpret the undoubted unpredictability of so much of physical process as indicating that process to be ontologically open.....

d’Espagnat [who discussed the philosophical implications of quantum theory] does not go all the way with Kant. He insists that independent reality is veiled rather than inaccessible; it is elusive rather than absolutely unknowable.

I am driven to greater metaphysical boldness .... I believe that his cautious invocation of veiledness is, at the least, not inconsistent with the kind of openness about the nature of reality that I am trying to explore.

.... such a world of intertwined order and novelty is just that which might be expected as the creation of a God both faithful and loving, who will endow God’s world with the twin gifts of reliability and freedom....

The correct lower-level description can only provide an envelope of possibility within which top-down causation will find its scope for realization. 

..... God’s interaction with God’s own world can be expected to respect its freedom (including our own). God’s acts will be veiled within the unpredictability of complex process. They may be discernible by faith, but they will not be demonstrable by experiment.

Real Service

Every Friday morning I take a couple of my kids from school to do a breakfast club at Nowra East Public School (NEPS).  It's a great thing to do and I like that the kids from my school get to do something (be it very small and, really, of no cost to them as they miss out on class) for others.  What impresses me, though, is who I meet there each Friday morning.

There is a lady who gets there before us each day and stays after us.  She runs the breakfast club and is there every day of the week.  Not only that, she stays after breakfast club is finished and helps out around the school.  She doesn't get paid, she just thinks that it is mportant and she loves the kids at NEPS.  There are quite a few kids there who are real behaviour problems.  She takes them under her wing and makes special time for each of them every morning.  I don't think that they understand it, but this woman is probably one of the only people who really shows Jesus' love to them and is committed to doing it every day that she can.

The other person who is there when I go is a guy who I suppose is in his forties or early fiftes.  He can only make it to breakfast club a couple of times a week, but when he is there he speaks to the children with respect and (appropriate) affection, no matter the way that they speak to him.  He also comes to the school to help out with sport so that the kids have another man around who loves and serves Jesus that they can get to know.  He is planting a church in Nowra East and wants as many people as possible in the suburb to come to know Jesus as their lord and saviour as possible.

I admire these two people.  They want to serve Jesus in an area that is difficult and where few Christians are willing to go.  Any fool can go overseas to people who are grateful for what you bring.  But not many Christians are willing to serve the poor in our own country because they don't actually love them.  I am challenged by those who are willing to really serve Jesus anywhere, be it here or there.  I am challenged by those who really love others, no matter how difficult they make it.

Rationality

Ever heard this one:

Can God move and un-movable stone?

It's a silly question, don't give it any thought.

What I am wondering about though, is rationality. Jenny, this blog's best commenter, raised the issue of rationality a couple of posts ago, and it has got me thinking. Something I've always wondered about, is this:

Is God bound by rationality?

I think he is. I think rationality is a property of existence. In fact, I think it's more fundamental than even existence. I think that if God exists, then he cannot not-exist. And the reason I think that's true, is because it's irrational for both to be true.

But I'm speaking outside of my field of expertise here. Anyone got any ideas how to think about this little nugget?

Preparing for Suffering

The holocaust was a terrible time in human history.  It represents a time of immense suffering and persecution.  It also, however, is quite unique in lots of ways, and presents opportunities for us to gain insight into a world that we would otherwise (God willing) never know. 

What I mean is that even today there are people suffering as the Jews suffered during the holocaust.  In the years since WWII there have been many groups of peple who have suffered terribly and it is supposed that tens of millions have died at the hands of government regimes.  It's just that we don't hear from them.  These people that are persecuted usually have no affluence or influence before the persecution starts, and so after it is finished, those that are left alive return to their lives of no affluence and influence and they still have no voice that the world can hear. 

This is not so of Jewish people in WWII.  They were taken from all positions in society, even those of affluence and influence and suffered terribly as that was taken away.  After the Nazi regime fell apart, though, they were (mostly, not always) allowed to return to their stations in society.  This has led to us having a wealth of literature through which we can gain insight into how people have borne a time of terrible trials and suffering.

One such person who has written about her life and experiences who I very much enjoy reading is a Chrstian lady, Corrie ten Boom.  She grew up in Holland and lived in the same house all of her life until the day she was imprisoned by the Nazis and held in 2 concentration camps.  She has an amazing story and I encourage you to read it.

The person that I have been considering lately in her story, though, is her father, Casper ten Boom.  He was a man who lived a life devoted to Christ and was a pillar in his community.  He prayed with his family before and after each meal and he read the Bible each night straight after dinner no matter who was or was not there.  He tried to live a life pleasing to God and Corrie always describes him as having time to spend with his wife and family.  When the Nazis occupied Holland it was very difficult for men like him.  He resolved never to compromise God's command to love his neighbour and didn't even hesitate to use his house as a refuge to hide Jews.  From the time that Jews were being deported from Holland until the time he was imprisoned they always had Jewish people living in their house.  He never turned anyone away.  When he and his daughters were arrested for housing Jews and conspiring against the Nazis the Jews hidden in his house remained safe and he and his daughters never gave them up.  This cost Casper ten Boom his life.

I am interested, then, in what gives a man the courage to be able to withstand this kind of persecution.  Certainly, it is by God's grace that men such as Casper ten Boom were able to stand against an army.  But I think that od is a God of means and when I learn about the life that Casper lived before Nazi occupation, it seems to me that he was preparing himself for any eventuality to be able to stand firm for the gospel no matter the face of his enemy. 

So it is that I am left to ask myself: 
Does my life now look like the kind of life that is being prepared to stand for Christ no matter the adversary that comes against me?
Or, like many Christian people in WWII, does my life look like I am only prepared to stand for Christ when it is relatively easy. 

These are difficult questions to ask, and if weare honest with ourselves, should probably lead to increased discipline in our Christian walk.

Babble

I'm reading through a children's Bible with my daughter. I'm not a huge fan of the thing, but it's not terrible either.

When we read about Babel, the story went like this:
The people started building a tower to make their own names great, and so they were rejecting God. God was angry with them, so he gave them all different languages, so they couldn't communicate any more. So they moved: some here, some there. And that's why we have languages.

