The Ministry of Incompetence

What Does it Mean to Love Jesus?

2009-05-11T20:40:00.003+10:00

Many Christians instinctively take offence at the idea that they practice a religion. Quite often, they'll be quick be point out that they're about relationship, not religion. It's a strange assertion, given that St James says that there is nothing inherently wrong about being religious:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." - James 1:27

Of course, there is a marketing ploy in all of this rhetoric. By seeking to identify Christianity as a relationship rather than a religion, Christianity becomes differentiated from other religions. I must admit that I am finding this idea all the more strange of late, considering that the phrase "personal relationship" doesn't appear in the Scriptures. The notion of a personal relationship with Jesus sounds more like a slick corporate slogan than a timebound biblical principle.

Closely related to the idea of a personal relationship with Jesus is the idea that as Christians we love Jesus, which I'd argue is somewhat more biblical. Nonetheless, this much more biblical concept has given birth to countless manifestations of this idea. One of these manifestations has been the emergence of so-called "Jesus is My Boyfriend" songs, which seek to define our relationship with Jesus in romantic, or even erotic terms. Though these songs are popular in many churches, they have incurred the wrath of other Christians, who see these songs as essentially oversentimentalised and self-absorbed. Without wishing to subscribe to this point of view absolutely, it is an argument that I believe is not without some degree of merit.

This got me thinking. Seeing that Jesus is no longer incarnate, what is the concrete object of our desire? Some Christians will appeal to the Bible, but I'd ask such Christians this question: In what sense is the love Christians have for Jesus different to the love that Marxists have for Marx? Perhaps this idea is even better articulated by the late Jacques Derrida, who made the following comment about the ambiguities of love during an interview in 2002:

Love is a question of who and what. Is love the love of someone or the love of some thing?

Suppose I love someone, do I love someone for the absolute singularity of who they are? i.e. I love you because you are you. Or do I love your qualities, your beauty, your intelligence?

Does one love someone, or does one love something about someone? The difference between the who and the what at the heart of love, seperates the heart. It is often said that love is the movement of the heart. Does my heart move because I love someone who is an absolute singularity, or because I love the way that someone is?

Often love begins with a type of seduction. One is attracted because the other is like this or like that. Inversely, love is disappointed and dies when one comes to realise the other person doesn't merit our love. The other person isn't like this or that. So at the death of love, it appears that one stops loving another not because of who they are but because they are such and such [a person].

That is to say, the history of love, the heart of love, is divided between the who and the what. The question of Being is divided into what is it 'to Be'? What is 'Being'? The question of 'Being' is itself always already divided between who and what. Is 'Being' someone or some thing? I speak of it abstractly, but I think that whoever starts to love, is in love, or stops loving, is caught between this division of the who and the what. One wants to be true to someone - singularly, irreplaceably - and one perceives that this someone isn't x or y. They didn't have the qualities, properties, the images, that I thought I'd loved. So fidelity is threatened by the difference between the who and the what.

These words were deeply revealing to me. As Christians who say we love Jesus, do we love Jesus as that first century Jew living in Palestine, or do we simply love the ideas we associate with Jesus? And if the latter, is it simply our own ideas that we love - to be blunt, are we enamoured with our own intellect? If so, then this would suggest that our so-called love for Jesus is an act of self-love, rather than love, per se.

Some may lambast me at this point for trying to equate love with a feeling rather than an action. But the fact is, love is no less a noun than a verb. English sometimes works like that. Sure you can show love, but you can't show love without there being an object (of is we proceed existentially, a Subject) of this love. This being the case, it seems that there will always be this tension between loving Jesus as Subject and loving ideas about Jesus, which quite often are ideas of our own making.

As I see it, one solution to this dilemma may lie in Jesus' own words that if we love him that we will obey his commandments. But even then, does our obedience reflect a commitment towards Jesus, or simply a commitment towards our own ideas about Jesus? And if the latter, how do we love Jesus as Subject, rather than a Jesus as the object of our ideas?

Catholicism on Merit

2008-08-07T21:27:00.003+10:00

From paragraph 2011 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone.... In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself." - St. Therese of Lisieux, "Act of Offering"

The Protestant Myth of its Own Origins

2008-07-31T18:54:00.003+10:00

Recently I've been perusing a website entitled "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism", the personal site of a person who converted from Calvinism to Catholicism. In one of his articles I discovered a quote that I thought really resonated with truth about Protestant self-identity in which he muses about "the Protestant myth of its own origins -- or a sort of Protestant folklore".

Central to Protestant self-understanding is the notion that Protestants are the "Bible people"; the ones who are Bible-centered (as well as "gospel-centered," of course) and who reject the "traditions of men" and arbitrary rulings of a powerful ruling class with a vested interest in the status quo. Many Protestants assume that they more or less have a monopoly on love and respect for the Bible.

Clearly, the abovementioned self-understanding is no longer held universally among those who call themselves Protestants. However, for Evangelicals (and particularly, for Calvinists), who regard themselves as the true inheritors of authentic Protestantism, this identity is as strong as it ever was. Ironically, it is this very identity that prevents Protestants from coming to a greater understanding of the Bible, as I shall discuss below.

It should be remembered that Protestantism was born, as it were, as a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church. Because of this, the early Reformers had to commit themselves to hermeneutical principles (presuppositions, for the presuppositionalists among you) that justified their reaction against Rome, whether or not these principles accorded with internal biblical testimony. The obvious first step was to deny the authority that Roman Catholicism attributed to sacred tradition. Not only did this provide some kind of a leg to stand upon, it also reinforced the perception that Protestants had a high view of the Scriptures because it was their ultimate source of authority. This presupposition also carries with it a presupposition of the sole sufficiency of Scripture.

The belief that one could deny the authority of sacred tradition and question the interpretation of the established church created further problems. On what basis could the Reformers legitimately do so? How did they know the interpretation of the Bible by the Catholic Church was wrong? The only viable solution to this dilemma is to assert that Scripture at these very critical points relating to salvation was self-evident. From here, we get the presupposition of the perspicuity of Scripture.

It is the presupposition of the perspicuity of Scripture, along with the identity of Protestants as the "Bible people" that has been so self-stultifying for Protestant understanding of the Bible. In short, if Scripture is clear (at least at important points) and you are part of the tribe of Bible people who are devoting to studying the Scriptures intensively, then it stands to reason that you believe your tribe understands the Bible correctly. The problem is, how do you explain the fact that other tribes disagree with your interpretation at different important points when you have affirmed the perspicuity of Scripture? If you're convinced that you've understood the Bible correctly, the only logical conclusion is to suggest that the other tribe is simply ignorant about Scripture. That is, if they had the devotion to Scripture that you did, and because Scripture is clear, they would come around to your understanding. No wonder that Calvinists like to perpetuate the myth that most Catholics are biblically illiterate.

Of course, there is the slightly disquietening thought that there are some who disagree with your understanding of the Bible that have studied the Scriptures diligently. One way around this is to simply claim that those people have simply been brainwashed by that Great Satan, the Roman Catholic Church and are parroting exactly what they hear from their evil overlord. The other way is to reaffirm that you are in fact part of the tribe of Bible people, that you cherish the Bible, that this person stands against you, and as such, they stand against the Bible. In short, if they were being honest with you and honest with themselves, they would quite humbly admit that you were right all along. Quite naturally it would be that way. After all, you belong to the tribe of Bible people ...

10 Insights from World Youth Day

2008-07-21T22:03:00.003+10:00

1) While I'm still well and truly on the journey, I'm not quite ready to convert to Catholicism just yet. There is still much prayer and reflection to do before I will decide definitively.

2) Whatever qualms I have about Catholic doctrine, there is no denying that the majority of Catholics I know truly live by faith and are reliant upon the grace of God in their daily lives.

3) The majority of Catholics I know lead lives empowered by the Holy Spirit, far more so than many who would decry them as not being Christian. I found this particularly true on the last afternoon, where they were more than gracious towards my less than perfect behaviour.

4) The Catholics I know have self-aware and reflective faiths. They think carefully about what they believe and take their faith seriously.

5) Contrary to the stereotype, most Catholics I know don't see themselves as "good" people who will get to heaven because of their goodness. They see themselves as unfinished and in need of God's grace to sustain them.

6) Most Catholics I know place far less importance on doctrine than living a life in communion with God. Theirs is a very earthy and grounded faith.

7) Most Catholics I know appreciate that there are many elements of their faith that are a mystery. They don't seek to place God in a box they control, but humbly realise that God is bigger that they are.

8) Most Catholics I know are open to the Scriptures are don't read their own theology and prejudices into the text.

9) Most conservative Protestants don't have a clue about Catholicism and Catholic doctrine and don't have any inclination to become better informed. While this is sad, there is not much I can do to change that.

10) The Catholic Church is the only institution who can bring significant change for the better and the message of Jesus to a lost and broken world. Time will tell to what extent it is successful with this mission.

My Ambitious Intentions for World Youth Day (Week)

2008-07-16T20:18:00.002+10:00

Where I live and work I'm on the edge of World Youth Day celebrations, so until tonight I've really only seen the odd smattering of groups from around this world. But tonight I went to where the action is at Circular Quay and was totally unprepared for what I saw. So many pilgrims. So many countries. So little alcohol.

This gave me an idea ... No, not bootleg liquor, as profitable as this might be. I thought, since there are so many people around, how about I say hello to some of them, maybe give them a sign of the peace. And perhaps, I could get them to sign my WYD book, which I may have to pick up from the supermarket later tonight. My aim will to be to get as many countries in the book as possible.

So, what does everyone think of my plan?

Is it stupid?
Will I even go through with the plan?
And is this simply a thinly veiled idea to talk to girls from overseas?

I guess all these questions and more will be answered in due course. Stay tuned ...

Stream of Consciousness Writing 1

2008-07-14T20:29:00.003+10:00

Drifting, seamless star. From where you are; from where you sleep. What are those tangerine dreams that you speak of? Spoke, but no longer speak. Lifting from the ether and rising from the surface, then descend to rend all their due. Karmic consequence, that is. No grace; grace is gone. Sun no longer shines; peace no longer reigns; a new age begins.

Alien nation, why so foreign? Why so aloof? You hold the secrets you never wish to share; those you cling to your breast, and your breast alone. Is it really you that owns them? Disown. Rezone. Transcend and break free; seize and release. Unite with the other lonely being, thirsting for their counterparts.

To strike, to slay, to heal. The double-edged sword and the twisted olive branch. Make crooked paths straight and feeble hands strong. Empower by taking away. Away. Away with it all, away with them all. Simplify. Bring to focal point; the colours concentrated as one.

Sing, sung, unsung. Let the music reverberate, re-enervate. Ill fated swan, where do you swim; from where have you swum and from where have you come? Past is important - decides but not determines. To be determined upon other vicissitudes of life. Left for consideration, reflection, inflection.

Once stranded, once sailed, now failed. Death rattle. Last unfettered breath. Inhales, exhales. Expires and expires. Eyes shoot last flickering signs of life, last sparkling signs of sentience. Blinds drawn across. Eyelids close, shutters shut. Head bobs down, down to sleep, and yet no more to wake. Peace.

Demolition in Doha

2008-06-15T14:56:00.002+10:00

It was a wonderful effort in Doha in the early hours of the morning, Australian time, as the Socceroos virtually assured themselves of first spot in their group with a 3-1 thrashing of Qatar. In terms of their attack, it was probably one of the best games I have seen from them in quite a while. The only disappointment was seeing them concede a consolation goal in the dying minutes, but you can't have everything your own way. Suffice to say, the performance was appreciated by all in attendance at Paddy Macguires in the city.

Last night's win means that the game against China next Sunday night in Sydney, which I will be attending, will pretty much be a dead rubber, but hopefully they can show some of their form regardless. I suspect that Australia's toughest games are ahead of them as they progress to one of the five-team groups where pretty much every game will be very tough to win. I'm not sure when the draw will take place to determine who else Australia will be playing, but I look forward to it with interest.

Ulysses is Freakin' Hard to Understand

2008-06-14T21:25:00.002+10:00

This time I really do think I've bitten off more than I can chew. I read a few of the great novellists and I thought that I was ready to read James Joyce. Suffice to say, I'm inclined to think that I'm out of my depth. From what I've read so far, it also seems as though you need post-graduate qualifications in English literature to understand the novel.

I'm just wondering if there are any people who could help me get a grasp on this great tome? Perhaps it may be better to read Homer's Odyssey first so I have at least a background knowledge of what Joyce is on about? Or perhaps there is no hope?

Sanity Prevails Again

2008-06-12T18:42:00.002+10:00

You may well have noticed that I haven't posted for the last week or so. The reason for this was largely beyond control - my computer decided to stop working. That said, the break was quite necessary for an unrelated reason. Sometimes the good has to be postponed for the better. And hopefully, the better better pay off. I shall keep you posted ...

The Play's the Thing, Horatio

2008-06-07T23:54:00.004+10:00

I had the opportunity to see a production of "Hamlet" by Bell Shakespeare tonight at the Opera House. The accomplished cast included theatre legend Barry Otto as Polonius and rising star Brendan Cowell as Hamlet. As a pleasant surprise, Sarah Blasko not only produced the score, but had a minor role on stage too. I can tell you now, she's even more gorgeous in real life than I had imagined her to be. The performances were absolutely fantastic, especially from Brendan Cowell. He really had such an amazing stage presence.

As a momento to this evening, I thought I might quote the one of the most famous soliloquys in all of Shakespeare's back catalogue. The artful way in which Shakespeare writes is remarkable at the best of times, but one is only made aware of his brilliance when one hears his plays well performed:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.

"Camus Can Do, But Sartre is Smartre"

2008-06-06T22:42:00.002+10:00

So says Jon Lovitz in an episode of the Simpsons, but I'd suggest this is debateable. I've just finished reading "The Stranger" and it is a short, sharp, brilliant book. That said, it was a fairly depressing read, as the following quotes show:

"I was listening, and I could hear that I was being judged intelligent. But I couldnt quite understand how an ordinary mans good qualities could become crushing accusations against a guilty man."

"I did not feel remose for what I had done. But I was surprised by how relentless (the lawyer) he was. I would have liked to have tried explaining him cordially, almost affectionately, that I never had been able to truly feel remose for anything. My mind was always on what is coming next, today or tomorrow."

On the Desirability of Desire

2008-06-05T22:08:00.002+10:00

For some reason, there are two predominant responses when it comes to the issue of what to do with our desires. The first response is to submit to our desires and to simply go with the hedonistic flow. The second response is to repress these desires, to subvert them and to deny that they even exist. For obvious reasons, neither of these responses is particularly helpful. The former is short-sighted and fails to look to the long term interests of ourselves and others. The latter is perhaps even more problematic, because by denying the existence of our desires, we deny the existence of our humanity and even that impulse that gives us reason for being. It is this latter response that I wish to look at, since I believe that it is probably more prominent in Christian circles.

Desire is usually associated with that mysterious entity known as the "spirit" and is the sign that we do not merely exist, but exist for a reason. Without desire, our lives would soon become meaningless and we would see no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Indeed the very fact that we do get out of bed in the morning seems to suggest that we acknowledge that our existence has a reason, even if we dolefully concede this point. It is something that most of us doing instinctively rather than in a pre-meditated fashion.

Of course, as someone who has struggled and struggles with depression, I am well aware of the fact that our desires wax and wane with the tides of the sea. Life does not always seem meaningful and there does not always seem to be a reason to get out of bed. Indeed, this is the most horrible thing about depression - not the idea that one is sad, but that one is unable to find reason and meaning in existence. Life becomes a continual state of ennui and existence becomes nausea.

I would suggest that our desires are indicative of our attempts to reach out towards God. They are our unconscious attempts to cry out to the cosmos in the pursuit of transcendence. Most of the time, the root of our desires are hidden in our natural appetites, whether it be hunger, thirst for knowledge, sexual frustration, or anger. Sometimes, in the pursuit of transcendence, these desires become disordered and we see fulfilling these appetites as a means in themselves, rather than a means towards a greater end. The answer, according to Thomas a Kempis, is self-control:

So it is by resisting the desires that true peace of heart is found, not by yielding to them. That is why there is no peace is the heart of a person who is ruled by his natural desires and prisoner to externals; but there is peace in the person who is spiritually alive and ruled by spiritual standards.

We should not be ashamed of our desires - they are a sign that we are beings who not only live, but are alive. But to be truly alive, we must not be conquered by our desires. Only when our desires serve as a means towards a greater end will our desires ever be fulfilled.

Waugh's Counter-Intuitive Catholic Apologetic

2008-06-04T22:15:00.002+10:00

When I finished Evelyn Waugh's "Brideshead Revisited", I wasn't entirely sure what to make of the novel. Certainly, there is an element of tragedy involved - by the end of the story each of the characters seem to be rather broken as their ambitions and desires have failed to come to fruition. However, by Waugh's own admission, the novel "deals with what is theologically termed 'the operation of Grace', that is to say, the unmerited and unilateral act of love by which God continually calls souls to Himself". This being the case, it seems that the various tragedies that befall the characters are not meant to be the focal point of novel, but nonetheless play an important role in Waugh's theological argument.

The first thing that I noticed was that Waugh's depiction of the Catholic characters in the novel is often less than flattering. Each seems to be subject to fairly chronic personal failings. Sebastian, who is converted in his thirties seems completely incapable of beating his alcoholism. Brideshead is socially awkward and rather judgmental. Cordelia, the best intentioned of the lot, seems to be rather naive. But perhaps this is the point. Waugh is pointing out that the Church is a place for broken people; not for saints, but for sinners. In fact, Waugh seems to allude to the idea that it is only when people are brought low that faith begins to truly emerge.

