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.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, July 23, 2010
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:
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.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, July 18, 2010
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
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.
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.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
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...
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...
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
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
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
Camus won the Nobel Prize for literature. I just learnt that off Wikipedia. It's a shame that someone so brilliant, was so blind.
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.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
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...
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...
Friday, July 9, 2010
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?
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?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
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...
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
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?
- Living in squalor,
- Eating poorly,
- Sleeping in, and
- Watching a lot of films.
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?
Monday, July 5, 2010
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...
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...
Saturday, July 3, 2010
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?
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?
Friday, July 2, 2010
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!
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:
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