This is fairly close to the biblical account.

I've always had some troubles with this passage. My main trouble is that I don't believe it. I'm sure you're aware, with all this evolution stuff, that people call Genesis 1-11 into question to varying degrees. Some say the whole thing is 'literal' (whatever they mean by literal). Some say 1-3 isn't (whatever they mean by isn't), and some say 1-11 isn't (ibid!).

I know almost nothing about the Hebrew, but I'm pretty sure that ch 11 is not 'literal'. I do not believe that God confused the people's languages so that they woke up one morning, couldn't communicate, and so scattered. I just don't. I can't.

There are many good reasons based on linguistics and geography.

But the most significant reason for me is that life doesn't work like that, and I don't believe God does either. I don't believe that he clicked his fingers and gave them distinct languages overnight, and that they couldn't remember their former languages. Languages are not culturally independent entities. Did their individual cultures change according to the language God gave them? Of course not... It's a silly thought

Much more sensible is that they scattered 'by chance', and languages developed organically. I don't doubt for a second that God did this. God does everything, he's sovereign. But it's not reasonable to believe that the exact telling of the narrative is precisely the way it happened. I don't think there's any reason to enforce such conditions (on any of the Bible, let along Gen 11).

The other issue I have, is that there is absolutely no indication from the passage that God was angry. In fact, the way it reads, God is mildly impressed. Mankind tried to make their name great, and God wouldn't allow it. He didn't say it was silly or naughty, in fact, he recognised that their names were pretty great. He said "If they keep going on like this, nothing will be impossible for them".

I've heard this preached on several times, and at least a few of those times, the word evil was added. "If they keep going on like this, no [evil] will be impossible for them". But the passage doesn't say that!

Have you had the same experience?

I don't know what God's issue is. I assume it's his glory that is at stake, and I'm happy to believe that perhaps a less great mankind is more worship-ful (though I'm not convinced). The point, though, is that it's not clear. God may have meant evil, but he didn't say evil, and he didn't sound like he meant evil, so let's not pretend it means evil just because it fits better with our preconceived notions of the character of God - a ubiquitous danger.

Private Ownership

I'm starting to wonder whether I'm against private ownership.

Compassion for Boat People

Last night I watched the debate between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.  Apart from the fact that I got the idea that both of them either don't know where they want to go in the next 3 years, or they won't admit it to us yet, I was particularly disturbed by what I saw on the worm.

Whilst I am often pleasantly surprised by the decisions that the Australian public makes when it comes to choosing political leaders, I hate the way that we think of people arriving to Australia illegally.

Last night during the debate there were about 3 topics that caused the 'worm' to go up and down.  Two of them were paid maternity leave (which I don't like because it only places value on mothers who work) and what to do about illegal immigrants arriving by boat.

I am appalled that the general consensus is to stop all boats from arriving and to stop refugees from entering Australia by any means other than applying for refugee status, then applying for refuge in Australia. 

I am disturbed by this for 2 reasons.
1. Too often I hear people say that since it costs these people thousands of dollars to get here illegally in bribes and passage, they can't be that poor and desperate.  This is simplistic and unfair.  Too often I hear these people called queue jumpers.  The idea being that there is a list somewhere that lists all people who have applied for asylum in Australia and these people are taking the places of people who have gone through the right channels.  My response to this is:  There is no queue.  At least not like people think there is. 
To obtain refugee status you must be referred  by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.  In order to apply for this status, though, the country that you are in must allow the UN to a) be there, and b) to work with refugees there.  So f you are Burmese and living in Bangladesh, you cannot be given the status of refugee.  Or if you are one of the 1.7 million refugees living in Pakistan at the moment, the chances of ever seeing a UN official who can help you with this is very low as the number of asylum seekers is just too high to administer and the UN as placed restrictions on the number of people they will register (I think, it is more complicated than this, but this is how I basically understand it).  So for the people who need somewhere to live in safety but cannot apply for refugee status, what do they do? 
The answer is that they do what they can to look after their families.

2.  The second reason I am so disturbed by this is that it shows such a lack of compassion.  When Christian people tell me that they think asylum seekers need to be detained for prolonged periods, or sent back for whatever reason, what I hear them saying is that 'I am happy to love my neighbour as long as they don't live next door.'  I may be wrong, but that's what it feels like. 

I have been told (and I have no idea of the validity of the claim) that people living in Muslim countries have a much lower than 1% conversion rate to Chrstianity if they are already following Islam.  In Australia, though, something like 10% of Muslim people wo come to live here get converted to Christianity.  That in itself is, for me, reason enough (f it is true) for Christians to want people to come to Australia, as we have the opportunity to minister to them and introduce them to Jesus, which is, above all else, what they need.

Let's have some compassion for our neighbour and be willing to love them even if they move in next door.  And let's stop saying inaccurate and naive things like 'queue jumpers'.  And, by the way, if we are going to keep out keep out illegal immigrants let's target the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from Europe and the US and not just the couple of thousand who come from non-English speaking countries and are poor.  Be consistent.

Robots

I have tremendous respect for my bro. In many ways I endeavour to emulate him. He is godly, and thoughtful (thought-filled - you know what I mean: he thinks about stuff), and extremely patient.

One thing that I am incredibly proud of him for, is also something that I also feel very strongly about: The robotics club. Graham has lots of great reasons for starting this club, largely for the sake of gospel, and these are by far the most important reasons to do it, but let me tell you something I really love about it. Robotics requires programming, and programming requires logic. My best teacher in high school was Mr Sattler. He was the best, because he taught us geometry from an axiomatic point of view.  It went like this: 'Here are the axioms of geometry: a straight line has 180 degrees' etc etc. From these axioms, what can we prove?

It was incredible. Nobody appreciated it at the time, including me. But this education was invaluable.

At uni, when I did Practical Reasoning (essentially Philosophy 101) and got 96ish, it was because Satts had taught me logic. Based on these axioms, what can we deduce? That's all there is to logic, and nobody can do it these days. And I mean nobody.