The most charming element of the novel is the power of belief. Throughout most of the story, Julia is an incredibly skeptical lapsed Catholic, but the remnants of her faith remain, like glowing embers beneath the ashes. While she starts to consider that her religion may be true towards the end of the novel, it is only at the memorable deathbed scene of her father, recounted by the intensely agnostic Charles, when her faith is irrevocably restored:

'Now,' said the priest, 'I know you are sorry for all the sins of your life, aren't you? Make a sign, if you can. You're sorry, aren't you?' But there was no sign. 'Try and remember your sins; tell God you are sorry. I am going to give you absolution. While I am giving it, tell God you are sorry you have offended him.' He begin to speak in Latin. I recognised the words 'ego te absolvo in nomine Patris ...' and saw the priest make the sign of the cross. Then I knelt, too, and prayed: 'O God, if there is a God, forgive him his sins, if there is such a thing as sin,' and the man on the bed opened his eyes and made a sigh, the sort of sigh I had imagined people made at the moment of death, but his eyes moved so that we knew there was still life in him.

I suddenly felt the longing for a sign, if only of courtesy, if only for the sake of the woman I loved, who knelt in front of me, praying, I knew, for a sign. It seemed so small thing that was asked, the bare acknowledgement of a present, a nod in the crowd. I prayed more simply; 'God forgive him his sins' and 'Please God, make him accept your forgiveness.'

So small a thing to ask.

The priest took the little silver box from his pocket and spoke again in Latin, touching the dying man with an oil wad; he finished what he had to do, put away the box and gave the final blessing. Suddenly Lord Marchmain moved his hand to his forehead; I thought he had felt the touch of the chrism annd was wiping it away. 'O God,' I prayed, 'don't let him do that.' But there was no need for fear; the hand moved slowly down his breast, then to his shoulder, and Lord Marchmain made the sign of the cross. Then I knew that the sign I had asked for was not a little thing, not a passing nod of recognition, and a phrase came back to me from my childhood of the veil of the temple being rent from top to bottom.

The remarkable thing about this scene is Charles' desperate desire to believe. After rejecting the Catholic faith on the basis of logic, Charles breaks down in this scene to pray to the God who may or may not exist. He finds himself swept up in the moment and starts to pray, almost against his wishes. When sanity is restored, Charles seems to be embarrassed about letting his guard down and returns to his agnosticism. However, this is not to be the last word, and some years later faith finally gets the better of him.

Some Appropriate Soul Searching Music

2008-06-03T23:51:00.003+10:00

"Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by the immortal Robert Zimmerman.

Lectio Divina

2008-06-02T22:38:00.005+10:00

On the weekend I was introduced to the spiritual practice of "Lectio Divina", a discipline that is said to extend back to Saint Benedict in the early sixth century. In essence, the idea is to read a passage of Scripture several times and then stop to reflect upon a word or a phrase that the Holy Spirit has brought to the attention of the reader. These reflection then lead to prayers the individual offers up to God. This is a process that is meant to transcend mere intellectual ruminations.

Reading through "Imitation of Christ today, I was struck by the words of Thomas a Kempis on the art of reading the Scriptures. He writes:

In the Holy Scriptures we must look for truth, not eloquence. All Scripture must be read in the spirit in which it is written and in the Scriptures we should look for what will help us, and not for subtle points.

Upon reflection, this makes perfect sense to me. Throughout history, the majority of the Christian population has been poorly educated and illiterate. In this sense, the idea that one can get to the deeper truth of Scriptures by clinically analysing sentence structure and grammar seems rather absurd. I suspect the authors of the books of the Bible weren't aiming for such nuances, given that they expected their message to be heard by and understood by a peasant community.

It seems to me that those who believe that they are theologically sophisticated because they analyse Scripture with what they believe to be precision miss the point completely. They are like scientists dissecting a frog - understanding the internal organs is interesting, but this doesn't change the fact that the scientist has killed the frog. Scripture is meant to be a living, breathing entity that speaks to the individual by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, not a dead entity that can conquered objectively. For these people, they want to tame Scripture and turn it into something that they possess and I suspect that the idea that Scripture may be bigger than they are might be far too confronting. Only when they subject themselves to the Holy Spirit will the Scriptures be opened up to them.

My Evangelical Readers Will Be Jealous of Me

2008-06-01T19:03:00.003+10:00

I have observed over the years that many evangelicals bemoan the fact that they're no good at evangelism. Either they lack the confidence to share their faith, or they never find themselves in a position to explain what they understand to be the gospel. On Friday night, I got a chance to explain the evangelical understanding of the gospel, even without trying.

To set the scene, I was heading off for a weekend away with a Catholic group and was given a lift to the venue by a girl, along with another passenger. The truth got out that I came from an evangelical upbringing, had been happily evangelical until my early twenties and that I was not yet confirmed as a Catholic. After talking about my background for a little bit longer, one of the girls asked me why a lot of Protestants didn't consider Catholics to be Christians. I outlined the evangelical understanding of the gospel, explaining that a lot of Protestants get very hung up on the idea that Catholics don't believe in salvation by grace through faith and believe that this undermines the sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross. I must confess that I gave a fairly lucid description of the gospel too, which shows that I still haven't lost any of the touch that I had when I was an evangelical myself.

If struck me that evangelicals would get my opportunities to share the gospel if they took an interest in what other people believed and did so with an open mind. Of course, if one wanted to be really cynical, one could simply feign interest, as I suspect most evangelicals do. They could merely pretend they were interested and then press towards the goal. Of course, I suspect that one will get a lot more "opportunities" if they really are interested in the Catholic faith, as I actually am. That said, since there is no room for genuine two-way dialogue in the evangelical understanding of evangelism, contrived and fabricated two-way dialogue shall have to do.

So, to my evangelical friends who are disappointed that they struggle to "share the gospel" with others, consider this: I've probably explained the evangelical gospel to more people than you lately - and I haven't even tried ...

The Run is (Probably) Over

2008-05-30T01:03:00.002+10:00

Well, it looks like the end. So far I've blogged every day this year, making 152 days in total. In doing that I've probably sacrificed quality for the sake of quantity - but people don't seem to appreciate quality anyway, do they? Not like in the good old days, it seems. That said, I'm going away to Kurrajong this weekend for a Catholic retreat and probably won't have an internet connection. Well, it's been a good run while its lasted.

Maybe there are some computer heads out there who could set up a program that will "auto blog" for me at twenty-four hour intervals? Or is my belief in the idea of perpetual blogging simply one of my immaculate conceptions based on nothing but an assumption?

C.S. Lewis on the Reformation

2008-05-29T22:31:00.003+10:00

The process whereby ‘faith and works’ become a stock gag for the commercial theatre is characteristic of that whole tragic farce which we call this history of the Reformation. The theological questions really at issue have no significance except on a certain level, a high level, of the spiritual life; they could have been fruitfully debated only between mature and saintly disputants in close privacy and at boundless leisure. Under those conditions formulae might possibly have been found which did justice to the Protestant–I had almost said the Pauline–assertions without compromising other elements of the Christian faith. In fact, however, these questions were raised at a moment when they immediately became embittered and entangled with a whole complex of matters theologically irrelevant, and therefore attracted the fatal attention both of government and the mob. When once this had happened, Europe’s chance to come through unscathed was lost. It was as if men were set to conduct a metaphysical argument at a fair, in competition or (worse still) forced collaboration with the cheapjacks or the round-abouts, under the eyes of an armed and vigilant police forced who frequently changed sides. Each party increasingly misunderstood the other and triumphed in refuting positions which their opponents did not hold: Protestants misrepresenting Romans as Pelagians or Romans misrepresenting Protestants as Antinomians [emphasis mine].

- C.S. Lewis, English Literature in the Sixteenth Century (Excluding Drama), Introduction, p37

From the Road to Brideshead

2008-05-28T22:20:00.003+10:00

I finished "On the Road" by Jack Kerouac. The book took me a while to get into, but by the time I had finished, I felt the journey worthwhile. I must admit that I felt a little bit ambivalent about the "hero" of the story, Dean Moriaty. He has a number of fatal flaws, the most prominent of these being his womanising tendencies. But at the time he is certainly not a malicious character, doesn't hold grudges and is warm toward all those he comes into contact with. Still, it is his irresponsibly that ends up alienating him from those around him and ultimately causes his downfall. What I found fascinating was the fact that I felt tremendously sorry for him, even though what happened to him seemed to be poetic justice.

Having finished "On the Road", I've now started "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh. So far I've read the prologue and the first chapter and the novel offers a lot of promise. One thing I am interested in is whether the novel is meant to be semi-autobiographical. I know that Evelyn Waugh was received into the Catholic Church in his late twenties and the book is about the protagonist's attraction to an aristocratic and eccentric Roman Catholic family. Perhaps I shall have to research that later, but it might be a good idea to read the book on its merits for the time being.

Catholic Gathering Tonight

2008-05-27T22:49:00.002+10:00

I've been back from my "Branches" meeting earlier this evening about half an hour ago. I would suggest without doubt that it was the most interesting night yet. The talk was about "Brokenness and Healing", but perhaps what intrigued me most was the story of the speaker's conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism. Although people never give me enough details to satisfy my unquenchable thirst, I do know that it was a long journey. From the time she starting flirting with Catholicism to the time when she eventually became Catholic was almost five years.

One of the reasons I found her story so interesting is that it had many similarities to mine, both in her upbringing and by the fact that she was exposed to overzealous evangelicalism in her university days. She also pointed to being strangely drawn to the Eucharist. Upon reflection, I can say this is also true for me. The only major difference is that I that while my mother is Protestant, she would be supportive of my decision should I one day decide to become Catholic. I sense that there was perhaps a time when this may not have been the case, but it seems that her faith have significantly developed since then, just as mine has.

I should point out that it has already been a long journey for me. Some three years ago when I was still living at Ashfield, I discovered that their was a "Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Chapel" open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week at the nearby suburb Belfield. Sometimes, when I would get depressed at night, or could not sleep, I would get in my car and drive the three or four kilometres down to the chapel. Often this would take place at crazy times like three in the morning. When I got to the church, sometimes I would just sit down and reflect, sometimes I'd pray, and sometimes I would read my Bible.

I must admit, I'm not entirely sure how these middle of the night visits led to me deciding to look further into Catholicism, but I'm glad that they did. I can't say for sure that I will become a Catholic, but even if I don't, I'm quite grateful to God that he has been able to help me establish a newfound respect for these special brothers and sisters in Christ. This is something I know I shall never lose.

More on the Atonement

2008-05-26T21:31:00.002+10:00

Some of my readers may remember that a few nights ago I talked about the concerning disconnect between the evangelical perception of the gospel and Jesus' teachings. I thought that I might take that idea further tonight and try to examine Jesus' life and ministry within the context of his subsequent death and resurrection. With that in mind, I suggest that by looking at the atonement through the lens of Christus Victor, we see the entirety of Jesus' life, including Jesus death and resurrection, as a coherent whole. Alternatively, I would suggest that the same cannot be said if we understand the atonement through the lens of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, because when we do, Jesus' life and ministry begins to look somewhat like an unnecessary and option extra.

The first thing I'd point out is that I believe that evangelicals are right to see Jesus' death as the focal point of his earthly ministry. Firstly, the gospel writers all include the crucifixion and resurrection narrative, and all conclude their narratives with these events. Secondly, one only needs to see how much space each writer decides to allocate to the final week of Jesus' life to know that they consider these events to be important. Of course, this is not to say that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is of exclusive importance, but it is fair to say that these events should be regarded as the climax of the gospel narratives and the logical conclusion of what has preceded these events.

In my previous post, I suggested that the Kingdom of God Jesus speaks so much about should be central in our understanding of the gospel. I described the Kingdom of God as more than merely a spiritual and distant reality. It is clear that Jesus believes that he has inaugurated the Kingdom of God. In short, he believes that there is a very real sense in which the Kingdom of God is already here. Furthermore, I suggested that the Kingdom of God is opposed to "this present evil age", which is seen to enslave and entrap the captives. By striking out against the religious, political and social institutions that held humanity captive, Jesus is offering freedom to all.

What I have described above in the life and ministry of Jesus is part of the story, but I would suggest that it is only by examining this mission in the context of Jesus' subsequent death and resurrection does the story truly take shape. The first thing to point out is that throughout the gospel narratives Jesus is fighting an active and malevolent force of evil, fighting back to prevent this freedom that Jesus offers. The gospel writers all use the religious authorities as the human face of this evil, and to a lesser extent the Roman Empire. Throughout the gospel narratives, each gospel writer foreshadows the inevitable show down between Jesus' and the powers. At various points of the narrative, it is clear that the religious authorities wish to kill Jesus. Indeed, this is precisely what does happen with the crucifixion. It is here where Jesus meets evil face to face, eye to eye, the event that the whole scope of Jesus' ministry is building towards. Here we understand the resurrection as Jesus' defeat of the powers and the defeat over the power that death holds over humanity.

The summary I've provided above suggests that the very direction of Jesus' ministry leads to an inevitable final confrontation. Even as Jesus is dying, we see the curtain tear in two, a symbol of Jesus fight against the powers that keep humanity from God. Understood this way, the cross is not isolated from the very raison d'etre of Jesus' ministry - rather it is the very point of Jesus ministry writ large. As much as I try, I just can't make the same sense out of Penal Substitutionary Atonement - it doesn't seem like the continuation of Jesus ministry, but rather the antithesis of it. Throughout Jesus' ministry, Jesus tells parable after parable depicting God as "the Good Father" and encourages us to speak to God as if we were on intimate terms with Him. Then Jesus dies on the cross, apparently to placate the wrath of God. I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the gospel narrative.

If any of my evangelical readers are still reading, I'd encourage you to explain to me how Jesus' broader ministry fits within the context of Penal Substitionary Atonement. If nothing else, this will encourage you to examine the Atonement from the perspective of the gospels - and you may just give me something to think about.

More Heller Genious

2008-05-25T21:56:00.002+10:00

From Chapter 39, "The Eternal City" in Catch-22:

He wondered how many people were destitute that same night even in his own prosperous country, how many homes were shanties, how many husbands were drunk and wives socked, and how many children were bullied, abused or abandoned. How many families hungered for food they could not afford to buy? How many hearts were broken? How many suicides would take place that same night, how many people would go insane? How many cockroaches and landlords would triumph? How many winners were losers, successes failures, rich men poor men? How many wise guys were stupid? How many happy endings were unhappy endings? How many honest men were liars, brave men cowards, loyal men traitors, how many sainted men were corrupt, how many people in positions of trust had sold their souls to blackguards for petty cash, how many never had souls? How many straight-and-narrow paths were crooked paths? How many best families were worst families and how many good people were bad people?

Jesus Speaks to Sydney

2008-05-24T23:06:00.002+10:00

It is amazing that two thousand years on, Jesus' words still speak to the behaviour of many religious authorities in Sydney:

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you receive greater condemnation.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." - Matthew 23:13-15

A Veritable Football Feast

2008-05-23T17:14:00.003+10:00

It's been a veritable football feast this week as I attended a party to watch the FA Cup final last Saturday night, went to the local pub to watch the Blues take the honours in the first State of Origin game and slept through the Champions League final which was played in Russia at 4 am Sydney time (but made sure I found out the score as soon as I woke up). Tonight the festival continues as I travel out to the Sydney Football Stadium to see Australia play Ghana live in the sport formally known as soccer. Unfortunately, Lucas Neill, Tim Cahill and Mark Viduka are all out, but it should be an entertaining match, considering the flair of the Ghanians. I'm predicting three or four goals will be scored.

It should be a great game and a great night. And for once on a Friday night, I have a life. Who'd a thunk it?

Social Justice and the "Gospel"

2008-05-22T21:53:00.002+10:00

Tony Payne has recently written an article over at the Sola Panel looking at the relationship between what he calls "the gospel" and social action. To cut a long story short, Tony concludes that the relationship is non-existent, or at the very most, fairly tenuous. If anything, this should immediately signal alarm bells, given that Jesus seems to attribute considerable importance to the task of social justice in his ministry.

The first thing to point out is that Tony assumes that the definition and the parameters of "the gospel" are beyond dispute. According to Tony, the gospel is embodied in a series of propositional statements that one affirms in order to become a Christian. Reading through the gospels, that simply isn't what I read in the teachings of Jesus. Quite possibly it seems that evangelicals of Tony's ilk agree, since tracts that are meant to represent the gospel such as "Two Ways to Live" choose not to incorporate any of Jesus' own words into their gospel presentation. Apparently, the Jesus of the Bible and the Jesus of history is much too inconvenient for the evangelical understanding of the gospel.

Given that evangelicals don't like to refer to Jesus when they talk about the gospel, it's not the least bit surprising that their understanding of the gospel has become somewhat warped, as evidenced in what they call Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I think more than anything else, this explains why evangelicals have consistently failed to construct a coherent framework to adequately understand the interrelationship between what they call the gospel and good works. Interestingly, it is worth mentioning that James deals at length with the problem of a faith that does not express itself through works and works that exist independently from faith.

I'd suggest that if evangelicals were to take the teachings of Jesus seriously, then they wouldn't have the problem that I've discussed above. The first thing to point out is that Jesus places considerable focus on what he identifies as the "Kingdom of God". It is clear that while the Kingdom of God involves an eternal element, it is also a presently unfolding reality. Several times in Scripture, both in the teachings of Jesus and elsewhere, the Kingdom of God is contrasted to "this present evil age", which is construed as nothing less than an opposing force to the Kingdom of God that Jesus is establishing. The establishment of the Kingdom of God involves tearing down the strongholds that hold humanity captive - and we see this in the ministry of Jesus in his determination to strike against the purity, debt and social codes of his days. His words in Luke 4:18-19 are particularly poignant:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

There is one important last word to say on the subject. Social justice is not the sum total of the gospel. Jesus' ambition to bring about a reconstituted humanity is not completed by building a well, or alleviating hunger - it is only started. Jesus' vision of God's Kingdom coming, when "His will be done on earth as it is in heaven" involves a complete reappraisal of values, both individually and corporately. The first step is freeing the captives. The second step is maintaining this freedom - and this will only occur when people are under the jurisdiction of Christ.

