Christmas

This post is a little late, I started it a while ago, and have been too lazy to finish it up until now.

I am often told that I am a bit of a grinch at Christmas time, but I don't think that it's true.  I really do like Christmas.  I think that it's a great time of year.  People are generally willing to think of others, which is nice and lots of people give away extra money in the form of gift cards for others in poor countries, which I really like as well.

I do have a few problems with the way that we do Christmas, though. 

The more that I think about it, the more I have a problem with Christians taking part in the idea of Santa Claus.  It's not the idea of lying to kids about an imaginary gif giver who breaks into your house to give stuff to kids that I hate so much (although there seems little to like about it), it's the very person of Santa that I have a problem with.

Santa has no investment in anyone's life, except as a checker of naughty and nice and a gift giver once a year.  Even the focus on naughty and nice has gone by the wayside in our culture.  He used to be a cautionary tale, where he was used to try to get kids to behave.  Now he's just this guy who comes once a year to give presents and we give kids a sense of entitlement to having him come and give them something.

We say that Christmas is about remembering the Son being born to reestablish us into relationship with the Father.  The gift of the son is a gift of renewed relationship.  Santa can't bring gifts of renewed relationships because by definition he can only bring stuff.  Stuff we don't need and stuff which, quite frankly, distracts us and our kids from remembering Jesus and the relationship he brings.

The other problem I have with Santa is that it takes only a small amount of thought to recognise that he neglects the poor.  Even in movies they often have to address this where Santa has not given presents to some poor kid, because we all know that there are plenty of kids who don't get presents from him.  But he always looks good in the end because this is the year that they get something.  How ridiculous.

I love Christmas because we can remember that Jesus came to earth to live and die to repair our relationship with God.  Maybe at Christmas time this year we can give each other presents that improve our relationships with each other, like time and experiences that bond us together, so that when we compare them to the gift that God gave we are in less danger of being struck by lightning.  Because I feel pretty uncomfortable comparing the gift of Jesus to a bike.

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?

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

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?

 

More on Work

These quotes are taken directly from another blog I really like, and it is suprisingly relevant to a previous post. Sorry for the quote within the quote!

During World War II, Dorothy L. Sayers, gave a talk, Why work?, which is worth reading. Here are a few choice quotes

[We should view work] not as a necessary drudgery to be undergone for the purpose of making money, but as a way of life in which the nature of man should find its proper exercise and delight and so fulfill itself to the glory of God. That it should, in fact, be thought of as a creative activity undertaken for the love of the work itself; and that man, made in God’s image, should make things, as God makes them, for the sake of doing well a thing that is well worth doing.

.....

God is not served by technical incompetence; and incompetence and untruth always result when the secular vocation is treated as a thing alien to religion….

.....

Shall we be prepared to take the same attitude to the arts of peace as to the arts of war? I see no reason why we should not sacrifice our convenience and our individual standard of living just as readily for the building of great public works as for the building of ships and tanks – but when the stimulus of fear and anger is removed, shall we be prepared to do any such thing? Or shall we want to go back to that civilization of greed and waste which we dignify by the name of a “high standard of living”?

I found the last paragraph particularly interesting. If I've understood her correctly, she argues that we should work towards impressive public monuments/spaces/whatever instead of focussing resources on the waste that is ever increasing comfort.

This is a really interesting point. Again if I've understood correctly, this seems to be a theological argument from creation. If we, in working, are mimicking our God in creating, then we would build similar things to him. She argues for great public works in peace-time as an appropriate reflection of this work.

This has interesting repercussions for building nice churches and things like this (something I've never considered to be particularly wise).

However, she realises that during war time, tanks and ships are the appropriate thing to direct public resources toward, and rightly so. I wonder whether she would today argue for public resources going toward the necessities of the poor first and foremost?

World Cup Fever

This morning Australia played their first game of the World Cup and lost 4-0 to Germany.

As the World Cup has been approaching, though, I have been considering the appropriateness of South Africa hosting such an event. They have spent over $2 billion in preparation for one month's worth of football. That is a lot of money. It is estimated that by the time it is all over and accounted for the cost could be over $5 billion.

My problem is that in South Africa the wealth disparity is huge. Several million of the population have no access to running water or electricity. Over 50% of the country's population lives below the poverty line. Aids runs rampant throughout the nation, as it does the continent, and the unemployment rate is over 25%.

How could we possibly think that it is appropriate for the world to converge on a nation to play soccer at world class facilities when, just a few kilometres from every stadium there are people living in desperate poverty. They have no running water, no electricity and no sanitation.

I am concerned that as I watch and enjoy the World Cup games I am condoning what I think is a gross misallocation of resources. $5 billion is enough to provide running water, electricity and sanitation to many people in South Africa who don't currently have it. But instead it's being spent on one month's worth of sport.

The usual line is being pushed that this will increase tourism and spending and that the costs will be recovered in only a short time. Experience tells us, however, that this is not true. Even in Sydney ticket sales to the arious stadiums in Olympic Park have not covered their costs. Why would it be in any way different here. In Greece their economic downfall is in part being blamed on the incredible amount of money that went in to the Athens Olympics in 2004, which has not been recovered.

I think that as Christians we need to be very careful about what we support. I do not support the 2010 World Cup and if that means not seeing Australia play any more games then I can live with that.