So Graham is starting the Robotics Club. Not only does he teach programming, which is the only access a primary school student will get to logic in their entire education (as Mr Sattler got fed up with Maths and transferred to IA, and I'm absolutely certain that none of this year's graduating class are qualified to teach such things (is that too harsh?)), but he is providing a much needed role model for these students which I'm confident to say they probably lack at home and at school. I'm super super excited about this club. And I'm pleased to say that the local paper got in on it:

Looking good Grays!

The link to Christianity? We need to use logic when reading the Bible.

Halving World Poverty by 2015

Here's a nice little video from the Centre for Public Christianity website

http://publicchristianity.org/Videos/voices_for_justice.html

I didn't embed because I don't know if I'm allowed.

What struck me is that progress is being made... How 'bout that?

Converting from Atheism

I don't know where to look to get the exact numbers, but there are something like 250 people who have converted from atheism to Christianity and then written a book about it. I wonder what the count is in the other direction (much less I assure you).

Anyway, on one of my favourite blogs I just read about yet another

A.N. Wilson is a leading British intellectual who wrote influential books in the 1990's attacking the Bible and Christianity. However, last year he announced that he now believed that Jesus did rise from the dead. 

And he is now a Christian. Which is wonderful news!. The blog has more links.

 Jesus rising from the dead is what Christianity hangs on, as we know from 1 Cor 15 in particular. And the historical evidence for it is good. In fact, it is so good, that former NSW supreme court judge Ken Handley has said that if the matter of whether the resurrection happened came up in a NSW court today, based on the evidence he thinks it would pass.


This is astonishing. The event happened 2000 years ago, yet the evidence is good enough to hold up in court! This too is wonderful news, and great comfort for christians. It's also terribly sad that people ignore the evidence. I have friends who say "I've got to see to believe", but still don't, based on this sort of thing. On that basis one would also refuse to believe in Napoleon...


I have a copy of the article if anyone wants it. Just email me. It's from the old Matthias Media Kategoria, Spring '99 issue.

The Blessing of God Himself

My mum has a phrase I've heard her use a few times in prayers etc which is that God has blessed us with Himself.

It has a nice Exodus ring to it, reminding me of 'I am your very great reward', and things like that. We are both God's treasured possession, and he is ours (with a different use of the word possession of course).

It makes me wonder about what it is exactly we should want most from God. We are promised material blessings (at the very least in heaven), and we are promised spiritual blessings, and we are promised peace that transcends understanding (as Jenny pointed out in a previous post).

But whenever I start praying without any clear idea of what it is I'd like to say, I always find myself marvelling at the fact that I can call God 'dad', and that I can talk to him wherever and whenever, and I can say whatever is on my mind, and I can know that he cares. All this despite being the creator of the universe. It's nuts. I should never have been given access to someone like that. But through Jesus, I have. The magnitude of it is so overwhelmingly large that the significance is often lost or not appreciated. It's a really huge thing, right?

It reminds me of John Piper's mantra God is most glorified through (in?) us when we are most satisfied in him.

The person of God, and our direct, intimate access to him, is the biggest blessing one can have. It helps me to undestand why suffering is such a  necessary part of Christian growth. We need to peel away at all the other things we value and take meaning from, until finally we are grasping only to God as our meaning and purpose and fulfilment and whatever else. I can't even imagine how liberating that would be...

The Grass is Always Greener

Can you identify?:

When you live near the beach you never go, but when you move away you miss it

When you have an assignment to do on topic X you can't bring yourself to do it, but then when you're supposed to concentrate on Y, you eagerly study X.

There are millions of examples of this same thing. We seem to be wired this way. It happens to me over and over. I'm pretty sure it's sin and rebellion. Rebellion and discontent comes so naturally. Our most beloved past-time (?) is basically whatever it is we're not meant to be doing, or don't have access to.

It seems so innocuous though. The curious observation that one only appreciated the beach after they moved away from it, seems to me to be a reflection of deep-seated malcontentedness and rebellion. We're quite pleased with ourselves when we notice these things. But it's not on. We've got to stop thinking like this.

I've got to stop thinking like this anyway. The beach example is cutesy, but does adultery not branch from the same inner defect? And the way I succumb to marketing is embarrassing.

Anyway... Just a little observation.

The Indifferent Universe

I'm a bit of a naturalist at heart. As I've said earlier in this blog, I'm convinced there's a god (and it's God) mainly because of historical evidence. But naturalism is kind of cool, and in the absence of satisfactory evidence for God, I'd probably be one. Here's a nice quote by Terry Goodkind

To exist in this vast universe for a speck of time is the great gift of life. Our tiny sliver of time is our gift of life. It is our only life. The universe will go on, indifferent to our brief existence, but while we are here we touch not just part of that vastness, but also the lives around us.

I prefer Camus. In The Stranger (or The Outsider), when Mersault is about to be executed, he gets mad (for the first time in the book), and then stops, and says

As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.

I can identify with this guy a lot. I remember Ally and I having a big argument (discussion?) with someone (my dad? I'm think it was Dad, but I don't want to mis-represent him, so I'm unwilling to commit) about this idea of intrinsic morality. We argued that for someone who is not a Christian (not anything - a naturalist), there is no such thing as intrinsic morality. There's no reason why murder is wrong and generosity is right. And what makes something good or bad is how well it works out for you. In our society, it works well for you to be nice to people, because they'll be nice back, and you can have companionship. And it works well to not kill people, because a bunch of us agree that we ourselves don't want to be killed, so we have mutually agreed to lock killers in rooms for years at a time. And so on. 


This is a common argument, and Atheists don't tend to like it. They think it's barbaric to argue that there is no such thing as morality if there's no God, and that it's good that Christians are Christians because they'd be doing terrible things if they weren't. (True)


I suppose I like Camus because he engages with this. I understand that he did think there was meaning (He says so in Letters to a friend? Something like that). But his understanding of The Absurd is spot-on.


Schaeffer talks about similar things as arguments for God. In, I think, the second? in his trilogy... God.. something. The End of Reason! He presents philosophical arguments for the existence of the personal, triune God. The two that I found quite compelling were these: 


The existence of personality, implies a personal god. We can't have personality unless whatever started the world off also has personality. He says that if one lake fills another lake (seriously, he uses lakes) then the filled lake cannot have a higher water-level than the filling lake. That's pretty obvious. You can't get something from nothing.