Mad World

2008-05-21T22:52:00.003+10:00

The Gary Jules' cover written for Donnie Darko, one of the more interesting movies around. Also, if you didn't grow up in the eighties, I suggest that you get acquainted with "Tears For Fears" who originally wrote the song, especially with their tracks "Head Over Heels" and "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" - they are a very underrated group.

Untitled 1

2008-05-20T23:47:00.002+10:00

We are what we are and we are no more - and no more shall we be. We are shadows without substance, silhouettes fading with the failing light. As we expire, we expire, and we sigh from the last of our reserves. "We deserved so much more" we say, but say this to the vast, desolate expanses. It is what it is and it is no more - and no more shall it be.

We resign, because there is no more. There may have been, but what was, is gone, and what is has never been. For nothing shall come, and nothing will suffice. And yet nothing is expected. Such expectations will be satisfied, and yet satisfy they will not. They shall disappoint, and yet disappoint, they will not. Such things will come to pass, though of course they will not.

We have passed through, slipped beyond the mirky depths of the yesteryear to the darkness of today. Our senses sense us failing, and yet there is nothing to fall into but the abyss. And the abyss shall never hold us - it shall give way as we sink ever deep. To stop is to have stopped, and to finished is to be finished, but when shall it stop and when shall it finish?

Masters of War

2008-05-19T17:47:00.001+10:00

In all history there is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful. - Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

Come you masters of war
You that build the big guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
While the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
While the young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When you death takes its toll
All the money you made
Won't ever buy back your soul

Andl I hope that you die
And your death will come soon
I'll follow your casket
On a pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead

In Search of Silence

2008-05-18T22:05:00.003+10:00

Swirling sounds surround me. Chasing, tracing my every move. Silence, violently snuffed out - no more shall I hear; no more shall I see. A rumbling, tumbling cacophany cascades over me. I'm stuck in the whirlwind; revolving, evolving around in my head.

Noise attacks my senses sensely and noiselessly. Trapped on a train travelling south, and so further I descend. Deeper, deeper, deeper, I'm immersed without mercy and descend further. Doesn't anybody hear? Doesn't anybody see?

I arise and yet I can't escape. The faster they run, the faster they follow. And followed still, I fall on fallow ground. Tripped and then slip, up, down to the earthy below. I look ahead - and still they stand.

Voice, voices swallow me whole. My soul subsides in sinking sand. Collapse, relapse, I am no more. I wind across the darkened streets. And stumble still, and will again. And then, and then, and then ...

Catch-22 and Hegemony

2008-05-17T18:06:00.004+10:00

It's been a few nights since I've finished Catch-22 and I've had a little bit of time to think about some of the issues in the novel. Of course, it goes without saying that the novel is more than merely a scathing critique on the military by Heller. I would suggest that Heller is making a fairly anti-institutional statement, in which he sees a hegemonic relationship that exists between oppressors and the oppressed that exists only through the means of ignorance. Apart from the military, it seems that the medical profession, the Church, big business and the State are all objects of Heller's attack.

I think the interesting thing about the abovementioned institutions is that they have their own kind of language that seems nonsensical to those outside the small circle of trust. As a legal practitioner myself, I am all too aware of the fact that I have become conversant in a secret language. It would seem as though these secret languages serve to empower the few at the expense of the many. Those who are not fluent in these languages have little else to do than to trust that the "experts" are providing sound advice and that they will not abuse their position of authority.

Thirty Tips on Writing by Jack Kerouac

2008-05-16T22:07:00.001+10:00

1. Scribbled secret notebooks, and wild typewritten pages, for yr own joy
2. Submissive to everything, open, listening
3. Try never get drunk outside your own house
4. Be in love with your life
5. Something that you feel will find its own form
6. Be crazy dumbsaint of the mind
7. Blow as deep as you want to blow
8. Write what you want bottomless from bottom of the mind
9. The unspeakable visions of the individual
10. No time for poetry but exactly what is
11. Visionary tics shivering in the chest
12. In tranced fixation dreaming upon object before you
13. Remove literary, grammatical and syntactical inhibition
14. Like Proust be an old teahead of time
15. Telling the true story of the world in interior monolog
16. The jewel center of interest is the eye within the eye
17. Write in recollection and amazement for yrself
18. Work from pithy middle eye out, swimming in language sea
19. Accept loss forever
20. Believe in the holy contour of life
21. Struggle to sketch the flow that already exists intact in mind
22. Don't think of words when you stop but to see picture better
23. Keep track of every day the date emblazoned in yr morning
24. No fear or shame in the dignity of yr experience, language & knowledge
25. Write for the world to read and see yr exact pictures of it
26. Bookmovie is the movie in words, the visual American form
27. In praise of Character in the Bleak inhuman Loneliness
28. Composing wild, undisciplined, pure, coming in from under, crazier the better
29. You're a Genius all the time
30. Writer-Director of Earthly movies Sponsored & Angeled in Heaven

So, So Busy

2008-05-15T17:17:00.002+10:00

It's rather frustrating being busy, but even moreso at the moment. You see, there has been plenty to get agitated about lately, and many articles that I could and would like to write. Some that immediately come to mind are "Christians Who Love Slave Labour", "Do Evangelicals Preach a Christless Christianity?" and "Yossarian: That Crazy Bombardier". But they shall have to wait for the moment, because I have higher priorities at the moment than finding a way to incur the wrath of the Religious Right. Perhaps tomorrow it will be a more viable option?

The Customer is Occasionally Right

2008-05-14T21:32:00.004+10:00

I had a small victory today as I was able to exchange a faulty mobile charger from the place that I bought it. I think I have become so used to poor service that I expected my cries to go unanswered. The thing is, I didn't need to cry. In fact, I didn't even bring a receipt with me. Just like the way in was in the good ol' days when folks trusted one another ...

Fight Club

2008-05-13T23:02:00.004+10:00

I've never thought about this before, but don't you think that it is ironic that Tyler Durden has exchanged one type of materialism for another type of materialism in the following quote:

You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your ****ing khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

- Tyler Durden, Fight Club

Choose Life

2008-05-12T22:20:00.002+10:00

Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a ****ing big television, Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed- interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of ****ing fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing sprit- crushing game shows, stuffing ****king junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing you last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, ****ed-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that?

- Irvine Welsh, Trainspotting (1993)

Happy Mother's Day, Mum

2008-05-11T22:14:00.002+10:00

Over the last few years, I've made a fairly interesting discovery. That is, that is can be very hard for me to truly empathise with people. I mean, it's not as though I don't understand when somebody is upset or hurting, it's simply that this tends to be an intellectual understanding and I don't really feel that I can feel their pain. Even when I hear about atrocities overseas, I struggle to get upset. And to be perfectly honest, this really upsets me, because who wouldn't be moved by seeing the suffering of others?

One of the things that I've learnt is that there is only one person whose distress really physically distresses me - and that's my mother. Actually, perhaps my first reaction is one of outrage, as in "How dare you feel upset - it's making me feel upset". After I get over that, my next reaction is to want to help, which genuinely tends to be fruitless. My next feeling is one of pure helplessness and resignation, knowing that there is nothing that I can do to help my mother or myself. Quite probably, she feels the same way. It's almost like we share this psychic connection that fuses our thoughts and emotions together.

The bizarre paradox about this strange situation is that in helping me feel grief in another's pain, my mother helps me to feel that I am human. That I am part of the human race. Struggling to empathise with other people and having difficulty getting other people to empathise with me can be quite a lonely phenomenon. And so that's why, in a profoundly strange way, I am grateful for the counter-intuitive way in which my mother helps me to realise that I am not alone.

Happy Mother's Day Mum, from your loving son David.

The Dada Manifesto

2008-05-10T20:36:00.000+10:00

DADA EXCITES EVERYTHING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DADA knows everything. DADA spits everything out.

BUT . . . . . . . . .

HAS DADA EVER SPOKEN TO YOU:
about Italy
about accordions
about women's pants
about the fatherland
about sardines
about Fiume
about Art (you exaggerate my friend)
about gentleness
about D'Annunzio
what a horror
about heroism
about mustaches
about lewdness
about sleeping with Verlaine
about the ideal (it's nice)
about Massachusetts
about the past
about odors
about salads
about genius, about genius, about genius
about the eight-hour day
about the Parma violets

NEVER NEVER NEVER

DADA doesn't speak. DADA has no fixed idea. DADA doesn't catch flies.

THE MINISTRY IS OVERTURNED. BY WHOM?

BY DADA

The Futurist is dead. Of What? Of DADA

A Young girl commits suicide. Because of What? DADA
The spirits are telephoned. Who invented it? DADA
Someone walks on your feet. It's DADA
If you have serious ideas about life,
If you make artistic discoveries
and if all of a sudden your head begins to crackle with laughter,
If you find all your ideas useless and ridiculous, know that

IT IS DADA BEGINNING TO SPEAK TO YOU

cubism constructs a cathedral of artistic liver paste
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
expressionism poisons artistic sardines
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
simultaneism is still at its first artistic communion
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
futurism wants to mount in an artistic lyricism-elevator
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
unanism embraces allism and fishes with an artistic line
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
neo-classicism discovers the good deeds of artistic art
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
paroxysm makes a trust of all artistic cheeses
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
ultraism recommends the mixture of these seven artistic things
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
creationism vorticism imagism also propose some artistic recipes
WHAT DOES DADA DO?
WHAT DOES DADA DO?

50 francs reward to the person who finds the best
way to explain DADA to us

Dada passes everything through a new net.
Dada is the bitterness which opens its laugh on all that which has been made consecrated forgotten in our language in our brain in our habits.
It says to you: There is Humanity and the lovely idiocies which have made it happy to this advanced age

DADA HAS ALWAYS EXISTED
THE HOLY VIRGIN WAS ALREADY A DADAIST

DADA IS NEVER RIGHT

Citizens, comrades, ladies, gentlemen

Beware of forgeries!
Imitators of DADA want to present DADA in an artistic form which it has never had

CITIZENS,

You are presented today in a pornographic form, a vulgar and baroque spirit which is not the PURE IDIOCY claimed by DADA

BUT DOGMATISM AND PRETENTIOUS IMBECILITY

I Hate Star City

2008-05-09T22:38:00.003+10:00

My parents are down in Sydney tonight to watch a production of the "Rocky Horror Picture Show", so they invited me out to tea before the show started. 'Twas good to catch up with them, but I must admit that I really hate Star City. I mean, hate it with a passion. To see people literally throwing their money away in the pursuit of that big win is too depressing for words. The fact that everything is glitzy and glamourous only makes it worse. The fact is, behind all that glitz and glamour, there are countless people in Australia who have a gambling related problem, many of whom cannot afford it. And what's worse, casinos like Star City deliberately prey on their victims to suck as much blood from them as they can. After all, it's not them who have to clean up the mess, is it?

I guess the rationale for legalised gambling is that people should be free to do what they like with their money, including pissing it away. That said, surely casinos have a responsibility not to exploit the desperation of gambling addicts? But this is precisely what they do, with lights and noises of the poker machines and with the image that is promoted of the casino. Advertisements show good looking guys and girls shrieking in almost orgasmic delight as they score another win over the house. Imagine if like on cigarette packets, they were forced to show the reality behind the facade? Pained expressions of losing one's paycheck, children going without food because the money was gone, people at the end of their rope thinking about taking their lives. It wouldn't be a very strong selling point would it?

I must admit, I don't really know what the answer is to this societal cancer. It seems like the job of many agencies seems to be to help someone to pick up the pieces after someone have destroyed their life. It would be good to think that there is something that can be done before the situation gets that bad, but I guess that it is only when people hit rock bottom that they finally seek help. Regardless, we should recognise all too clearly that this is not an individual problem, but a problem that affects our entire society. In that respect, surely it is in our interests to do something to stop the rot further?

Love Bombing and Heterodoxy in the Church

2008-05-08T22:27:00.003+10:00

In an increasingly alienated society, it is not surprising that a place like church can be an appealling place for many people. At its best, the church does a wonderful job of cultivating a community that feel connected to each other. Of course, it would be naive to think that the church is merely a social club, for it is true that people congregate at church for a reason, namely worship. And indeed it is in that context, at the deepest levels of human existence we connect, making this connection all the stronger. At this point, the identity of the individual starts to merge with the congregation, and the community becomes not a group of different believers, but one body of believers together.

As appealling as being part of the group may be, group identity can have a sinister side. There becomes a point at which the identity of the individual becomes so subsumed in the identity of the group that their uniqueness begins to become redundant, either because they forget their distinctiveness, or they are subtlely pressured to fall into line. Dudley Hyde, speaking of his experiences of towing the party line, made the following observation:

In the institution we call the "church" there are lots of rewards. People will sincerely welcome you. They love outsiders who genuinely want to be insiders. They may fawn on you and do all sorts of things to welcome you. And we all like being welcomed! But beware of the price of the "free lunch". The price is conformity. Growing like the people we are with. Soon you find yourself talking their language, singing their songs, even subscribing to their beliefs, because you don't want to be "the odd one out". I never overcame my sense of guilt at my hypocrisy.

Perhaps it may be said that virulent non-conformists like myself want to have their cake and eat it too, in the sense that we want to be part of a community, but we want to retain the right to think for ourselves. But surely their is room for individuality in the body of Christ, where we can gather around in worship of Christ, notwithstanding our differences? I guess the question for me is whether the issue is one of striking an appropriate balance, or whether community is not so dependant upon common belief and practice as we wish to make out?

Disappointments and Decisions

2008-05-07T22:28:00.003+10:00

In a sense I'm a little bit ashamed of this, but I thought that I might as well write about it so that I will be able to look back at it in the fullness of time with some perspective ...

Today I received the news that I was unsuccessful in securing a position at [insert employer here]. This was deeply disappointing for me, since I felt that I was more than capable of doing the job, but was let down by my less than impressive interview. This job would have made my future a lot more certain than it currently is, which is something else that I am worrying about.

Tonight at about 9 o'clock, my mother rang me to see how I was feeling since I had called her earlier in the day to relay the bad news. Nothing much had changed and if anything I was feeling worse, given the time to think about things. I'm very hard to make me feel better at such a time, since I will tend to see anything reassuring that is said as a vacuous cliche - and so it was this time.

The thing is, [insert employer here] is currently having a National Recruitment Campaign. This is some degree of consolation, but it is still sobering to think that this process will take many months and I am currently very impatient after seven years of working to get to the point I am now, only to have to wait a little while longer. My mother told me that she "was sure" that I would get a job during this campaign. Such declarations make me feel rather ambivalent. On the one hand, I almost have this superstitious trust in my mother that if she believes that something will pass, it will, almost as though I believe that she has psychic powers. On the other hand, I realise that this is inherently silly and that she has no control whatsoever over the outcome. Rather dolefully, I asked her "What's your basis for that?" to which she replied that there was no basis, but that it was "a gut feeling".

Not to be beaten by this gut feeling, I decided to put my mother's gut feeling to the challenge. I made my counter-attack by making a fairly emphatic declaration that I wasn't and seeing just how serious she was in her conviction. Suffice to say, I now know how serious she is.

I only hope she's right.

What is Our Life?

2008-05-06T22:21:00.002+10:00

What is our life? a play of passion
Our mirth the musicke of division,
Our mothers wombes the tyring houses be,
Where we are drest for this short Comedy,
Heaven the Judicious sharpe spectator is,
That sits and markes still who doth act amisse,
Our graves that hide us from the searching Sun,
Are like drawne curtaynes when the play is done,
Thus march we playing to our latest rest,
Onely we dye in earnest, that's no Jest.

- Sir Walter Ralegh, Madrigals and Mottets (1612)

Catch-22

2008-05-05T20:24:00.002+10:00

I'm currently about a hundred pages through Catch-22 and let me tell you this - its one confusing head trip. It is truly like nothing else I've ever read. Quite deliberately, the logic is incredibly skewed and rather circular. Not to mention the fact that it is difficult to discern a plot among the disconnected narratives. That said, I think it might be starting to come together somewhat.

Catch-22 is a satirical and scathing assessment at military culture. Reading more like a collection of absurd short stories that seem only to relate to each other at tangents than a united novel, the idea that there is a particular type of illogic in the military that seems alien to commonsense is promoted. This is clearly displayed in what is perhaps the most famous part of the novel, where Yossarian is trying to get out of a flying mission:

"Can't you ground someone who's crazy?"

"Oh, sure, I have to. There's a rule saying I have to ground anyone who's crazy."

"Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger."

"Clevinger? Where is Clevinger? You find Clevinger and I'll ask him."

"Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I am."

"They're crazy."

"Then why don't you ground them?"

"Why don't they ask me to ground them?"

"Because they're crazy, that's why."

"Of course they're crazy," Doc Daneeka replied. "I just told you they're crazy, didn't I? And you can't let crazy people decide whether you're crazy or not, can you?"

Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another appraoch. "Is Orr crazy?"

"He sure is," Doc Daneeka said.

"Can you ground him?"

"I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of the rule."

"Then why doesn't he ask you to?"

"Because he's crazy," Doc Daneeka said. "He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to."

"That's all he has to do to be grounded?"

"That's all. Let him ask me."

"And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked.

"No. Then I can't ground him."

"You mean there's a catch?"

"Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Not Such a Good Tournament

2008-05-04T22:14:00.003+10:00

I'm back from my weekend and Laurieton and unfortunately the news is not so good. I only scored 5 out of 7, winning third place. The tournament started badly in the first round, when I found a way to blunder in a completely won position, only to win because my much lower rated opponent didn't see a fairly simple winning move. In the third round I played the third seed, got a fairly good position and effectively threw away the game. In the fifth round, I had to play the top seed and I got outplayed pretty much from the opening. My opponent played a fairly obscure line that I wasn't all that familiar with and I got a passive position fairly quickly.

Even though I didn't cover my expenses for the weekend, I was able to learn a few extra things:

1. I really hate it when people driving behind me keep their high beams on. (Incidentally, if you're one of those inconsiderate people who do that, then please stop.)

2. I start a weekend away with notes and end my weekend with lots and lots of coins.

3. While I'd still prefer to win at things, I'm far less competitive than I used to be.

4. You can really begin to enjoy yourself when you force yourself to socialise.

5. For some reason, I feel compelled to buy food and/or drink when I pull in at a service station, even when I'm not hungry or thirsty.

6. When I'm at a chess tournament, I always plan to do something constructive between games like reading, but this never happens.

With all these things learnt, who can say that my weekend was a disappointment?

You Can't Beat a Heatherbrae Pie

2008-05-03T10:11:00.002+10:00

Yes, that's right - you heard it here first.

Last night, I made the trip from Sydney to Laurieton, a small town about twenty minutes south of Port Macquarie. And as per tradition, I stopped on the way to get an Apple and Blueberry pie from Heatherbrae's Pies and a carton of chocolate Oak milk. Goes down like a dream, or so the slogan says.

I've already paid my entry fee for the chess tournament I'm playing in and will return to the venue as soon as I am finished this blog entry. It's good to get away for a weekend to get away from things that I'm impatiently worrying about back home. Although I have a bit of recurring hayfever, I'm not going to let that spoil my little holiday.

The Weekend Ahead

2008-05-02T00:02:00.003+10:00

You'll all be happy to know that I finished "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens. I enjoyed the book immensely and was most impressed by the way that Dickens was able to set the scene, especially the last section, which had a real gothic feel to it. But let me tell you this, the ending was a real let down. Both of them. No joke.

The new book I'll be starting is "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller. I've already read the first chapter, just so that I could get a feel for the book. You have to admit, the idea of an Anabaptist army chaplain is great. Absolutely classic, as far as I'm concerned.

Finally, I've pretty much decided to play in a chess tournament in Laurieton this weekend. Should be good fun. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that there is an internet cafe of sorts there that is open for three hours on Saturday morning, which means that I will be able to give you a riveting report on the highlights along the Pacific Highway. Perhaps there might be some potholes between Raymond Terrace and Taree that I can speak about?

Kudos to Caritas

2008-05-01T19:02:00.002+10:00

You may remember that a few days ago I told you about attending Branches, an introduction to Catholic spirituality. I should point out that I'm not sure if they used this title and perhaps I should either, since I am quickly learning that there are about as many Catholic spiritualities as there as Catholics. Anyway, after Branches, some of the people go down to the Brooklyn on the corner of Grosvenor and George streets to continue to get to know each other. I didn't have too much else to do, so I decided to join them.

During my time at the Brooklyn, I got talking to a young woman who works for Caritas, a Catholic aid organisation that primarily operate in community projects in the same way as other groups like TEAR. She began to talk to me about her great passion for social justice and the role that this played in her faith, which wasn't entirely surprising, considering that Catholicism has a rich tradition when it comes to charitable organisations. However, as I talked to her I began to realise that I was speaking to someone who was speaking in my language. From my experience of progressive Christianity in the Uniting Church, it seemed to me that she would not have felt out of place in that context in the slightest. In the same way, I felt that my faith journey was much closer to what she represented than that represented by my evangelical upbringing.

One of the interesting aspects of our conversation was hearing her talk about the philosophy of Caritas. She explained to me that while the Statement of Faith for Caritas is undeniably Catholic, they are adamantly opposed to using their charity work to proselytise those communities that they worked for. In fact, she told me that one of the first things Caritas sent to the victims of the Asian Tsunami in Indonesia and Sri Lanka were Muslim prayer mats to enable families who had lost relatives and friends to properly grieve. This surprised her at the time and I certainly surprised me.

One of the interesting things she said was that by respecting the beliefs of those Caritas were providing charity to, a lot of the initial hesitance and hostility to accepting Catholic aid in these countries were diminished. Not only that, but when communities discovered that there was no catch to this aid, they actually wanted to learn more about the Catholic faith. This certainly seems to refute the orthodoxy that suggests that the only way to do evangelism is by explicitly confronting those you seek to convert. Quite simply, the way that Caritas seem to do their work seems to be evangelism of the purest kind - showing people the way of Jesus by being Jesus to these people, respecting where they are at in their personal journey. I must admit, I am amazed at the wonderful work that they do and the fact that they are an incredible witness to Christ.

Feelin' Sick

2008-04-30T19:59:00.002+10:00

Well, I've been feeling sick today, so I had to take the day off work. This is, of course, the cruel paradox of human existence - that sick days are actually wasted by the fact that you are sick. My day has consisted of sleeping and reading, with the one meal I felt able to consume at lunch. I apologise for not providing my usual sparkling commentary today, since I simply don't have the energy or the inclination at the moment to do so. Hopefully, I will feel refreshed after a good sleep, which will allow us to resume normal transmission tomorrow ...

Evangelicals are Really Closet Docetists

2008-04-29T22:01:00.003+10:00

With the abovementioned title in mind, I'm thinking that I have to start employing a rating system for my blog posts. Posts such as this one may be rated TO - that is "Theologians Only". If some of my evangelical bloggers resent the idea that some readers will be exposed to alternative points of view, I could rate these types of posts PBR - that is, "Pastoral Brainwashing Recommended", so as to ensure that my ideas don't even get a hearing in the first place. Almost certainly, I will have to have to add a disclaimer something along the lines of "Warning: this post may contain theological themes that may be unsuitable for evangelical readers. Take cover ... and pray for my soul."

With that out of the way, I am able to tell you that I attended the second week of "Branches" tonight - a ten week program exploring Catholic practice and spirituality. Tonight's topic was "Who is Jesus?" and the speaker was Dr Robert Tilley of the Aquinas institute. The first thing I'll point out is that I don't really think that there was anything the Protestants, even conservative Protestants could have disagreed with in tonight's talk. This wasn't entirely unsurprising, given that the Nicean Creed is a common starting point (I guess depending upon the way you define "starting point") for both Catholic and Protestant Christology. Still, I'll be quite interested in seeing where the two roads eventually do diverge.

Even though tonight's talk was relatively uncontroversial, it got me thinking about one of my objections to evangelicalism. It occurred to me that one of my major gripes was and is in practice, I believe, that the Christ of evangelicalism is primarily spiritual and eschatological figure. By this, I mean that the focus of evangelicalism seemed so heavily focused upon the post-resurrection Christ that the pre-resurrection Christ hardly gets a look in. If I had to explain this, I would have to suggest that this is because evangelicals would like to see themselves as being "cruci-centric" - that is, that the Christian gospel is all about the Cross. What this means is that the evangelicals tend to focus rather heavily on the Pauline epistles, which talk about the implications of the Cross for the believer, while neglecting the earthly ministry of Jesus. It would seem, for many evangelicals, that Jesus' earthly ministry is merely a prelude to the main event, with no real significance of itself, and indeed, no contribution whatsoever to the salvific schema.

The problem with the above approach is that it risks seeing Jesus in purely divine terms - a heresy originated in the late first or early second century known as Docetism. Of course, evangelicals would assert that they believe that Jesus was fully human, but whether this intellectual assertion means anything in practice is fairly debatable. If you disagree with my assessment, I'd suggest you'd do well to look at writings on Jesus in the evangelical subculture. I would suggest that this trend is even true of evangelical theologians, who seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time talking about the post-resurrection Christ compared to the pre-resurrection Christ.

I should point out that I think that the over-emphasis of Jesus' divinity by evangelicalism is probably an understandable reaction to attacks upon the divinity of Jesus originating in 19th century liberal scholarship. Indeed, to the extent that they reject the liberals' rejection of Jesus' divinity, I agree with them. However, I would suggest that evangelicals have tended to overcompensate to such and extent that we wouldn't know that the evangelical Jesus really was human except for the odd Easter and Christmas sermon.

I believe that evangelicals would experience a much more rich faith by spending more time focusing upon the humanity of Christ. It is only because of the incarnation that we are able to speak about the practice of discipleship, quite simply because Christ needs to be human for us to be able to speak of following in his footsteps. If we take the earthly ministry of Jesus out of the picture, we are left with the God of Mount Sinai - the cosmic judge and the transcendent law-giver, a being who seems to be removed from the muck of our every day lives. In short, without the humanity of Jesus we remain with the legalistic code of the Law, rather than the Law of Love, personified so clearly in our Exemplar for us to emulate.

The Great Expectations of Romantic Chemistry

2008-04-28T22:54:00.003+10:00

A few nights ago I was reading through "Great Expectations" as I came across this charming passage:

I asked myself the question whether I did not surely know thyat if Estella were beside me at the moment instead of Biddy, she would make me miserable? I was obliged to admit that I did know it for a certainty, and said to myself, "Pip, what a fool you are!"

We talked a good deal as we walked, and all that Biddy said seemed right. Biddy was never insulting, or capricious, or Biddy today and somebody else tomorrow; she would have derived only pain; and no pleasure, from giving my pain; she would far rather have wounded her own breast than mine. How could it be, then, that I did not like her much the better of the two?

"Biddy," said I, when we were walking homeward, "I wish you could put me right."

"I wish I could!" said Biddy.

"If I could only get myself to fall in love with you - you don't mind me speaking so openly to such an old acquaintance?"

"Oh, dear, not at all!" said Biddy. "Don't mind me."

"If I could only get myself to do it, that would be the thing for me."

"But you never will, you see," said Biddy.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this exchange is that Pip knows all too well that he loves someone who is not very pleasant towards him, while is unable to become attracted to the girl whose qualities he most admires. It would seem that he is a slave to his desires.

I must admit, I find the whole concept of romantic chemistry most perplexing. I'd be most appreciative if some of my readers could give this confused soul some insight into the following questions:

Just what are the symptoms of chemistry?

How do you know if there is chemistry between you and another person?

Does chemistry change over time?

Can chemistry be manufactured, or does it simply exist on a random basis?

Great Expectations

2008-04-27T21:59:00.002+10:00

I'm reading "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens at the moment. In short, Great Expectation is a bildungsroman about the story's protagonist, Pip. Pip is a simple orphan from the country who has Great Expectations of making something of himself. One day, he is given an opportunity to do just that, because of a mysterious benefactor unknown to him, who will financially support his social betterment. The second part of the story deals with his sudden climb up the social ladder from poor rural lad without connections, to socialite.

I'm currently about half way through the novel and the way in which Pip seemlessly makes the transition into high society grates upon me somewhat, but not as much as the fact that he quickly becomes embarrassed by the humble circumstances of his upcoming. Of course, there also truth in the fact that it is good I feel outraged, because this is precisely what Dickens is trying to evoke in his audience. Of particular interest in Pip's desire to improve Joe, a kindly but rather dull blacksmith who raises him. Biddy, who helps out in the home insightfully points out that Joe feels self-sufficient in his humble calling and he would merely be embarrassed by the inadequacy he would feel in high society. I found this to be a particularly clever challenge to the elitism and smugness that high society often takes towards those who move in other circles.

Upon reflecting I tend to think that this part of the story is cutting a bit too close, considering my own life circumstances. While I'm certainly not embarrassed upon my upbringing, I seem to be fighting strongly against my change in circumstances at times, while not at all at other times. While I'm certainly not rich by any estimation, I realise that I am becoming one of those people on the inside of the system I used to rail against. Sometimes it is quite easy to stop fighting and simply take my newly found social status for granted, becoming complacent to the causes that I once eagerly fought for. I must confess that it is a fine balancing act sometimes, and even harder when you struggle to feel empathy for those things that you know should be important.

Of course, I haven't read the second half of the novel yet, by which stage I will probably come to quite a different impression. I guess it is the same thing with respect to my life. I know all too well in my head that life is by no means a constant journey and that there will be times of waxing and waning enthusiasm for those things that were once important to me. What's more, you can be in the forrest and not see where you are because all the trees get in your way. It is all too cliched to say that things will be more understandable with the benefit of hindsight, because this doesn't help me much now. Whether one plods along aimlessly or carefully charts a path, one doesn't always know whether they are choosing the wisest course. I guess it is during those times that we are to "walk by faith", whatever that means ...

Mark Latham on Social Capital

2008-04-26T23:08:00.002+10:00

Today, however, the biggest problems in society, the things that cause hardship and distress for people, tend to be relationship-based - social issues, not economic. The paradox is stunning: we live in a nation with record levels of financial growth and prosperity, yet also with record levels of discontent and public angst.

...

A striking aspect of this phenomenon has been the way in which it has affected all parts of society, regardless of their economic standing. Poor communities, after several generations of long-term unemployment and financial disadvantage in Australia, now face the further challenge of social disintegration, a loss of self-esteem and solidarity. Thirty years ago, these communities where financially poor but socially rich. Today they face poverty on both fronts.

While the middle class in Australia has experienced the assets and wealth of an unprecedented economic boom, its social balance sheet has moved in the opposite direction. The treadmill of work and the endless accumulation of material goods have not necessarily made people happier. In many cases, they have denied them the time and pleasures of family life, replacing strong and loving social relationships with feelings of stress and alienation.

This is the savage trade-off of middle-class life: generating financial wealth but at a significant cost to social capital. Thus social exclusion needs to be understood as more than just financial poverty; it also includes the poverty of society, the exclusion of many affluent Australians from strong and trusting personal relationships.

- Mark Latham, "The Latham Diaries", (2005)

A Pacifist Perspective on Anzac Day

2008-04-25T21:05:00.002+10:00

Anzac Day seems to be somewhat of a religious holiday in Australia, even moreso than Easter and Christmas, which have largely become a conduit for commercialism. Perhaps the appeal of Anzac Day to our largely secular nation is that it is somewhat of a religious observance for those that are repelled by institutional religion. I remember waking up in my Scouting days to go down to the local dawn service, long before the sun had dawned. Freezing in my Scout's uniform, straining to see in front of me and hearing the solemn words of old men seemed to be sacred stuff. Add the moments of silence, interrupted only be a lone trumpet playing "The Last Post", and you have a liturgy that engages most of the population more than your average church service.

Some fifteen years later as an avowed and unashamed pacifist, it is difficult to know what to make of Anzac Day. There are times that I feel that my pacifism will be received as a mark of ingratitude, a dismissive "thanks, but no thanks" to the fallen Australian soldiers who died on the fields of Gallipoli. And yet I must acknowledge that I did not ask these individuals to fight on my behalf, and would not wish anybody to fight on my behalf if we faced the same situation today. Surely, I would hope, there is a way of both denouncing war in all of its forms and respecting the convictions of the Anzacs?

Firstly, Anzac Day should not be regarded as a glorification of war. Even those who believe in the efficacy of war as a means of settling disputes generally regard such action as a necessary evil and as a last resort. Accordingly, those who use Anzac Day to promote their militaristic agendas should be roundly condemned for their rhetoric and we should make it clear that these people do not represent the Anzac spirit they profess to represent. Anzac Day is a celebration of those who responded to the perceived call that their country needed them, rather than a celebration of the bureaucrats who made the decision to send us off to war.

Secondly, the fact that the Anzacs chose to go to war to fight the enemy is not the reason we choose to venerate them. Rather, it is the fact that these individuals were willing to lay down their lives in the belief that this would bring freedom to their families back in Australia. As Jesus said "Greater love has no one than this, that a man lay his life down for his friends" (John 15:13). That is disagreeing with the belief that war can ever bring freedom will never change the fact that these soldiers were willing to die for others.

Thirdly, I believe that Anzac Day can serve as an effective and an appropriate vehicle to express the virtues of pacifism. Anzac Day reminds us not only of the sacrifices of those who went to war, but also of the evils of war. War, more than any other phenomenon has tragically cut short the lives of people in their prime, whether they be solidiers or civilians. Indeed, it is for this reason that a great number of those fought in the World Wars and saw the senseless distruction of war for themselves became pacifists. Perhaps it is their voices that need to be heard and their opinions that need to be respected on a day like today.

I'd like to think that the above considerations are able to give proper respect to the fallen Anzac soldiers, while nonetheless condemning the atrocity of war. While unlike the Anzacs, there is no cause that I could ever regard worthy of killing for, I'd like to think that there are some things that I would be prepared to die for. And simply because I will not kill, does not mean that I will not fight for what I believe in. It is simply that my battle is not with flesh and blood, but rather with powers and principalities, with structures of greed, power and intolerance. No amount of killing will ever excise these dark places of the human soul.

Lest we forget.

Kierkegaard's "Attack on Christendom"

2008-04-24T21:43:00.001+10:00

The Christianity of Christendom...takes away from Christianity the offense, the paradox, etc., and instead of that introduces probability, the plainly comprehensible. That is, it transforms Christianity into something entirely different from what it is in the New Testament, yea, into exactly the opposite; and this is the Christianity of Christendom, of us men.

- Soren Kierkegaard, (1854) "Attack on Christendom"

Weekend at Virgie's

2008-04-23T20:16:00.002+10:00

Two New York men have taken the term "dole bludger" to new heights after they tried to cash in the social security cheque of their dead friend. The men, James O'Hare and David Daloia were charged with wheeling the corpse of their friend around Manhattan to cash in an office chair to cash in his benefits. Apparently, when they went into the Social Security office, the clerk asked to see the man named on the cheque, Virgilio Cintron. The pair agreed to bring him in, but by the time they went back to the sidewalk where they had left him, a crowd of people had gathered around the deceased man. During court proceedings the two men maintained their innocence, insisting that when they wheeled their friend out the front door he was very much alive. Because the autopsy was not conclusively able to pinpoint a time of death, the pair were acquitted on the basis that prosecuters could not prove that the deceased was actually dead at the time.