Personality may be fake though, right? It's not fool-proof. It may be a consequence of our complexity, the simulation of personality. But anyway, I like it none-the-less. 


The other argument I found quite compelling was the dignity, yet inability of humankind. This basically says that we know what's right, but we're unable to live up to our own standards. And this is an argument for sin, and the worldview that explains sin the best is the Christian worldview. I really like this one. As far as I know it is true, that the Christian worldview is the best explanation for our inability that there is. It's one of the reasons why non-Calvinism annoys me.


When faced with the apparent absurdity of the universe, but unable to accept it, it's a shame that Camus didn't infer the necessity for God. Necessary not because it provides relief, but because it explains our understanding that there is meaning in life (or personality), and that this concept can't spring from a meaningless beginning.


Secondly, when faced with the latter, Camus said 

Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.

It is a shame that Camus didn't find the Christian worldview to be the best explanation of this universal fact. In fact, I'd be surprised if he was ever presented with it. It's nowhere near as common as I'd like.


Camus won the Nobel Prize for literature. I just learnt that off Wikipedia. It's a shame that someone so brilliant, was so blind.

Saving Private Ryan: Freedom, capitalism, and Joe America (Joe Lunchbox!)

I just watched Saving Private Ryan. I haven't seen it for several years, and I enjoyed it a lot once again.

Something that struck me:

At the end (and beginning) of the film, James Ryan is an old man, going to visit the grave of the Captain who instrumented his return to the US. Just before he dies, Cpt Hanks says "Earn this" to Ryan.

Ryan is there with his family: His wife, children, and grandchildren. And he says "Beverley, tell me I'm a good man". To which she says "You are."

We don't know anything about Ryan. That's intentional. All we know is that he's Joe America, with kids and grandchildren that wear nice clothes, and are interested in coming to the grave-site with him. And this is a good life. Regular American life is a good life. That's what Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks clearly want to say.

Another thing:
The end is accompanied by a letter written by some sort of head of the army. And he says that James fought valiantly to rid the world of tyranny and oppression. The thing that struck me about this letter, is that it's true. The US (and Australia) do not actively oppress anyone born in the US or Australia. Nobody in Australia or the US could say that they are tyrannised by their government.

The Nazis were right-wing in that way too.

So the US doesn't oppress anyone, except by neglect. The gap between the rich and poor in America is huge. And my experience of being in that country was that there are a lot of beggars, and a lot of people getting by on not much. I wouldn't live in the US except in pretty special circumstances.

It's funny to me that the US, (and to a lesser extent Australia), think that oppression by a government involves active oppression of their own people only. It's clear from Graham's posts on this blog that both nations actively oppress people in countries (as do we by our compliance). And it's clear that, especially in the US,  people are oppressed by neglect. But this comes across as virtuous, because every person has the right to pursue their dreams, and every person has the right to make their fortune etc. It's about freedom.

So it turns out I don't want freedom.

This is obvious when it comes to violence. This is also obvious when it comes to health care. I would rather have a good public health insurance system than the US system which is more of a 'free market'. But it also applies to social services. I would never have been able to go to University in the States (well, maybe I would have got a scholarship, but that would have been my only chance). I like Australia's pseudo-free university system (free in the fiscal sense). I like that if people are struggling for whatever reason, they have access to government help.

These things result in less freedom, in the capitalist sense. This is good stuff.

Just saying...

Justice

Recently I was reading a book by Broughton Knox which is a collection of essays about different topics.  As I read the chapter on social justice, Knox was emphatic that as Christians we should not be driven by a desire for justice, but rather by compassion for those who we see in need around us.

I think that I partially agree, but with the reason behind his argument I disagree.

We certainly should not seek justice in everything, because as sinners in God's world, what is just is that we burn in hell with everyone.  This, however, is not what will happen as those of us who are God's elect will receve mercy and compassion despite our circumstances and behaviours. 

The problem comes when we apply the same reasoning to the world around us and our dealings with others.  Broughton Knox suggests that we should not seek justice, but that we should rather be driven by mercy and compassion because that is what has been shown to us.  I think that this is true in almost every situation when we are dealing with people.  But what about when we are dealing with institutions.

Right now every police officer in NSW has been equipped with a taser gun.  These guns allow police officers to deliver an incapacitating yet non lethal electric shock to aggressors.  From what I have heard and seen, these taser guns are largely used to deliver what I think is an inappropriate and too harsh form of policing.  In every place in the world that tasers have been introduced shootings by police have not dropped at all.  There are, however, a lot of instances where the tasers are used, either unnecessarily or in excess.  I think that these tasers are generally a bad idea and that police officers should not have them.  This is an issue of what I think is right and wrong.  I think that too much power in the hands of police is wrong.  I don't think, however, that it is wrong for me to fight against it.  I am driven by my sense of justice and fairness in this issue. 

I think that in this world it is important for us to seek what is right and fair for others.  I don't think that we should be driven solely by compassion and mercy, as that leads to good only for those weaker and less well off than us.  I think that we should seek justice and fairness for everyone in everything as we are part of the world in which we live and we should seek to make it a fair and just place for others to live. 

I think that Mr Knox would have agreed with htis as he used to petition and advise governments on their decisions, but sometimes I think that we are in danger of becoming too polarised in our viewpoints and use it as an excuse not to think through issues properly.

What do others think about pursuing justice and fairness?

The Pianist II

The second thing I noticed about The Pianist was that as I watched it, I found myself looking out the window, and struggling not to hate the people living around me. (The German national anthem just started for the World Cup semi-finals, just as I wrote that).

Now I know that most of these people weren't alive for WWII, and even if they were it doesn't mean they were pro-Nazi. But that's the thing. As we watch films like this, it can be really hard not to do exactly the same thing that Nazi Germany did - project and generalise.

It's easy to project my issues with people onto subcultures, and it's very easy to generalise. The makers of The Pianist wanted me to do this (for the sake of a couple of hours of convincing entertainment), but it's so wrong!

Apparently when Gallipoli, with Mel Gibson, was showing in cinemas roughly 30 years ago, people came out of the cinema and beat up anyone with a British accent. I can sympathise, I wanted to do the same. But it doesn't take a genius to realise how wrong that is.