The story has been circulating around radio stations on the east coast of America, with shock jocks expressing their outrage at the event. It is disgraceful, they say, that this man was receiving social security cheques in the first place, since it is clear that he wouldn't work in an iron lung ...

Becoming Whole

2008-04-22T21:10:00.002+10:00

Tonight I attended the first evening of Branches, an introduction to the Catholic faith that seems to operate very much along the lines of evangelical programs such as "Introducing God". I'm quite interested in seeing the way that Catholics present their faith to non-Catholics, so I thought I'd go along to see what it's like. In particular, I wanted to see if the whole tradition of natural theology in Catholicism, as opposed to special revelation in evangelicalism, would mean that the respective programs would diverge very quickly into different paths. The first thing that I discovered was that I was probably one of the few non-Catholics there, although no doubt that there were many Catholics there who had only a peripheral relationship with the Church.

Tonight was a very general introduction that couldn't necessarily be identified as esoterically Catholic. The focus was upon the desires of the heart - that is, what are our most instinctive yearnings and what is the basis of this existential angst. While the things that we desire may be explained in different ways depending upon one's worldview, I would suggest that Catholic and Protestant alike yearn for wholeness, whether it be in our relationships, our knowledge or our sense of self. Almost by definition, we yearn for wholeness because we are not whole. We seem to have an instinctive sense of our own fallenness and brokenness. Of course, once we reach that realisation, existential angst sets in and we try to do things to make ourselves whole. A lot of the times, we chase after things that do nothing to really to permanently address our brokenness. At its worst, chasing after certain things will be quite self-destructive and will only serve to make us more broken than before.

With that in mind, I think I might soon partake in my Tuesday night indulgence - going to see a movie at the cinemas. I think I'll watch "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", a film about a guy's attempt to repair the brokenness that becomes evident after a relationship break up. I must admit that I am looking forward to the prospect of seeing someone else's misery to alleviate aspects of my own brokenness. Disturbingly it would appear that deep down I have rather sadistic tendencies ...

The Best Books Ever Banned

2008-04-21T18:04:00.002+10:00

After reading a novel, I usually tend to read the corresponding Wikipedia article for a more general background and then Spark Notes to hone in on some of the more specific features of the text I wanted to examine. When I finished "To Kill a Mockingbird" and underwent this procedure, I was surprised to learn about the varied reactions to the book. It turns out that while Harper Lee's classic was typically well received by white audiences, black audiences were much more critical. On the face of it, this would seem to be quite strange, considering that one of the main aims of the novel is to condemn racism and intolerance. However, once one begins to examine the substance of the complaints against the novel, one becomes more sympathetic. Some of the criticisms levelled at the novel include the depiction of black people as uneducated and as victims, as well as suggestions that Calpurnia plays the role of the "contented slave". It is also noted that the racial epithet "nigger" is used some 48 times in the novel. Most of the time, this is used in a derogatory fashion by white people, although at other times the used of the term is neutral. In particular, there is a scene in the novel where Atticus, the hero, chastises his children for using the term, who apparently use the term without any real understanding of its cultural baggage.

My enquiries into "To Kill a Mockingbird" sent me onto a tangent in which I looked at some of the most challenged and banned books in American classrooms. The American Library Foundation has published a list of some of the most famous novels to face the axe and the reason for which it was proposed that they should be banned from the High School curriculum. Having read quite a few of those novels, it would appear that many of the criticisms levelled at these works are hardly justified, although I can understand the concern with exposing one's children to such content. It is certainly possible that if one is not old enough to understand some of the underlying irony behind a certain novel, it is quite possible that they may get the wrong idea about what the novel is trying to convey. At the same time, the novels have the capacity to encourage students to reflect upon important issues in a new way.

Personally, I'd like any children I may have in the future to be avid readers. In particular, I'd want them to be exposed to some of the great texts that I have been had the good fortune to read. When in their childhood such novels would be appropriate for them I would only be able to assess at the time, but I think that sometimes we give children much less credit than we ought to when it comes to understanding some fairly adult issues. By preventing them from being exposed to things that are potentially unpleasant, I believe we infantilise them and prevent their emotional and spiritual development. At the same time, perhaps it would be appropriate to oversee this reading process in order to help my future children understand these issues in their proper context.

All Hail Prince Roy of Sealand

2008-04-20T21:59:00.004+10:00

Last night I found myself at a 50th birthday for one of my friend's mothers. The whole point of my attendance was simply to make this evening somewhat more tolerable for my friend. Fortunately, we both made it through unscathed, although watching people in the late forties and early fifties who had had a little too much to drink was a little bit scary.

Last night was spent talking about our school days and the speculative science that is psychology. I also found out about Sealand, a micronation lying ten kilometres off the coast of England, near the English Channel. The principality, which covers an area of 4,000 square metres, is located on what used to be known as HM Fort Rough, a now disused World War II fort that lies in international waters beyond the maritime exclusion zone of the United Kingdom. Sealand apparently has its own national anthem, its own currency (fixed at one U.S. dollar) and a constitution. Independance was declared from the United Kingdom in 1967.

Two events have shaped Sealand's short but proud history. The first event was the war with the United Kingdom in 1990, when the United Kingdom aimed to take possession of waters around Sealand after the redefinition of territorial waters according to international law in 1989. It is reported that a citizen of Sealand shot at one of the approaching naval vessels. Rather than risk a diplomatic incident, the United Kingdom army turned around in defeat. A "state" of some two dozen people had defeated the British Empire. The second event occurred on 23 June 2006, being the Great Fire of Sealand. The top platform of the Roughs Tower caught fire due to an electrical failure. But this was not to deter the proud nation, who were able to complete the rebuilding process by the November of that year.

The Road Less Travelled

2008-04-19T14:47:00.003+10:00

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

- Robert Frost (1920)

To Kill a Mockingbird

2008-04-18T22:05:00.002+10:00

After spending a fair period of time in 19th century Europe, I've decided to cross the Atlantic and travel forward in time a century to read "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. I know that I've made some fairly critical comments about 20th century literature in the past, but I'm really enjoying this book. I'm about a hundred or so pages through "To Kill a Mockingbird" so far and I'm really enjoying what I am reading. In particular, the narrative of the story through the eyes of a six year old girl is a particularly interesting approach, considering that innocence and ignorance are two major themes the author is trying to convey.

It's also worth recognising the comparative youth of America as a nation and the framing narratives around which American identity derives its existence. It is perhaps for this reason that the whole "coming of age" paradigm seems to be so prominent in the history of American literature. Youth, innocence and the corruption thereof seem to be fairly standard metaphors for the development of the collective American conscience. It is interesting in this respect that there seems to be a dearth of these paradigms in European literature, which seems to focus upon much broader metanarratives. Perhaps the whole "coming of age" genre is idiosyncratically American partly due to the strong emphasis on individualism in American culture.

I must admit that I haven't read a great deal of Australian literature yet, but I suspect that the abovementioned paradigm would also exist, albeit with somewhat of a colonial twist. From the little that I know, the Australian environment seems to be a prominent feature of our literature. Again, the harshness of the Australian environment is a profoundly apt metaphor for our history, especially with respect to our indigenous brothers and sisters. The wounds of history are still quite deep at present, so I suspect that perhaps the best Australian work may be some decades away, hopefully when the legacy of our past can be looked upon in proper perspective.

Madame Bovary

2008-04-17T18:36:00.002+10:00

A few nights ago I finished Madame Bovary, the infamous 1857 novel by Gustave Flaubert. It took me a little while to get into the book, but once I did, I realised that it was well worth the effort. Flaubert's use of language and imagery is very clever, but there were times when it was so subtle I was only able to appreciate the significance of what was going on with the benefit of hindsight. That said, the novel gave me plenty to think about.

In short, the novel is about a middle-class woman who has because bored with her provincial life and her rather dull husband. In search of excitement, she throws herself into two love affairs, seeks to purchase pretty things well beyond her means, and seeks to escape by reading literature of graduating intensity, starting with fairly innocuous women's fashion magazines and ending with violent pornography. In particular, it is her debts which cause her the most trouble, culminating in the financial ruin of both her and her family. The story gets more depressing from there, but I don't want to spoil the plot too much.

Perhaps the most interesting theme that is explored in the novel is that of fantasy and reality. In many respects, this novel seems to be a forerunner for novels of more recent vintage - the best example being "Requiem For a Dream". Each character in "Madame Bovary" seems to have their particular dreams which may or may not accord with reality. In Emma Bovary's case, it leads to disaster. In the case of Homais, it leads to a somewhat affected narcissism and this character convinces himself that he is more worthy and thus more self-entitled than those around him. Charles Bovary, the least ambitious of all of the characters, has found his dream in Emma Bovary and can imagine nothing else being necessary in life. While this contentment seems to be positive, it also blinds Charles to the deceit that is occurring around him, and the precarious nature of his financial position. Ignorance is not always bliss, especially when one wakes up from his or her hangover.

The whole exploration of fantasy and reality also reflects Flaubert's enduring contribution to the history of literature. If early nineteenth century European literature is guilty of anything, it is its overly romanticised and saccharine nature. Flaubert's novel is a landmark in that unlike the literature of his predecessors, it produces a story of gritty and perhaps even jarring reality. While even today the romanticism of the "Hollywood ending" is popular, the realism of "Madame Bovary" was quickly reflected in classic works such as Fyodor Dostoevsky's "The Idiot" (1869) and Leo Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" (1877). In this respect, Flaubert was able to produce a work which ushered in an era in which literature would be not merely a form of escapism, but could rather be a sharp criticism of contemporary society.

The Honourable Paedophile?

2008-04-16T21:25:00.004+10:00

In response to my recent post about Calvinist soteriology, Craig asked an excellent question, the answer to which I believe deserves its own blog entry. Responding to my criticism that Calvinists seem to believe that coming to the wrong conclusion on homosexuality is a "hanging offence", Craig asks:

Let's take another example. Say someone searched their conscience and the Scriptures, and told you that molesting young children was ok, and so they were going to continue doing that, as well as proclaiming they were a practicing Christian.

Would this cause you a problem? Would you have some doubt about their salvation?

The first thing is should point out is that at least on one level, the evangelical schema does not make any distinction between different types of sin. According to the evangelical schema, the 7 year-old who disobeys his parents is no less under the judgment of God than the fully grown adult who molests him, for both have sinned and as evangelicals are quick to assert, "the wages of sin is death". It is simply that something like child molestation is something that causes a profoundly greater sense of moral outrage in most people.

With the abovementioned consideration taken into mind, I feel that I am more effectively able to answer the questions that Craig asks me. So to take each question separately:

Would this cause you a problem?

The first thing to point out is that child molestation troubles me greatly. Obviously, it is a criminal offence - and so it should be, regardless of whether or not the perpetrator is aware of the gravity of his or her offence. This is because one of the objects of the criminal law is protect potential victims, as well as to punish offenders. This said, if an individual was truly unaware of the gravity of his or her actions in this respect, this consideration might be considered a mitigating factor at sentence, although its also possible that the lack of remorse could be considered to be an aggravating factor.

To get back to the theological side of the equation, I don't see how the existence of a child molester who was unaware of the sinfulness of his or her behaviour should alter my original concern that if ignorance of one sin should be a hanging offence, that ignorance of any sin, no matter how seemingly malign, would also be a hanging offence. That is, if we insist that the child molester who is unaware that he is sinning but calls himself a Christian in good faith is in actual fact unrepentant, we would have to conclude that the person who disregarded the scriptural exhortation to head coverings would be unrepentant if it turned out that the had got the wrong end of the stick on this issue. Both are sinning despite their ignorance, and thus both are under the judgment of God in the evangelical schema.

Would you have some doubt about their salvation?

The issue, as I see it, is not whether I have doubt about their salvation, but whether I can emphatically state that a person cannot simultaneously be a child molester and a Christian, just as most Calvinists seem to emphatically state that a person cannot be homosexual and Christian at the same time. At this point, I'd like to remark that I find any moral equation of consentual adult homosexuality to child molestation deeply distasteful and I shall have to assume that Craig was not meaning to relate the two concepts in this manner. But to digress from this observation, who am I to make the emphatic declaration that anyone who claims to be a Christian, even a child molester, is not who he or she claims to be? It could very well be that their declaration of ignorance is a facade, but how am I to make this assessment? I must admit that most of the time I have enough trouble trying to work out my salvation with fear and trembling to make declarations on the spiritual status of others. Quite simply, it is God alone who is capable and entitled to make a judgment of the hearts of people, and anything that I should think cannot be but mere speculation and profoundly irrelevant.

I should say in closing that the point of my previous post is to highlight what I see as the inconsistency in Calvinist praxis with respect to doctrinal disagreement. Quite often, they seem to be quite happy to believe that their sweet, but racist grandmother was still a Christian because her racism needs to be understood in the context of the era in which she lived. They are happy to believe that their loving, but slightly sexist father was still a Christian because he lived in a culture where he simply didn't know any better. But, presuming that homosexuality is a sin, they are not willing to extend the same grace to the gay man who honestly believes in the propriety of his sexual orientation. Why this seemingly obvious inconsistency? What is it about homosexuality that makes it the one great, unforgivable sin to Calvinists?

Does Calvinist Soteriology Equate to Salvation by Faith ... in Correct Doctrine?

2008-04-15T18:46:00.003+10:00

Recently I've been engaging with a few Reformed Christians on the question of homosexuality. While I am happy to concede that these people honestly believe homosexuality to be a sin, I have pushed them on the question of whether one can be both gay and Christian at the same time. Almost unanimously, I have received a reply to the negative. To use their oft used euphemism, they would suggest that actively gay and lesbian people "are still under the judgment of God". As I understand it, here is their process of reasoning:

1. The gospel requires an individual to repent of their sins
2. Homosexuality is a sin
3. Therefore, homosexuals are still sinning
4. Therefore, homosexuals have not repented
5. Therefore, homosexuals, by very definition cannot be Christians and are still under the judgment of God

I find this perspective problematic for a number of reasons. According to this argument, it doesn't matter that some gay people have searched their consciences and the Scripture and honestly do not believe that their homosexuality is a sin. Nor does it matter that these people have identified those aspects in their lives that they understand to be sin, have repented of these sins and have elected to follow Christ. All of this is irrelevant in the abovementioned worldview. According to those who hold this worldview, an individual is not a Christian if, notwithstanding the fact that they have acted in all good faith, they have gotten their doctrinal position on homosexuality wrong. In short, this is salvation by belief in correct doctrine.

To take this position to its logical, but rather unconsidered conclusion, I wonder what might happen if it turned out that Calvinist climate change skeptics were wrong about the responsibilities they had to the environment. Using more or less the same process of reasoning I've described above, the result is rather scary:

1. The gospel requires an individual to repent of their sins
2. An irresponsible use of carbon is a sin
3. Driving a V6 is an irresponsible use of carbon
4. Therefore, people who drive V6s are still sinning
5. Therefore, people who drive V6s have not repented
6. Therefore, people who drive V6s, by very definition cannot be Christians and are still under the judgment of God

I should make it very clear at this point that I certainly do not believe that driving a V6 automatically excludes one from the community of the faithful and that they have not, by very definition bought themselves a one-way ticket to Hell. This said, if Calvinists are right in their assertion that homosexuals cannot be Christians, then each and every one of us should be extremely concernly about our status as part of the elect. Quite simply, if they are correct in this assertion, then any person who calls themselves a Christian and has even the slightest blind spot with respect to any sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is in real trouble and is headed straight to the eternal pit of fire.

POSTSCRIPT: In the comments section, Craig has asked an excellent question about my stance on the child molester who believes that he is not sinning and that he is a Christian. I think that this was a question worthy of a proper response, which I've done so here.

The Great Sola Scriptura Debate

2008-04-14T22:16:00.002+10:00

I hate having to start an article like this, but I want to preface my comments by suggesting that I am feeling rather exhausted this evening. That said, I wished to share a few of my thoughts on the subject, so hopefully what I write will come into some sort of coherent order ...

Perhaps one of the things that remains difficult about the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the notorious ambiguity concerning its definition. To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure where Sola Scriptura stops and the three-pronged emphasis on "Scripture, Tradition, Reason" starts. I think the least I could say is that the conception of Sola Scriptura where the Bible is interpreted in a vacuum simply does not exist in any kind of historical context. If one goes to the famous Diet of Worms, Martin Luther is recorded as saying:

Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God.

This certainly places Scripture in a high position, but what kind of Sola Scriptura is it really? Certainly Luther seems to have rejected the infallibility of tradition, but he clearly sees reason as an important element in the interpretive process. Importantly, Luther sees that a correct understanding of Scripture is not always self-evident and thus that the interpretation of the Scriptures does not occur in a vacuum. Indeed, shortly thereafter Luther and Melanchthon are responsible for the creation of the Augsburg Confession, a statement that extensively quotes the Church Fathers. I can't imagine any reason for doing this if Luther did not see the importance and authority of tradition.

Perhaps the question I'd like to know is whether Scripture is truly the definitive authority when tradition and reason are used in the interpretive process? Of course, the common appeal is that tradition and reason are merely aids to understanding the authoritative text and so in this way it is said that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is preserved. But once any text (for example, Calvin's "Institutes") is understood to be a reliable exposition of Scripture, doesn't this become the authority in the place of the Bible? And perhaps even beyond this, is it not the individual making the determination about what tradition correctly understands Scripture and what type of reason (think different approaches to systematic theology) achieves this purpose? What then can be said to the Catholic accusation that Protestants have merely replaced the authority of the Church and the magisterium with the convictions of the individual? That is quite literally, that each and every Protestant is a pope of his or her own? I would tend to suggest that some 30,000 protestant denomination attest to this fact, rather than to the proposition that it is Scripture alone that is regarded as authoritative in the Protestant worldview.

Don't Trust Your Satellite Navigator

2008-04-13T23:47:00.002+10:00

But more on that later ...

Unfortunately I lost my first round this morning - I ran out of time, no less. Had I actually realised that I was so short of time, I would have been able to secure a draw fairly easily. Not to worry, because these things happen. After all, I was reasonably happy with the way I played.

After the upset of the first round, I bounced back with a fairly quick win in the penultimate round. This gave me the theoretical opportunity to come equal first if I won my last round and the leader lost his. I was able to complete the first half of the equation, albeit not without a considerable degree of difficulty. Both myself and my opponent were down to a minute each on our clocks in a very messy position. However, I managed to hold my nerve, while my opponent lost his. The player who beat me then won his final game to score a deserved win in the tournament, while I had to be content with equal second. And content I was, considering how I played throughout the tournament.

On my trip back all was travelling smoothly until my sattelite navigator told me to take an unexpected route which was meant to be a short cut. I was a bit skeptical about the directions given, but decided to obey the Sat Nav because he seemed to know what he was talking about. Little did I know that this route would take me along a narrow road, partly unsealed and very foggy. To make matters more interesting I had to negotiate a kangaroo that jumped out in front of my car. I did so successfully, thankfully. And so, I managed to survive unscathful and with another adventure to cap off an enjoyable weekend.

So Far, So Good in Dubbo

2008-04-12T22:06:00.002+10:00

Well, it's been a fairly fun twenty-four hours or so. After work I came back to the Central Coast before a five hour drive to Dubbo. Cessnock and Branxton were fairly interesting little places, but once I got onto the Golden Highway the trip was pretty boring. Still, I love driving long distances by myself because it gives me a real chance just to relax and reflect on things, all while listening to some of my favourite music.

As expected, I am top seed in the this tournament. It's not necessarily a place I like to be, since everyone thinks that you will win the tournament. Anything less is underperforming. Not that I care all that much - playing in the tournament is just an excuse for me to get out of Sydney for a weekend. That said, it's not as if I want to deliberately try to lose games!

So far we've had three rounds, and I've had three wins. Considering that I haven't really played chess in about nine months, I'm playing really well. Two of the opponents I've had so far can be quite tricky if you're not careful, but I managed to dispatch them fairly easily. I am joined by two other players on 3 out of 3, one of which I have to play tomorrow morning. If I can win the game tomorrow morning, I should be well on my way to winning the tournament.

After the final round in the main tournament, the Dubbo Open continued its tradition of having a meal together, followed by a lightning tournament. I could have just as easily picked something up from Red Rooster, but I didn't want to be antisocial, so I just paid for my overpriced bistro meal in the company of the other chess players. I won the lightning tournament with 6 out of 6, which was also nice.

On the Road Again

2008-04-11T00:42:00.002+10:00

This weekend I think I might drive to Dubbo to play in a chess tournament. I must admit that I haven't played competitively for some time, but that really isn't the point. To be honest, it's just a good excuse to get away for the weekend before a fairly busy week coming up where I will be in court for the next five days.

Not entirely sure what my access to the internet will be like, but I will keep you posted. Or not, as the case may be ...

Minister Embarrasses Sydney Diocese with Gay Slur on Kirby

2008-04-10T21:19:00.004+10:00

For conservatives in the Sydney Diocese, His Honour Michael Kirby must be their worst nightmare. Kirby is proud to call himself a Christian and an Anglican. He is also openly gay. However, unlike the many gay Christians that have been beaten into submission by the prevailing Diocesan line, Kirby is not afraid to stand up and be counted. He is clearly an articulate thinker and knows his Bible well. And He's not the type of individual who can be quietly taken out of play by the Sydney Anglican thought police. In short, he is a worrying prospect for those ministers who are scared that their parishioners will think for themselves.

Last year, Michael Kirby suggested in an interview on the ABC that Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Jensen, of the Sydney Catholic and Anglican Dioceses respectively, made it hard for people to take a more tolerant attitude to gays. Enter Reverend Richard Lane, an obscure Eastern Suburbs Anglican minister. Rather than extend some degree of hospitality to Kirby to demonstrate that conservative Christians could indeed be loving towards the homosexual community, he manages to systematic validate Kirby's concerns by launching into a violent personal attack against the High Court judge. Likening Kirby to the infamous Herod of the gospel narratives, Lane then proceeds to suggest that Kirby is a "coward, liar [and] a deceiver". Charming, isn't it? And Lane has the audacity to suggest that this is "speaking to you the truth in love".

The one thing that I find rather shocking about Reverend Lane's malicious attack is its pure senselessness. I'd really love to know what he was hoping to achieve when he sent the letter. Even if Reverend Lane happens to be right on the issue of homosexuality, was he really naive enough to believe that Kirby did not know that his practice was condemned by many other Christians? And was he really so arrogant to think that Kirby had never examined the texts that conservative Christians so love to use to promote their homophobic agenda for himself? Reverend Lane's behaviour in this respect shows astounding ignorance. The only right thing for him to do under these circumstances would be to resign from his position as an Anglican minister if he truly loves the Lord and wishes not to further undermine the Sydney Diocese. Sadly, I suspect that Reverend Lane will not repent.

A Tribute to a Bygone Era for my Complementarian Friends

2008-04-09T17:38:00.002+10:00

Yes, you know who you are ...

The world might be a scary place today for people who believe that wives should submit to their husbands when they see women at the very top of the professional world, but it wasn't always like that. If you're a complementarian who believes that a woman should be in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, the following article might take you back to a more peaceful place.

1943 Guide to Hiring Women

Eleven Tips on Getting More Efficiency Out of Women Employees: There's no longer any question whether transit companies should hire women for jobs formerly held by men. The draft and manpower shortage has settled that point. The important things now are to select the most efficient women available and how to use them to the best advantage.

Here are eleven helpful tips on the subject from Western Properties:

1. Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they're less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn't be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.

2. When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It's always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.

3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

4. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.

5. Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.

6. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they'll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous properties say that women make excellent workers when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they lack initiative in finding work themselves.

7. Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.

8. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

9. Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can't shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman - it breaks her spirit and cuts off her efficiency.

10. Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl's husband or father may swear vociferously, she'll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.

11. Get enough size variety in operator's uniforms so that each girl can have a proper fit. This point can't be stressed too much in keeping women happy.

Crimes Act 1914

2008-04-08T20:35:00.001+10:00

4G Indictable offences

Offences against a law of the Commonwealth punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months are indictable offences, unless the contrary intention appears.

4H Summary offences

Offences against a law of the Commonwealth, being offences which:

(a) are punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months; or

(b) are not punishable by imprisonment;

are summary offences, unless the contrary intention appears.

4J Certain indictable offences may be dealt with summarily

(1) Subject to subsection (2), an indictable offence (other than an offence referred to in subsection (4)) against a law of the Commonwealth, being an offence punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years, may, unless the contrary intention appears, be heard and determined, with the consent of the prosecutor and the defendant, by a court of summary jurisdiction.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an indictable offence where, under a law of the Commonwealth other than this Act, that offence may be heard and determined by a court of summary jurisdiction.

(3) Subject to subsection (6), where an offence is dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction under subsection (1), the court may impose:

(a) where the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years—a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding 60 penalty units, or both; or

(b) where the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 5 years but not exceeding 10 years—a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding 120 penalty units, or both.

(4) A court of summary jurisdiction may, if it thinks fit, upon the request of the prosecutor, hear and determine any proceeding in respect of an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth if the offence relates to property whose value does not exceed $5,000.

(5) Subject to subsection (6), where an offence is dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction under subsection (4), the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding 60 penalty units, or both.

(6) A court of summary jurisdiction shall not impose under subsection (3) or (5):

(a) a sentence of imprisonment for a period exceeding the maximum period that could have been imposed had the offence been tried on indictment;

(b) a fine exceeding the maximum fine that could have been imposed had the offence been so tried; or

(c) both a sentence of imprisonment and a fine if the offence is punishable on trial on indictment by a sentence of imprisonment or a fine, but not both.

(7) This section does not apply to an offence against:

(a) section 24AA or 24AB or subsection 79(2) or (5) of this Act; or

(b) Division 80 or section 91.1 of the Criminal Code.

Just thought you should know - I should have.

Back in Sydney

2008-04-07T21:02:00.002+10:00

Back in Sydney. Back to reality ...

Fortunately enough, I was able to get a window seat this time, so I was able to set Sydney from 200 metres above sea level. It really is a beautiful city at night. As The Whitlams say, "You've got to love this city ... for it's body and not it's brains".

Didn't get to see too much of Brisbane this weekend, but hopefully that will change in the not too distant future.

Another Update from the Sunshine State

2008-04-06T20:00:00.002+10:00

It's been a lovely weekend up in Brisbane so far, albeit that I am feeling rather exhausted. Last night I went to a pub for karaoke with my sister and some of her friends. I found out they were really nice people. This thought reassured me because it means that my sister has some good people around her.

I'm genuinely thinking at the moment that I wouldn't mind moving up to Brisbane on a more permanent basis. People seem to be much friendlier than they are in Sydney, rental prices are lower, and the petrol excise means that petrol is cheaper too. I can't imagine any more compelling reasons than that, although for all I know that could change in the not too distant future. Stay tuned for further updates.

Reporting Live Via Satellite from Brisbane

2008-04-05T18:21:00.003+11:00

I am currently at my sister's place and have visited her and her partner, as well as my two nieces, aged three and two. I wasn't entirely sure if I'd have internet access in Brisbane, but it turns out I do, so I am able to write about my adventures.

After a fairly uneventful flight I arrived at my destination, the land of the Canetoad. Straight away I felt like I had entered into a parallel universe. There wasn't anything particularly negative about this alternative plain of existence, but it felt strangely different. I'm not entirely sure why I felt this way, but I may as well have landed in New Delhi.

This morning I awoke late to find the complex politics of female interaction in High School in the movie "Bratz". Clearly a movie aimed at the 12-14 year old female demographic, I had no business continuing to watch this movie. From the viewpoint of dictum and discourse, it was a loathsome and offensive affair, but I could not look away. Staying there to watch the movie was a strangely masochistic experience.

This afternoon I got a haircut, enjoyed a long, slow mocha, and performed my uncle duties with distinction. I felt pretty good about it all. It's been nice to get away from Sydney for the weekend.

Viva Bris Vegas

2008-04-04T00:30:00.002+11:00

I'm heading up on a plane to Brisbane for the weekend. I can't exactly tell people the reason for doing so at the moment, but with any luck I might be able to disclose such information in due course ...

Hitting a Raw Nerve

2008-04-03T22:25:00.002+11:00

I had to go to a surgeon today to consult with him about two wisdom teeth I need removed. It turned out that I would be only partly covered under my scheme, so the process is going to cost $500, which I understand is fairly cheap, all things considered. It's always interesting what your instinctive response is when you hear a response like that. And to tell you the truth, I was quite pleased with mine. Basically, my response ran along along the lines "That's a bit annoying, but that's life". I can remember some years back when I'd had to pay the excess of $850 for a car accident and I thought that it was the end of the world. But then of course, I was an impoverished student at that point in time.

For the most part, I'm fairly comfortable with my attitude towards money. I've never been a particularly materialistic person, and I don't really see that changing anytime in the near future. If I wanted to, I would have the capacity to significantly increase my income over the next few years, but the truth is that even now I am living well below my means. I realise all too well that were I to have a family later on in life, my costs would more than likely skyrocket. That said, if a married couple in the Western Suburbs with three children on a combined income of $40,000 can make ends meet, albeit only barely, how is it that so many families on a combined income of twice that find themselves over their head? I really do think that we've become a very consumerist culture, where so many of the things that people regard of necessities are really the luxuries of yesteryear.

The other interesting thing was when the surgeon advised that I might experience some pain over the following week and that I might have to be off work during this time. My instinctive response? Quite simply "But I get to take this time off work, right?" Not that I hate my job by any stretch of the imagination, but I've been feeling fairly worn out lately. You keep complaining about this like it's a badge of honour, but you don't do anything about it until such time as circumstances force you to take time off to rest. I can imagine that week as being a strange one, in which I enjoy the fact that I get some time off, but experience this alongside physical pain. And hopefully when I return back, I'll feel refreshed and ready to work to full capacity again.

An Explanation Concerning my Faux Conversion

2008-04-02T20:15:00.003+11:00

Okay, so most of you worked out fairly quickly that I haven't become a Calvinist. Obviously it was an April Fools joke. Funnily enough though, the joke has been on me, since the twenty-four hours that I spent as a Calvinist made me think about my relationship to Calvinism and Calvinists. But more of that later ...

I must admit that since I had come up with the idea of pretending to convert to Calvinism about a week ago, I wasn't entirely sure of the propriety of the plan. I mean, isn't joking about religion a little taboo? Can one really make jokes about this kind of thing? Regardless, I ploughed on with my plan, first by writing a few entries where I spoke about Calvinist authors in a moderately positive way to give my "testimony" some veneer of credibility. Secondly, my aim with the testimony was certainly not to be sarcastic about Calvinism, but to make the conversion sound as realistic as possible. Use a few Calvinist cliches, throw in a few strawperson attacks on liberal Christianity, and I was set. I think that I did a fairly good job of writing a testimony that could have been believed - that is, if it wasn't written by myself and if it wasn't written on April 1st. The joke was not levelled at Calvinism so much as the idea that I had become Calvinist. Thankfully, most people were able to see the funny side. I offer my apologies to those who were offended.

I guess my second reservation was that in writing this faux testimony, there would be grains of truth in what I wrote. Indeed, it's probably true that I envy the simple type of faith that many Calvinists possess and their steadfast conviction that they are part of the elect. There have been times when I have resented the fact that I am such an intensely analytical being who is not satisfied with formulaic answers. Even when I was evangelical, I possessed a complex faith. I think I've more or less come to the conclusion that God didn't make me to have a simple, easy faith. Rather, I was created as I was created for a purpose; perhaps one which I will never truly grasp as I constantly double guess myself.

Planning and writing this faux testimony also helped me to realise that I have not always been so loving in my responses to Calvinists. I say in my defence that I believe that the environment of a blog can contribute to this situation. The point is, I am selective in my posts and as such, it is generally only when I have something of substance to say that I will comment. Generally speaking, this tends to be when I disagree (strongly) with a position, quite simply because simply saying "Right on - I agree with you 100 percent" doesn't seem to further a conversation all that much. That said, I wish to take responsibility for my comments and I apologise for the remarks I have made that have been unduly offensive. I will strive to do better in future, and would appreciate your grace in understanding that I will slip up from time to time.

All of the above said, I cannot deny that there are aspect of Calvinism that I find deeply, deeply disturbing. I don't think it would be right for me to apologise for this viewpoint. I can't help but speak out about those aspects of Calvinism that I believe to have been deeply hurtful for many people I know and love, as well as those I believe to be quite destructive of the legacy of Christ. The challenge on one hand is to avoid associating the belief with the believer and the act with the actor. On the other hand, I am aware that some people find it patronising when I suggest that a particular Calvinist should be treated with compassion because they are simply acting in line with their Calvinistic convictions. I'm honestly not sure how I should respond in such circumstances, but would love to receive advice from Calvinists themselves about how I should best respond.

Well, with that little saga out of the way, please standby to resume normal programming ...

I've Become a Calvinist

2008-04-01T00:10:00.002+11:00

I have a bit of a confession to make. Over the last few weeks I've been secretly reading some of the Calvinist authors. I can't exactly say that I was trying to read these authors with an open mind - rather, I was reading the likes of Spurgeon, Ryle, Whitefield and of course, Calvin himself, in the attempt to demonstrate how silly their arguments were. But as I read more and more, I discovered that their arguments about the character of God and the nature of His election actually made sense. Moreover, as my eyes were being opened, I could see that their understanding of God showed the most faithfulness to Scripture and more highly esteemed Him. I began to recognise that I was to be honest with myself and I allowed God to be God, he really wasn't the grandfatherly figure that I had constructed as a liberal Christian. The Calvinist God, on the other hand was a God or substance and of justice. Just because I didn't like the idea of Hell, or the idea of God punishing people didn't mean that these things didn't exist.

These realisations didn't bring about my conversion, but they intrigued me and caused me to probe deeper. A few nights ago I began to marvel at my change of perspective. I realised then and there that it was only God who had opened my eyes to these truths. And as I probed further, I discovered new truths. For the first time I became convicted of the infallibility of the Scriptures, a position I realised that I had never truly held. It was this that shook me the most. I realised that if I was to be faithful to this revelation then I would have to change the way I lived my life. I realised that I would have to relinquish control and truly give my life over to God's control, rather than simply saying that I did that and fooling myself. Being the control freak that I am, I bucked against this idea more strongly than I ever had before, conscious that God was not indeed the ruler of my life. In order to prove that I was not under the control of God I decided that I would be even more aggressive towards those who called themselves Calvinist. But it was all to little avail - even against my will, God was beginning to change me.

I guess my resentment towards Calvinists was their sense of assurance about their salvation. I'd never experienced that, so I decided that their assurance must surely be arrogance on their part. However, when I started to think anew, I realised that this accusation did not fit, since they did not appear to be arrogant people in other respects. And in addition to their humility, I realised that they shown me a great deal of love, even though I had mocked and belittled them. But now that I have experienced this conviction myself, the feeling that God's Holy Spirit lives within me, I no longer needed to view Calvinists with jealousy and suspicion because I now I have experienced the grace that they have experienced. What's more, how can I possibly hold this attitude when I too, albeit very much against my will, have become a Calvinist myself?