So I don't know what I think about this. On the one hand I feel like films like The Pianist, Schindler's List, and even Life is Beautiful, are a bit cathartic for us. They help us to dela with the issues and move on. But on the other hand, I wonder whether they're just a little too manipulative. On the other hand, it makes me wonder about myself. Why can't I separate my hatred for Nazis during WWII (which I think is justified), and my feelings toward the German people who in general I have found to be lovely people.

I'm pretty confident Germany will win tonight. My prediction - 2:1 to Germany tonight, and then 3:0 vs. Holland on Sunday.

Why Physicists are Christians

Did you know that there are more Christian physicists than there are Christian ministers?

Neither did I... That's nonsense.

But there are a lot of Christian physicists. More than any other discipline, scientific or otherwise I think. I've always encouraged my extraordinarily intelligent and gifted wife to do a PhD in arts (English Literature or Cultural Studies) because a. She's a great writer, and b. There are very few - almost no, in fact - Christians in the arts.

The discrepancy is astounding. I have a bit of a theory about it. It's one of many possible reasons, so don't take it too seriously, but here it is:

Physics is the study of the natural world. If other physicists are anything like me, they look at the natural world, scratch their head, and say 'bloody hell, I'm never gonna understand this thing'. They are in constant awe. Anyone who knows anything about quantum theory knows that it's extremely weird, and incredibly impressive. The world doesn't behave the way you'd think, and the more physics you do, the more you find that out. But it is so difficult to understand, and such a marvel, that one can't help but marvel at the creator of it all, if one is so inclined as to believe there is a creator.

The Arts on the other hand, are humanistic (humanities). They're about what humans have done. When you study English literature you study Charles Dickens, and Virginia Wolf, and Margaret Atwood (my three favourites at the moment), and you marvel at people, and what they've done, and their enormous genius. How  could anyone read Oscar Wilde and think "Geez, if there's a god out there, I'm pretty impressed that he made Oscar Wilde". Sure they should think that, but instead they ditch the middle man, and just say "Geez, Oscar Wilde is pretty darn smart."

In this context I can imagine that there would be many more Christian physicists than Christian Arts people, and that is certainly the case.

But there's a bit of a worrying thing going on in physics, and at the moment I'm right in the thick of it. I'm studying two-dimensional physics, and some of the amazing things that come out of two-dimensional worlds (and they are amazing, believe me). But in case you haven't noticed, the world is 3D!

So is my research esoteric and useless? No. We can create 2D universes, and do physics with them. We can create 1D universes too. No worries!

And so now, while I still marvel at the maths, and while these properties are technically still part of nature, they're not natural, they're man-made. So when I do some physics on a 2D system, that system must be human-made. This worries me a little that physicists will become increasingly humanistic as well, and start worshipping the created like everyone else does...

The Pianist I

This week my beautiful wife and daughter are in England, so I'm a bachelor for a week. Inevitably then, I'm

1. Living in squalor, 
2. Eating poorly, 
3. Sleeping in, and 
4. Watching a lot of films.

Last night I watched The Pianist. About 20 mins in I felt sick and almost turned it off, but I persevered. It was excellent. When the German soldier gave him bread, and he opened the wrapping and there was jam inside, I could almost taste that jam, it was so good. Much of the film was about hunger, and it worked really well. Much of the film was about escalating violence, and that worked really well too.

Anyway, it raised several problems for me, which I'll deal with over a few posts lest this one get too long. I'll deal with the toughest one (for me) first:

God did that.

It's a common thread in Bible study groups, especially when the group does Old Testament stuff. God told Israel to attack so-and-so, and to leave no one standing, not men, not women, not children, not livestock. Nothing. Saul keeps a few sheep alive and gets in big trouble.

If you made a film about this, I would probably watch it and feel about Israel the same that I felt about the Germans in this film. When they were captured at the end, inside the wired fence, I hated them. I was really glad they'd been captured. And I was meant to feel this way. The filmmakers had that very purpose in mind.

So I'd feel about Israel the way I felt about the Germans, and presumably I'd feel about God the way I felt about Hitler.

This is a problem. (Goes without saying doesn't it?)

Usually, at least in Bible studies I've been to, there are some rationalisations which are raised at this point. You know the point? Someone in your BS hadn't really thought about Israel's genocidal tendencies before, and they're struggling not to be appalled by the whole thing. So some people say:

The thing you've got to remember, is that we all deserve that. We all deserve to die. We all hate God, by nature, and reject him. The Canaanites hated God. Let's look at Romans 3...

And the answer seems good enough, and we all store it away for a while. It's like in those fantasy films where the evil power gets trapped in a stone, and the magic that kept it there would be good for a time, but every 1000 years or so someone needs to re-work the magic to keep it there? Hah... can anyone relate to that?

But when I watch things like The Pianist, it comes out again. God's wrath is intense. His choice of Israel as his special possession is arbitrary, and so the Canaanites get screwed. God made us like this, for his own glory, and it leads to some pretty incredible violence and hardship, and then eternal punishment. I really really struggle with this.

So last night I was talking to God about it, and got nowhere. But maybe in time I will.

One more issue this raises for me:

I was raised as a Christian, and so initially I trusted God was there because my parents said so, and because I talked to him and it seemed reasonable.

These days I think the thing that what keeps me a Christian is the historical testimony. Sometimes I feel like God is real, sometimes I feel like I'm being sanctified, but sometimes I feel like it could just all be a farce. But then I remember: There's good reason to believe that Jesus lived and died and rose from the dead. The evidence is good. So God is there, and I have to deal with his character as it comes. And in the Bible that is a difficult thing.

I wonder where this is all going to lead me... Time for an intervention? Is anyone out there a little worried?

Godly Job Applications

Today I wrote a job application. There's a lectureship at UNSW, and I want it. I won't get it, I'm too young. Nevertheless, I think it would be worth their while employing me, and it would certainly be worth my while!, so we'll see.

Anyway, something I really struggle with for these things is knowing how to be godly. The whole point of the application is to sing your own praises, and to infer that anyone they talk to that you've ever come into contact with will do the same.

There are a couple of obvious ones:

Firstly, if you don't honestly believe others would sing your praises, you shouldn't infer otherwise.

Secondly, you shouldn't lie. That's a no-brainer.

Thirdly, you shouldn't promise to do anything you don't intend to do. I said I'd do this and that with students, and that I'd go to OH&S seminars when required, and so if I get the job, I must do those things. I said I would, and so I should.

But the really tricky bit is blowing your own trumpet. On the one hand it's not healthy to think about oneself for so long, nor in such a good light. And it won't do to write a basic overview of what you've done. For instance, with the physics I've done, it's not self evident why these things are significant, nor how many people care. I have to emphasise that this person cared, and this person published it, and these people referenced it. I have to be enthusiastic, and yet I shouldn't be insincere.

It's really tough right? Just thinking out loud...

Living for the Week

Today I intended to catch up on some work I missed this week. So of course, by 2pm I found myself watching Philadelphia - remember that movie? I assume everyone does, it was pretty huge.

Something that struck me at the beginning was this: Andy Beckett had HIV and was getting progressively more sick. Yet he kept working.

There are lots of possible reasons of course (the most compelling being that there is no reason, he didn't exist before minute 1 of the movie), but it got me thinking about work, and what sort of commitment we should have to it.

I have a PhD (well, technically I'll have one in about 14 days, though for all intents and purposes I've had one for about 6 months). That means I have 8 years education in Physics. And in fact my education continues. I still have a supervisor who I rely upon, I still read textbooks and review articles, I'm still learning new techniques and how to apply them. I find all this very satisfying - I also find it easy to procrastinate of course! - but it's very satisfying.

In some very real sense, I am living for my work. I don't go to work solely to support my family, but I also like contributing to society, and I like applying my training etc. These are really great gifts from God.

Another story: I have a friend who recently broke up with his girlfriend. One of the reasons it ended was because they had different values. She values relationships and family and do-gooding (at least in principle) whereas he values his career and getting ahead.

I don't know if this is such a bad thing. I mean, he should value do-gooding of course. But otherwise, why is he obliged to value family and relationships over work? Is there a biblical principle that can be applied appropriately here? Maybe Michael Hill's mutual love relationships? (The idea that ethics is not based on the individual, but two-party (bipartite, bilpolar? i forget) relationships. Maybe there's something in that line of thinking?) I don't know...

Anyone?

Splice

Spoiler Alert! I will ruin the plot of a film in this, so don't read it if you are intending to watch Splice.

Ok, tonight I watched Splice. I'm not sure if it's in Australian cinemas yet, maybe it's been out for some time.

Anyway, it plumbed the depths of iniquity. Not like Saw (I, II, III, IV, how many are there?) which was just a film about wallowing in the joys of torture and death, but in a more sophisticated way. There was extremely unethical cloning, the two main characters (the woman in particular, who was very well played by the girl from Go! who is not married to Tom Cruise) had extreme god complexes, bestiality (yes, the man (from the pianist) had sex with the half human - half animal girl they created) rape (yes, the woman did too when this beast turned into a man), and finally someone has come up with an act worse than abortion - the woman sold her unborn quarter-animal, three quarter-human to science.

These characters cared nothing for basic ethics toward living creatures, but then neither do some Christians I know, particularly those who grew up on farms.

It was really really interesting, and quite enjoyable.

I think the most terrifying science fiction possible, is stuff that is truly just around the corner. This was not Star Trek/Wars intergalactic travel which won't be possible in our lifetimes.The creature that these two made (if that's the right word) used technology which I would guess will be accessible in my lifetime.

Crazy stuff.

One thing that struck me, was the man's somewhat biblical perspective after he had sex with this animal/girl. The girl from Go! saw him, and when they talked about it, he blamed her ethics in making the girl. This was swallowed! His argument was "It all went wrong. We did the wrong thing from the beginning, and it got out of hand".

This had a remarkable Romans 1 feel to it, and was also pretty relate-able. It made me think of the Nazis (possibly because this guy was from the Pianist). It's that thing where one thing slips in your ethics, and then you find yourself on this slippery slope where suddenly you're killing Jews / having sex with animals / cheating on your wife / lying to your boss or whatever.

Further, the woman took it on board and that was it. She got over it extremely quickly. Before my very eyes the world has accepted sex-outside-of-committed-relationships as being far less worse than I think it is. I guess I'm getting old-fashioned at 27...

Even after knowing these things, I still recommend watching the film. I watched a preview for it and thought it would be horror or at least thriller. It was neither. It was just interesting, well told, well acted, well shot, and quite enjoyable, if not immoral. And it has two low-key sex scenes... and a rape scene... geez. Maybe you shouldn't watch it. Everything is... implied, not explicit, if that helps.

Ok, time to stop!

God, Family, Church

In this month's the Briefing, Simon Flinders has written a little article called 'The pastor and the evangelical priority list'. His basic argument is that the sayings like "a pastor's first congregation should be his family" are, in his opinion, incorrect. He is humble and gentle, and it is ably written. But I think his logic is flawed, and his argument ultimately wrong.

Firstly, a particularly questionable quote:

Is it really practical for a pastor of a congregation of God's people to place consistently the needs of his family above the needs of his church? [He answers no].  

Notice any problems with this Q&A? If you can't provide the needs of your family because of other commitments, then there are some serious problems here. But I don't think he means needs. He can't. I mean, he's not going to withhold food from his family for the sake of his church. I think he means desires, or even ideals, but not needs - please God that he doesn't mean needs. I feel for his family if he does.

Now he makes the good(-sounding) point, that the Bible doesn't provide straight-forward, easy answers to questions like this. That appeals to people, we like ambiguity, and we like to think things are more complex rather than less. But I don't see any genuine, satisfying justification for this in his argument, but rather he says he himself finds it tricky to navigate this issue.

Further, he argues that the Bible emphasises both as priorities (church and family), but never explicitly emphasises the needs of one over the needs of the other. I'll return to this in a second, but first a little aside.

He has a comparatively lengthy section on particular scenarios, including this one: The pastor comes home, the baby needs feeding, the kids need bathing, and then the phone rings. Someone in the parish is very ill and in hospital. What does the pastor do?