POSTSCRIPT: For people that are still confused about the whole thing, an explanation is in order.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

2008-03-31T17:55:00.002+11:00

For the next stop of my Calvinist roadshow, I thought I'd provide my audience with some words from the famous American preacher, Jonathan Edwards in an extract from his classic sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God":

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

Turn or Burn

2008-03-30T21:17:00.002+11:00

I thought for a little change of pace tonight I might provide an extract from one of Charles Haddon Spurgeon's sermons, entitled "Turn or Burn":

Oh! what would I give if one of my hearers should be blessed by God to go home and repent! If I had worlds to buy one of your souls, I would readily give them, if I might but bring one of you to Christ. I shall never forget the hour when I hope God's mercy first looked on me. It was in a place very different from this, amongst a despised people, in an insignificant little chapel, of a peculiar sect. I went there bowed down with guilt; laden with transgression. The minister walked up the pulpit stairs, opened his Bible, and read that precious text, "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and beside me there is none else;" and, as I thought, fixing his eyes on me, before he began to preach to others, he said, "Young man! look! look! look! You are one of the ends of the earth; you feel you are; you know your need of a Saviour; you are trembling because you think he will never save you. He says this morning, 'Look!'" Oh, how my soul was shaken within me then! what! thought I, does that man know me, and all about me? He seemed as if he did. And it made me "look!" Well, I thought, lost or saved, I will try; sink or swim, I will run the risk of it; and in that moment I hope by his grace I looked upon Jesus, and though desponding, downcast, and ready to despair, and feeling that I could rather die than live as I had lived, at that very moment it seemed as if a young heaven had had its birth within my conscience. I went home, no more cast down; those about me, noticing the change, asked me why I was so glad, and I told them that I had believed in Jesus, and that it was written, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Oh! if one such should be here this morning! Where art thou, thou chief of sinners, thou vilest of the vile? My dear hearer, thou hast never been in the house of God perhaps these last twenty years; but here thou art, covered with thy sins, the blackest and vilest of all! Hear God's Word. "Come, now let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as wool, and though they be red like crimson, they shall be white than snow." And all this for Jesus' sake; all this for his blood's sake! "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved;" for his word and mandate is, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned."

SINNER! TURN OR BURN

Having Fun Without Electricity

2008-03-29T16:36:00.003+11:00

As many of those around Australia will know, tonight at 8pm is Earth Hour. For the unacquainted, the idea behind Earth Hour is that everyone switches off all non-essential lights between 8pm and 9pm. The aim of this action is primarily to create awareness about the issue of climate change and encourage people to take a more responsible approach to their energy usage.

One of the interesting things that I have been thinking about as a result of Earth Hour is our perceived dependence on electricity, which I think is a pretty sad indictment on our society. Tonight, I will be attending the first ever "Nerd Hour" party, where we will be switching off our lights and switching on our brains instead. I'm reliably informed that among other things there will be trivia and Scrabble. Although the event will be carbon neutral, I expect there to be a lot of energy around.

As I final thought, I have been saddened to see the response of some Christians to the whole event and to the issue of climate change in general. While most Christians are taking their responsibilities as custodians of God's creation seriously, others have taken a very dismissive and angry response to the initiative and the promoters thereof. Even if one didn't agree with the initiative, I would've thought that they could have acknowledged that other Christians are at least intending to do an honourable thing in conserving the environment. But instead they have to denigrate and disparage through who are taking part. This is rather sad.

Anonymous Christianity

2008-03-28T19:53:00.003+11:00

When conservative Christians find out that I believe that I am universalist, they tend to triumphantly quote John 14:6 to me - "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me." It seems that because they've discovered that I'm a Liberal Christian (a term I using sparingly to describe myself), they seem to believe that I have never read the Bible and that by quoting John 14:6 to me, I will be hit with a startling revelation. My response is normally to ask them what it is think "No-one comes to the Father except through me" actually means. Their answer can invariably be represented as "No-one comes to the Father except through Christendom". Quite apart from the fact that this is simply not what the verse says, I find that it's actually a fairly dangerous position to hold because one is taking Christ out of the picture and replacing him with a human institution.

The position I hold is one of inclusivism, which adopts the understanding of the "anonymous Christianity", a term coined by Catholic theologian Kahl Rahner, who describes the idea as follows:

Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.

At this point, a distinction should be made between the inclusivism of anonymous Christianity and what we know as pluralism. Whereas pluralism asserts that there are many, or possibly infinite sources of salvation, inclusivism asserts that all who are saved are saved through Christ. The Christian is saved through Christ, the Hindu is saved through Christ and the even the atheist is saved through Christ. In this respect, I find Christian inclusivism to have a higher Christology than exclusivism because Christian inclusivism fully appreciates the scope of Jesus salvific influence. While the exclusivist believes that Jesus can only redeem a small fraction of humanity, the Christian inclusivist recognises that Jesus is both able and willing to reconcile much, or even all of the cosmos to himself.

I should point out that it is possible to be an inclusivist without being a universalist, although I believe that the most nuanced universalists will adopt an inclusivist position. When I get a chance, I shall explore the principles that support not only Christianity outside of Christendom, but how the whole creation (indeed, not merely humans) will eventually come to understand Christ and their Saviour.

The US Experiences Death Penalty Drought

2008-03-27T20:18:00.003+11:00

I remember an episode of "The Simpsons" where there was a sign reading "4 days without a tornado" outside of a trailer park. Of course, the joke was that tornados took place so frequently that the time that had elapsed between tornados was worth recording. Well, life imitated art today when the United States marked six months without an execution.

Before one comes to the conclusion that those Bible-believing Texans are becoming more compassionate, it's worth pointing out that their hooting-and-hollerin' killin' ways have been temporarily stopped by the US Supreme Court, who are considering the legality of the lethal injection. This follows submissions by arguments from several death row inmates that lethal injections were unconstitional because they constituted "cruel and unusual punishment". Of course, that such punishments are cruel is quite obvious, but I suspect that given the prevalence of lethal injection as a method of execution, they may have more trouble establishing that such a punishment is unusual. Maybe in the rest of the civilised world perhaps, but certainly not in the good ol' US of A, and particularly not in Texas.

Those of you who may fear the end of "tough love" in America need not fear. The state of Louisana plans to break the death drought in July, when they will execute yet another underprivileged member of a minority group. And after that, there are another 3,260 participants who are waiting in the queue to take the ride of their life. Add that to the 4,000 Americans who have died in combat in Iraq, and one must begin to marvel at the ability of the United States to kill its own citizens in record numbers ...

Interpreting the Synoptics

2008-03-26T21:29:00.003+11:00

I consider the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the heart of the Bible. I take this view because they give us the teachings of Jesus, our Examplar. I'd suggest it would follow that if we are serious about following Jesus, paying attention to his teachings in the books should be our first priority. You may notice that I've separated the Synoptics from the Gospel of John. This is not because John is in any work an inferior book or that it gives an inferior view of Jesus. I just tend to think that the Synoptics are "more earthy" and that because of this they are more accessible, not to mention more practical. I also believe that the Synoptics provide a much more literal account of Jesus ministry.

Conservative Christians (and others, for that matter) may be interested in knowing how I try to interpret the Synoptic gospels, so I'll try to provide a few principles I use off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I won't provide Scripture examples of these principles, but may try to do so later.

1. Jesus is not quoted verbatim when the authors record his teachings - I would have thought this would have been fairly obvious, but just in case this point is in question, you should try to read "parallel accounts" of the same event or teaching. If you do, you'll notice there will be slight variations in the text. Parts of a teaching that are in one gospel will be left out in another gospel. Sometimes two different teachings will be merged together.

2. Notwithstanding that Jesus is not being quoted verbatim, the authors of the Synoptics are faithfully quoting the substance of Jesus teachings - While the exact words may not perfectly represent what Jesus said, I would suggest that on the whole, the ideas and principles that Jesus wants to express are kept intact by the authors. Of course, there are many scholars who would disagree with this assessment, for instance those who suggest that Matthew 25 is merely Matthew's anti-Semitic rant projected onto Jesus. While this could possibly be true, I tend to err on the side of caution and assume that teachings attributed to Jesus are actually authentic unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

3. Because it is the substance of Jesus teachings that are recorded and not the exact words used, we should focus on the general substance of the teaching, rather than agonise over the semantic terms - I'd suggest that it is entirely counterproductive getting caught up on a particular word that may or may not have been uttered by Jesus. Besides, Jesus teachings were for his audience first and foremost, and I find it hard to believe that he would have expected the peasants who listened to him to deconstruct a word to find it's six possible meanings.]

4. The authors of the Synoptics each have an agenda of their own - While I believe that the authors of the Synoptics are faithful witnesses, there are writing because they want their audience to believe. They also want to stress different aspects of Jesus' person. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but it's something to which we should be mindful.

5. When a particular expression is only used in one gospel, it's more likely to be the author's own "spin". Conversely, when an expression is exactly the same in all three Synoptics, the more likely it is to be the actual words of Jesus - It should be pointed out, however, that when an expression is identical in both Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, Q is probably responsible and the authors have simply copied this source word for word.

6. Jesus needs to be understand within the context of his culture - Jesus was not a Christian, but was rather a Jew speaking to Jews. Thus, an understanding of first century Jewish culture and theology is necessary to understand Jesus, notwithstanding the fact that Jesus clearly transcended many of the paradigms of his day.

7. Jesus was not omniscient in any meaningful sense - I can see why people can get uptight about this claim, because they think it might impact upon Jesus' divinity. However, I'd suggest that few people would make claim that the earthly incarnation of Jesus is omnipotent. Scripture also makes reference to Jesus "growing in knowledge", which seems to infer that at least at one point in time, Jesus was not omniscient. For this reason, I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was wrong when he stated that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. However, I would suggest that Jesus moral teaching, properly understood, is infallible.

Anyway, here are a few thoughts of mine on the subject. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts too.

An Update on My Literary Pursuits

2008-03-25T22:32:00.003+11:00

I'm now onto my third book since I finished "Anna Karenina", so it'd probably be a good idea to keep everyone up to date on what I've been reading. At the very least, it would be good for me to keep complete records for the sake of posterity.

The first book I read was "Into the Wild" by Jon Krakauer. It was the first non-fiction book I have read it a while. "Into the Wild" chronicles the story of 22 year-old Chris McCandless, a middle class guy who decided to escape from everything he knew and life live on the road. His travels took his to Alaska, where he stayed out in the wilderness living off the land for almost four months before his untimely death by starvation. My parents bought this book as a Christmas present, partly to discourage me from trying to do the same thing myself!

"Into the Wild" is as much an psychological investigation of the forces that draw people to the wilderness as it is a narrative of the adventures of McCandless. Wilderness is depicted as a paradoxical place that offers peace and serenity, but also the primal attraction of the untamed exterior, where each day is a fight for survival. The book includes some fantastic quotes from David Thoreau and Jack London that will serve me well as a means of inspiration when I have writer's block.

The second book I read was the 2003 novel entitled "The Kite Runner" by Afghan author Khaled Housseini - some of you may have watched the recent adaptation at the cinemas. It was the first recently written novel I have read in a while and was the first novel written by someone who was originally from the Middle East region. I'm not entirely sure whether this made for a different writing style, but I loved the way that the book was written as well as the way that the characters were fleshed out. The narrator and protagonist of the story was incredibly complex, having to deal with issues of self doubt, a desire to win his father's affection, guilt and remorse. However the character of Hassan is the most attractive individual, a Christ-like individual whose servant attitude and loyalty seems to come as second nature. He also has an incredible capacity for empathy, refusing to retaliate against those who mistreat him because he believes that their bad behaviour is caused by their inner hurt and pain.

Perhaps Hosseini's greatest achievement in this novel is the way that none of the book seems extraneous - all the chapters seem vitally necessary and gel together in an economic fashion. The story also made me more aware of the history of Afghanistan and the forces that have served to define this oppressed but proud nation. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who was interested in getting an insight into the Afghani psyche. It shouldn't surprise me, but when things are stripped down to their basic elements, Westerners and Afghanis both seek the same fundamental things - a sense of belonging, a sense of meaning, and a sense of self-empowerment.

The book that I started today is the 1857 novel "Madame Bovary" by the French writer Gustave Flaubert. Madame Bovary was meant to be quite provocative when it was written and Flaubert even had to endure an obscenity trial for his efforts, which he eventually won. It has struck me recently that so many of the books that are now regarded as great classics today were once condemned for some allegedly unsavoury element. Perhaps this says that great art and literature must constantly be pushing boundaries to attain a sense of relevance.

Kahlil Gibran on Legalism and Hypocrisy

2008-03-24T21:56:00.002+11:00

Some years ago I became acquainted with Kahlil Gibran, a Lebanese-American poet of the early twentieth century. It was only very recently that I returned to his writings and I was glad to discover that his poetry was perhaps more thought-provoking for me now than what it was when I read it for the first time. I'd like to share with you a section in "The Prophet" entitled "Laws", which seemed to remind me of the many exchanges between Jesus and the Pharisees:

Then a lawyer said, "But what of our Laws, master?"
And he answered:
You delight in laying down laws,
Yet you delight more in breaking them.
Like children playing by the ocean who build sand-towers with constancy and then destroy them with laughter.
But while you build your sand-towers the ocean brings more sand to the shore,
And when you destroy them, the ocean laughs with you.
Verily the ocean laughs always with the innocent.
But what of those to whom life is not an ocean, and man-made laws are not sand-towers,
But to whom life is a rock, and the law a chisel with which they would carve it in their own likeness?
What of the cripple who hates dancers?
What of the ox who loves his yoke and deems the elk and deer of the forest stray and vagrant things?
What of the old serpent who cannot shed his skin, and calls all others naked and shameless?
And of him who comes early to the wedding-feast, and when over-fed and tired goes his way saying that all feasts are violation and all feasters law-breakers?
What shall I say of these save that they too stand in the sunlight, but with their backs to the sun?
They see only their shadows, and their shadows are their laws.
And what is the sun to them but a caster of shadows?
And what is it to acknowledge the laws but to stoop down and trace their shadows upon the earth?
But you who walk facing the sun, what images drawn on the earth can hold you?
You who travel with the wind, what weathervane shall direct your course?
What man's law shall bind you if you break your yoke but upon no man's prison door?
What laws shall you fear if you dance but stumble against no man's iron chains?
And who is he that shall bring you to judgment if you tear off your garment yet leave it in no man's path?
People of Orphalese, you can muffle the drum, and you can loosen the strings of the lyre, but who shall command the skylark not to sing?

Reflections on Rebirth and Renewal

2008-03-23T23:11:00.003+11:00

Easter is a time when we think about rebirth and renewal. Of course, we are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, but more than this we celebrate the new life we have in Christ. However, the very term "new life" has become so used so often in Christendom that it can begin to look quite old indeed. What more, our overuse of the term means that it has become little more than a meaningless shibboleth and one which we just throw onto the Christian stockpile to impress our Christian friends is they try to test our Christian credentials. So what exactly is "new life" and how does it relate to our Christian walk?

The understanding of new life I grew up with as an evangelical was that if I repented and gave my life to Jesus, then his death on the Cross was atone for my sins. This were my "Get Out of Jail Free Card" as it were. Once I'd undertaken the transaction and sealed the deal I was considered "saved" and could be assured that one day I would be going to heaven. And when I approached the judgment seat of God, I was assured that God wouldn't see me, but that he would see Jesus. "Shit covered in snow", as Martin Luther colourfully described the transfer.

My understanding is that I wasn't really sure want the rest of my earthly existence meant. Sure enough I was told that my life should be a living sacrifice to God because I appreciated what Jesus had done for me and that now that I was freed it was not appropriate for me to be a slave to sin. The rationale that I would not wish to be a slave to sin made sense, but to what extent was I really freed from sin if I still sinned much more often than I desired? To my mind, I will only be freed from sin when I am free from sin. And if being freed from sin is part of salvation, then I am not yet saved, but eagerly await to be saved by being completely cleansed and being presented to my Father perfect on the last day. That is, I regard salvation as a process rather than as an event.

The evangelical understanding of what I'm talking about is called "sanctification". However, evangelicalism tends to sever the idea of sanctification from the economy of salvation. Sanctification is just one of those things that happens after you're saved. What's more, there is no concrete understanding of how one is sanctified in evangelicalism - there's something about the Holy Spirit doing his thing, but from there it starts to get a little hazy. Accordingly, we are still shit covered in snow and will continue to be. I see this is a very sad and empty gospel, if indeed one calls it a gospel at all.

I certainly don't want to be shit - I want to be conformed to the likeness of Jesus in increasing measure. This to me is true salvation. And if one steps away from evangelicalism for a minute, one begins to see that this is salvation from the perspective of the Bible and from the Church Fathers. In the immortal words of Iranaeus, Christ "because of his immeasurable love became what we are in order to make us what he is". As people who have decided to follow Christ, we will be transformed daily. Only we our Examplar has fully perfected us will we be truly saved.

In closing, I'd like to share a quote from Origen:

"For since [Christ] is Himself the invisible image of the invisible God, He conveyed invisibly a share in Himself to all His rational creatures, so that each one obtained a part of Him exactly proportioned to the amount of affection with which he regarded Him."

But the good news, that is the gospel, is that one day we will possess much more than simply a share in Father. On this day we shall truly have new life in him and will completely live and move in Him and truly have our being. It is then and only then that we shall begin to exist.

The Presuppositions Behind Presuppositional Apologetics

2008-03-22T23:15:00.002+11:00

At the moment I'm trying to understanding the presuppositional apologetics, a defence of the Christian faith particularly popular in Reformed Christianity. I understand enough to say that one assumes particular foundational premises and proceed to build a worldview from this point, the consistency of which should establish the validity of the premises. I may have the wrong end of the stick, but I'd be interested in receiving answers to the following questions from someone who knows more about the issue than me:

Firstly, how does one establish that presuppositionalism is a valid way of doing apologetics?