Now this is tricky, but it's irrelevant. Flinders argues that if he stays home he is prioritising his family, and if he goes he is prioritising his parish. Well, not really. Not wholistically.

Firstly there are other issues. Leaving your wife at home to do the bathing and feeding can be a godliness issue for her. As a couple you have decided it's ok to go on this occasion because that is the role you guys have chosen.

Secondly, this isn't about needs, it's about desires, and ideals. Perhaps your wife (and you) would desire to be at home, but this is maybe not the wisest choice. Perhaps it is ideal that you'd be at home rather than go out that night, and perhaps not. Your family life is tied to your godliness and your servant-heartedness, and your church life is too. So your family life and your church commitments are linked. Doing one option over another does not reveal your priorities in such a straight-forward way. This is a major problem with the article.

Ok, back to the Bible:

The relationship between husband and wife is a covenantal one. You made a solemn oath on your wedding day to treat your wife in particular as Christ has treated you, in a special, one-to-one way that demands your commitment to her physical and spiritual needs, and particularly you promise to present her pure and blameless on the last day, in so much as it is up to you.

A pastor has made no such covenant with their 'flock'. They are exhorted to protect them from ferocious wolves, and to treat them as family in a way, but the covenant (if there is one at all) in this case is nowhere near so binding as that. Similarly with the church. Flinders argues that the Bible never emphasises your blood-family over your church family. Yes it does! Your blood family is talked about often. Your church family is too, but not in the same way. Treat one another with purity, be concerned with one another's godliness, but with your family the rules are much more strict, and the relationships are expected to be much more intimate, of course.

Finally, I would think one can argue from the trinity of the necessarily stronger covenant between God and Jesus than God and us, and it has to do with different uses of the word family. But that would take a lot of words and people would disagree with me, so maybe not for today.

Flinders makes some excellent points, but I think his arguments are fatally flawed. I agree that it must be hard for a pastor to juggle his roles. I agree that it must be hard for missionaries to send their kids to boarding school (and would argue that if they are 'conflicted' as he says, then perhaps they shouldn't - but this is another matter again). But I cannot agree that the relationship between a pastor and his church is biblically on the same level as a man and his wife, and kids. The Bible never gives you such an out with your family.

As a final thought, consider this: If your wife became terminally ill and required full time care, would there be any question as to you leaving your job to care for her? A pastor is no different. Even if that church would fall apart, there would be no question.

Woops - and one more final thought! - The covenant you make with your wife is a binding one. A pastor may only be a pastor if, within the appropriate fulfillment of his promises to his wife, he has the time and energy to fulfil more roles to his congregation. It is the same for any new role. I cannot do ministry at my church at the expense of my relationship with my wife, because on my wedding day I made promises to my wife, and I must keep them. Just because I'm a physicist I don't think the rules are different. A pastor cannot neglect his wife for the benefit of his church, and so there's only one more option - if need be, he must neglect his ministry for the benefit of his wife.

I will write a letter to the Briefing. I'll try to be kind and thoughtful, which is not my strong-point when writing.

Does anyone have any comments that might help me think about this - or themselves?
Cheerios

Short Term Missions

I want to write what I think about short term missions and then I want to know what others think.  Whatever it is you think. Please comment.

I think that presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world is the most important thing that Christians do.  Mission work is vitally important.  It is the most important thing that we can do.

How we do it, though, is also very important.  And I think that we can do better.  Especially in the area of short term missions.

One missionary organisation that I know of is called Mercy Ships.  Mercy Ships own a boat that is a floating hospital.  On board of that boat are trained medical staff who volunteer their time and services to do two things:
1. They provide medcal treatment to the poorest people in the world (currently West African nations) who couldn't otherwise afford or fnd people to do it.  They bring skills and opportnities to the countries that they otherwise wouldn't have had.
2. They tell the people that they treat about Jesus and his eternal healing.  They offer the gospel to everyone who becomes their patient and many more besides.
I think that Mercy Ships does great work and that, for the most part, short term missions with them are valuable and worthwhile.  This is because they fill a material/social/medicinal need in the world that otherwise wouldn't be filled and with that they also bring the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is, I think, how it should be.

There is a type of short term mission, though, that I do not approve of.  It usually involves a group of young people going together to a very poor part of the world and seeing what is going on there.  It might be called a mission awareness trip or somethig of the sort.  The group would visit a few different places, see some churches in action, perhaps visit a missionary or two.  They might give a few talks to a congregation that doesn't see many white people and perhaps work with some children.  This is the kind of mission trip that I have a problem with.

My problem is that there seems to be no value to the people that they see, or if there is, it is disproportionate to the costs and possible benefits if they did not go.  In fact, a mission trip that is seen as a 'go and see' experience, seems to me to be a little perverted.  It doesn't seem that much different to going to the zoo. 

I also have a problem with the way that these trips are marketed.  Such as:

• These trips are not mission trips.  A missionary brings the gospel to people who have not heard it before.  Going on one of these trips does not make you a missionary.
• People often marvel that they have seen the world's poverty in its starkness, but they haven't.  Very rarely do these mission trips encounter the world's 1 billion hugry people.  Instead they pass them by from a moving vehicle.  The people that they spend time with are usually people living in what we would call poverty, and are certainly living from day to day, but are not the world's desperate.
• Too often the result of such missions sounds like this: "I can't believe that the people were so happy even though they have nothing.  I am going to try to be more grateful for what I have and let stuff control my life less."  When it should be: "I have seen the world's poor and destitute and there is not enough help for them.  I will live a life that allows me to help these people as much as I can, rather than continuing to help myself to whatever I want at their expense.  I will do this because I love Jesus and I love my brothers and sisters."

Lastly, I propose that we should not need an experience that costs so much to see that we have responsibilities to the world's poor.  I think that we seriously need to reconsider our ideas of Christian faithfulness when it comes to overseas travel and short term missions, as it seems to me that for the most part we are only serving ourselves.

Neocolonialism

I recently learned a new term: Neocolonialism.

We're all sold that colonialism was bad. The only thing worse than the colonialism that most of the rest of the world did, was the non-colonialism that happened in Australia. I cannot believe that I learnt the words Terra Nullius at school but don't remember it being taught as a bad thing. It was a thoroughly evil thing.

Anyway, going into some chunk of land, 'settling' there, and then encouraging the indigenous population to assimilate into your culture (encourage being a euphemism in most cases of course), enforcing your economy on them but often with lesser rights offered, etc etc, is all really bad. And so we have this lovely term post-colonialism which encapsulates the way of thinking and the approach to life and whatever else that rejects colonialism and attempts to right wrongs.

Enter neo-colonialism. This is, as the name suggests, a new form of colonialism. Taking the sweat shops in China as an example, when I buy some cheap gadget that was made in China by someone who is being poorly paid, appallingly treated, and generally oppressed, I'm participating in one form of neo-colonialism. By partaking in that marketplace, I'm forcing my economy on that person, and essentially keeping them enslaved to a system designed to maintain my prosperity and their poverty.

All these concepts we're well aware of, if not from Graham's previous posts. But I just wanted to share that nice word with you!

Faith and Deeds 2

After my last post on faith and deeds I have been thinking about what I should think about the relationship between faith, works and salvation.

Here is where I think we get unstuck in the reformed tradition becase we are so afraid of saying that we are saved by works that we say nothing of works and never address teir importance (if indeed they are important).

Let me begin by saying that it is made excessively clear in scripture that we are saved by grace alone.  There is nothing that I can do to earn my salvation.  I am incapable of good works and as such I cannot earn a place in glory.  On the final day when I am declared to be one of God's covenant people and it is shown that my name is in the book of life and that there is a place reserved for me in heaven, it will be only because I am clothed in the righteousness of Christ and washed in his blood.  Works will play no part in my declaration of inclusion in God's Kingdom (thank goodness).

So then the question is: Do works play a role in this area?  I think that the answer is yes.  Although works play no part in the inclusion in the covenant, they are an essential part of the life of the person who is included in the covenant.  Here I think that Matthew 25 is very helpful.

Jesus says:
 ³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
 ³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
 ³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
 ⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
 ⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
 ⁴⁴"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
 ⁴⁵"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
 ⁴⁶"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Here we are not seeing someone included in the covenant people because of their actions, but we are, I think, seeing someone judged as to whether or not they ever were one of the covenant people by their actions.  

Matthew 7 adds more to this idea for us:
¹⁵"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. ¹⁶By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? ¹⁷Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ¹⁹Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
 ²¹"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²²Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' ²³Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Here we see that the people who are included in the covenant have shown that they are included by the way that they behave.  I don't think that this is an earning salvation type of thing, but rather it is a case of those who are saved by Christ begin to be transformed by Christ in this life and they inevitably show that in the way that they behave toward others.

Too often we hear of the man on the cross beside Jesus who had faith but o works.  I think that this is rubbish.  Although his hands and feet were suspended on the cross so that he couldn't go anywhere, he demonstrated his regenerate heart by what he spoke.  Here was a criminal, a selfish man, condemned by society who demonstrated compassion and empathy to his Lord whom he saw suffering.  What is amazing about the thef on the cross is ot that he was saved without any deeds, but that the deeds that came about as a result of his salvation came so quickly.  It is amazing that his capacityto love and show compassion came about so quickly as the man beside him demonstrated his capacity only to hate and revile.

Works are important.  They are essential.  Not in order to to attain something, but for the Christian they are something that will become necessary just because of who they are becoming and what is happening as they become regenerate servants of Christ Jesus.

Faith without deeds is dead.

Too Harsh? Oh Dear...

I was reading another of my favourite blogs the other day. The title of the blog was "Poverty is an affront to God's glory".  There was this quote from someone's abstract in a paper they were giving at some conference:

In the realm of theology, I argue that justice is a necessary but insufficient foundation for concern about poverty, proposing that St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ contentions regarding the nature of ‘glory’ be further explored. I develop a theology of glory based on three scriptural understandings, namely grandeur, grace, and gratitude, and argue that we are most “fully alive” when we are in right relationship with ourselves, each other, and God. Poverty is an affront to God’s glory, then, because it is both a cause and consequence of broken relationships.

To which the blogger said they were really looking forward to the talk. Anyway, someone commented on the post with this

That seems a rather essentializing analysis. Once upon a time, the poor were noble and a spiritual witness to the self-satisfied rich. On the basis of this quotation, it seems that Woolcock would rather have us all be in the latter category. Couldn't one equally argue that monetary wealth is both a cause and consequence of broken relationships?

To which I commented:

Of course one could, that doesn't mean that wealth is bad. The Bible is emphatic over and over that wealth is good, but that sinful people can't handle it. Nevertheless the Bible never wishes poverty on people, never.

What sort of middle class nonsense is that? I'm sorry for the force, but it's comments like that that make Christians look like the worst people on earth, and is such dangerous theology to convince people to adopt. 

The poor in this world are not impoverished in comparison to the rich, they're impoverished in comparison to those who have food, or those who have clean water. People dying of malnutrition and diseases which were eradicated for us self-satisfied rich people 100 years ago, are not something we should aim to keep so that the self satisfied rich have a mirror to look in to see their own spiritual frailty.

Why not keep a homeless person in the courtyard of your house so that every time you walk by, you're reminded of your own spiritual poverty. Don't feed him too much or educate him too well, lest your mirror be shattered and your own short-comings be more difficult to discern.

This is disgraceful theology indeed.

When Jesus speaks of the poor he speaks of future relief. Sure they may act as a mirror in some circumstances, but that does not mean he intends to keep them that way. Never does the Bible condone the existence of the poor, but it repeatedly condemns those who do not give to them. God's plan for the fullness of time is immeasurable wealth.

But what's more, who is any self satisfied rich person to claim that the status quo (ie the existence of the poor) is a good thing? How dare anyone who has much claim that it's good that there are those who have little. Give everything you have away, impoverish yourself, and then make that claim. Sit on a pole for the next 20 years if you truly feel this way. Of course you don't. Armchair theologising about such weighty matters is a disgrace. 

Sorry [blogger] - feel free to remove this comment. As usual, thanks for the great blogs. 

I have been feeling a little anxious about it ever since. I got a little worked up, perhaps sinfully so, but boy did the comment annoy me... Was I too harsh?