Secondly, when one proceeds from the premise of biblical inerrancy and starts interpreting Scripture passages, isn't one adopting a whole series of new presuppositions about interpreting the Bible?

Thirdly, how are competing interpretations of a passage resolved?

A Tribute to Saint Veronica

2008-03-21T20:43:00.003+11:00

For as long as I've known about the Stations of the Cross, I've been rather fond of the sixth station, that of Veronica wiping Jesus blood stained face. I must confess that the attachment was formally more mischievious than anything else - the thing is, I took some perverse pleasure in seeing evangelicals getting into an awful flap about this station because neither this event, nor the person of Veronica is recorded in the gospels. It always seemed to me a fairly absurd argument to suggest that simply because something wasn't recorded in the Bible meant that it didn't happen. If so, then I don't know what to make of the last 1900 years of human history.

As I reflected on the sixth station today, the events were described took on a significance beyond pure mischief. You see, when the whole Veronica story is understood within its historical context, we see this narrative as profoundly subversive. Men and women simply did not congregate in public, let alone share physical contact. Of course, the fact that Jesus is a condemned criminal makes the whole act even more taboo. Furthermore, Jesus bloodied face brings into question all types of questions about the Jewish purity code. By performing this act of grace, Veronica would have been making herself ritually unclean.

So, what do we learn from this story? I'd suggest that it is a story about crossing over barriers. Veronica is crossing offer the cultural barriers to attend to Jesus, who himself made a habit of crossing over barriers and trying to remove those barriers which separated people from God and from each other. It is through the Cross that the barrier between ourselves and God is removed, as well as the barriers separating male and female, slave and free, Jewish and Gentiles. Of course, at the same time we can think about the fact that on a very practical level, Jesus did not let the physical and emotional pain on the way to the Cross prevent him from completing his mission. Surely this is a profound reminder of the love that Jesus had and has for us all?

Reflections on my Upcoming Career

2008-03-20T22:23:00.002+11:00

Yesterday our office held a conference at the Menzies hotel, with a number of speakers talking about issues pertinent to the area of public prosecutions as well as the legal profession more generally. Though I found a number of the speakers interesting, it was the last speaker who captured my attention most. His topic was "Mental Wellness in the Legal Profession", and he spoke about some of the ways that we as legal practitioners can reduce the risk of mental illness in our careers.

It should come as no surprise to people that the law is a stressful profession, but I found the following statistics from a survey quite surprising:

- 15 percent of legal practitioners identified as alcoholics, although I suspect that the real figure is actually somewhat higher than this.
- 11 percent of legal practitioners contemplated committing suicide in the last month

I must admit that I found that second figure incredibly shocking.

The speaker then proceeded to suggest different coping strategies that legal practitioners could employ to maintain their sanity. One of these ways is to profoundly change the way you think about your relationship to legal practice. He suggested that for some, seeing their role as a lawyer as being a healer of people who come to them with problems, rather than as a means to make money proved to be beneficial. I must admit that I feel very comfortable with this paradigm, since making a lot of money has never been one of my ambitions.

Looking at the value that people gave to their careers, I think it would be interesting to know if their were any significant differences between Christian and non-Christian lawyers. Of course, one must be cautious to use generalisations, but I would imagine that one's values and philosophies would impact upon the way that one relates to their career. For instance, while as a perfectionist I take pride in the work that I do and seek to do it as well as I can, work still does not hold the first place in my life. Some would see this as a lack of ambition, but I can't help but think that there are more important things in life that spending fourteen hours a day in an office. Nor do I see the need to constantly prove myself to others. While I certainly have other demons that require healing, I can't help but think that my faith is what has primarily influenced the way I think about my career and I am grateful for my faith in this respect.

Mercy Ministries - Malevolent, or Maligned by the Media?

2008-03-19T20:40:00.003+11:00

For those who are unaware, Mercy Ministries is a residential-style program for girls suffering for a range of psychiatric illness who have recently descended into somewhat of a media storm. Over the last few days I have been taking an interest in allegations that Mercy Ministries treats patients without adequate recourse to properly qualified mental health practitioners and accepted treatments for such conditions. To get a more informed perspective I decided to ask my mother, who is a professionally qualified worker within the mental health profession. She has worked for a non-government organisation who work with the mentally ill, their relatives and their friends for the last ten years. Furthermore, she works with each of these types of individuals on a daily basis and is intimately acquainted with the residential-style programs in which Mercy Ministries specialise.

My mother told me that some aspects of the Mercy Ministries program criticised in the Herald articles are not at all atypical in like programs. It turns out, for instance that most similar programs would indeed kick somebody out of a program for an offence as seemingly trivial as smoking a cigarette, even if this had nothing to do with the reason you were in the program in the first place. However, other aspects of the Mercy Ministries program were not at all typical in equivalent programs and my mother assessed the impact of such treatment as being profoundly harmful. My mother also pointed out, as Luke commented earlier, that residential-style programs can indeed be beneficial for some patients, but will be entirely counterproductive and dangerous to others. Before entering such a program, it is of critical importance for an independent psychiatric assessment as to the viability of this particular treatment upon the patient.

Alright, so my assessment out of this? I would start by suggesting that it is worth giving Mercy Ministries the benefit of the doubt with respect to their motivations. Regardless of whether the motivations are sinister or honourable, it is the impact of the program upon the individual concerned that is the ultimately (and dare I say, only) consideration. Like Craig, I believe that there is much good that could potentially come from this program, and that it would be sad if a potentially good program were to shut down when resources are already scarce. This said, the mere potential of the program should not be enough for us to realise that there are elements within the program that could have catastrophic consequences for even one girl. I would suggest, therefore, that Mercy Ministries should not take any new patients until certain minimum requirements are met and that Mercy Ministries co-operates fully and transparently with authorities to ensure that this is indeed the case.

Liberals Ecstatic as Nelson Surges to 10 percent in Polls

2008-03-18T18:47:00.003+11:00

A few weeks ago, Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson looked down and out. His fortunes changed today, however, when a new poll showed that the man they used to call Brendan "07 percent" Nelson had lifted his rating in the preferred Prime Minister stakes to 10 percent. This means that he now has the support of more than simply his extended family and half of the parlimentary Liberal Party - actual members from the general public are starting to get on board. National Party MP Bruce Scott was overjoyed with the result, suggesting that if Brendan Nelson continues the way he is going "people will reward us with those opinion polls that we've got today". Nobody from the ALP has responded to the claim, but sources close to the party suggest that they agree.

The new poll will be somewhat concerning for Kevin Rudd, who had his lead in the preferred Prime Minister stakes cut back to a paltry 60 percentage point margin. And as speculation mounts about the meteoric rise and rise of Brendan Nelson, comparisons are always being drawn between himself and former Opposition Leader Simon Crean, who managed to pull in 14 percent of the preferred Prime Minister vote in November 2003. Of course, he has a lot of hard work to do before he hits the heights, or as the case may be, lows of Simon Crean. Let's hope that he puts his nose to the grindstone and doesn't let today's success go to his head.

Happy Birthday Michael Kirby!

2008-03-18T08:21:00.002+11:00

Just thought I'd take the opportunity to wish Justice Michael Kirby of the Australian High Court a happy birthday. Kirby, who is both affectionately and perjoratively known as the dissenting judge turns 69 today. Under current legislation, Kirby has to retire from the High Court at the age of seventy, so he is entering into the final twelve months of his twelve year tenure on the bench. This will be a cause for celebration for some, while others will mourn the loss of the idiosyncratic judge. Regardless of their stance, I am sure that people will agree that the end of the Kirby era will make for a much less interesting High Court.

Tolstoy's "A Confession" - Part II

2008-03-17T22:37:00.002+11:00

Having renounced the faith of his childhood, Leo Tolstoy revelled in his newly found freedom. He had discovered a curious inconsistency that existed in the values of society - that is, that while society publically proclaimed virtue, they secretly appreciated and subsequently rewarded vice. Tolstoy writes:

Every time I tried to express my most sincere desire, which was to be morally good, I met with contempt and ridicule, but as soon as I yielded to low passions I was praised and encouraged.

Ambition, love of power, covetousness, lasciviousness, pride, anger, and revenge — were all respected.

Yielding to those passions I became like the grown-up folk and felt that they approved of me.

... I cannot think of those years without horror, loathing and heartache. I killed men in war and challenged men to duels in order to kill them. I lost at cards, consumed the labor of the peasants, sentenced them to punishments, lived loosely, and deceived people. Lying, robbery, adultery of all kinds, drunkenness, violence, murder — there was no crime I did not commit, and in spite of that people praised my conduct and my contemporaries considered and consider me to be a comparatively
moral man.

Accordingly, Tolstoy believed he had everything to gain and nothing to lose by adopting a philosophy of hedonism. And because he was quickly establishing his name as one of Russia's foremost writers, the esteem in which he was held prevented him from questioning his actions. Indeed, the literary set had convinced him that as a writer, he had something to teach the rest of the world, even though he did not know what this something was. But this was unimportant, because as Tolstoy explained, "this faith in the meaning of poetry and in the development of life was a religion, and I was one of its priests".

As time passed, Tolstoy saw cracked developing in his worldview. The literary community did not seem as insightful as he had once thought and was riddled with inconsistencies that challenged delusions of grandeur that writers were the self-appointed prophets of the new world. Tolstoy writes:

My first cause of doubt was that I began to notice that the priests of this religion were not all in accord among themselves. Some said: We are the best and most useful teachers; we teach what is needed, but the others teach wrongly. Others said: No! we are the real teachers, and you teach wrongly. and they disputed, quarrelled, abused, cheated, and tricked one another. There were also many among us who did not care who was right and who was wrong, but were simply bent on attaining their covetous aims by means of this activity of ours. All this obliged me to doubt the validity of our creed.

Moreover, having begun to doubt the truth of the authors’ creed itself, I also began to observe its priests more attentively, and I became convinced that almost all the priests of that religion, the writers, were immoral, and for the most part men of bad, worthless character, much inferior to those whom I had met in my former dissipated and military life; but they were self-confident and self-satisfied as only those can be who are quite holy or who do not know what holiness is. These people revolted me, I became revolting to myself, and I realized that that faith was a fraud.

Though Tolstoy was quick to realise the bankruptcy of this worldview, he was much slower to totally renounce the religious order because he was still captivated by its rewards ...

Tolstoy's "A Confession" - Part I

2008-03-16T21:28:00.004+11:00

After finishing "Anna Karenina" I've been lead through to Leo Tolstoy's "A Confession" which is somewhat of a testimony of Tolstoy's own journey to faith. For those who don't know, Born into Russian Orthodoxy, Tolstoy was an agnostic for most of his life before coming to Christianity well into his fifties. But even then, Tolstoy did not become your orthodox Orthodox Christian. Based on his radical interpretation of Christ's teachings and particular the Sermon on the Mount, Tolstoy espoused a form of Christianity known as "Christian Anarchism", which prides itself on strict adherence to the teachings of Christ, and chiefly involves the conscientious objection to violence, whether by the individual or by the State.

In the first part of his fifteen part confession, Tolstoy speaks about his fall away from faith in his teenage years. He also tells an interesting story about an individual going through the motions of religious belief without realising that he had become agnostic:

So that, now as formerly, religious doctrine, accepted on trust and supported by external pressure, thaws away gradually under the influence of knowledge and experience of life which conflict with it, and a man very often lives on, imagining that he still holds intact the religious doctrine imparted to him in childhood whereas in fact not a trace of it remains.

S., a clever and truthful man, once told me the story of how he ceased to believe. On a hunting expedition, when he was already twenty-six, he once, at the place where they put up for the night, knelt down in the evening to pray — a habit retained from childhood. His elder brother, who was at the hunt with him, was lying on some hay and watching him. When S. had finished and was settling down for the night, his brother said to him: “So you still do that?”

They said nothing more to one another. But from that day S. ceased to say his prayers or go to church. And now he has not prayed, received communion, or gone to church, for thirty years. And this not because he knows his brother’s convictions and has joined him in them, nor because he has decided anything in his own soul, but simply because the word spoken by his brother was like the push of a finger on a wall that was ready to fall by its own weight. The word only showed that where he thought there was faith, in reality there had long been an empty space, and that therefore the utterance of words and the making of signs of the cross and genuflections while praying were quite senseless actions. Becoming conscious of their senselessness he could not continue them.

Tolstoy suggests quite strongly that one cannot be an honest believer as an adult without first losing the faith of his or her childhood. Implied throughout this chapter seems to be a fairly damning indictment of the established church and of its followers, whom he believes to be playing mere games and calling this their faith, either through motivation of profit or fear of reproach and having to be honest with oneself. Tolstoy also communicates the pain of severing oneself from faith of one's childhood, but clearly believes that this is necessary to progress as a Christian. But for Tolstoy, this progress would only take place through many decades of rigorous soul searching ...

Anna Karenina, Love, Duty and Fideism

2008-03-15T21:47:00.002+11:00

I've finally finished "Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy. It's a truly masterful book, especially the last two parts, though personally I don't think I'd place it higher on my list than Les Miserables and I'd also have reservations about displacing "The Idiot" by Dostoevsky from the number two position. That said, it was a thoroughly enjoyable read and it made a number of fairly profound insights and asked a number of pertinent questions.

The major theme in "Anna Karenina" is undoubtably the tension that exists between love and duty. Tolstoy contends that both are important to human existence, but it may be impossible in some circumstances for people to satisfy both callings. Of course, love can exist and be expressed by dutiful devotion and one can love his or her duties, but this will not always be case. The rigid demands of society will often impose duties upon us that are incompatible with our love. It is at these points in time when we will have to determine whether we are bound to those duties or whether those duties are the product of the societal imagination and thus have no force over us.

The other aspect of "Anna Karenina" I found fascinating was the search for faith of Levin. I must admit that I could perceive quite a few similarities between Levin and myself, who is more or less an autobiographical account of Leo Tolstoy himself. Levin is an intensely analytical individual and devoted to the rigorous search for truth. He is also introverted and finds himself uncomfortable adopting to the social norms of society, many of which he finds rather false. Finally, because he is always able to see things from differing perspectives, he is continually second-guessing himself. I honestly believe that I possess all of the above characteristics in spades.

With respect to his search for faith, Levin tries to come to a knowledge of God through rational means. But because he can always find counter-arguments to arguments, he is left in a state of suspended belief about the question of God. It would seem to me that Tolstoy takes a rather disapproving approach to rationalism, as indicated by the way that he often depicts those characters involved in the many debates he presents in the book as posturing towards their intelligence rather than opening their minds to an alternative point of view. I tend to think that this suggests that Tolstoy is a fideist who believes that God cannot be deduced through logical means, but that knowledge about God is much more intuitive and instinctive than anything else.

Tolstoy's epistemological approach made me revisit the question of Christian apologetics. It is no secret that I believe that most Christian apologetics (and particularly evangelical apologetics) is of extremely poor quality. But rather than this being a fault of the arguments per se, I suspect that this is a problem that has taken root in the post-Thomist era of Christendom in which it has been believed that arriving at God is a task no more difficult than making a few mathematical calculations and coming up with a fool-proof result. That is, in aiming for an apologetic approach that wants to prove categorically that Christianity is the undisputably right and only option, apologists undercut themselves because belief doesn't work like that.

In response, I would suggest that we present a form of apologetics in which we try to show that if Christianity is not indisputably true, then it is at least plausible and perhaps even probable. That other worldviews may not be entirely discounted is hardly the point. The point, rather, is that Christianity is a believable belief and that it not unreasonable to adopt the Christian faith. Once this is established, the question then seems to be whether or not a person wants to believe. Those who wish to believe can believe and those who won't believe can't believe. Those who believe will increasingly develop a conviction of belief, and it is when they choose to act upon that conviction that they are exercising what we call "faith".

Mummy, He's Picking on Me

2008-03-14T22:17:00.002+11:00

You can imagine my shock today when I read that a Kentucky lawmaker, Tim Couch, wants to pass a law that makes anonymous commenting illegal. Apparently, he has become rather concerned about the increase in "online bullying" around the Eastern Kentucky area. Turns out that there's a real risk that someone's feeling might be hurt if this keeps going on. So in order to deter would-be offenders, Couch is suggesting that for the first instance of anonymous commenting, the blog owner will be fined $500. Subsequent breaches will cost $1,000. Of course, the lawyer in me wonders what would happen if the offender decided to prolong the matter through extensive use of the judicial process? I'd say that the cost of prosecution would probably not warrant initiating proceedings in the first place. Not that I'd suggest that anyone should do that.

I mean honestly, cry me a river. It's not as though someone is forced to write a blog, make comments or read the content. If you're precious enough, you can turn anonymous comments off or allow only certain people to access your blog. And if you're really insecure, you can delete comments or even screen them before they appear on your blog. I tell you, it's amazing what kind of new technology we have around these days.

While we are on the subject, what is it that motivates an individual to delete a comment in the first place? I must confess I've never got a clear answer to that question. Of course, I recognise all too well that not all blog posts are constructive, but if someone writes something that is annoying, then it's them that will look stupid, not yourself. And the wonderful thing about being the blog owner is that you always have the right of reply and any person worth their salt will see how silly the original comment was. Of course, if you delete blog comments because you find them to be inconvenient (i.e. they expose your ignorance on a subject) and your readers recognise this, this strategy is going to backfire on you fairly quickly. For this reason, I've never had to delete a comment in the twelve months I've been blogging and do not plan to unless I am faced with a post that could have legal consequences.

I must admit that I enjoy reading alternative points of view because they help me to look at things from a different perspective and thus help to refine my own point of view. But then again, I've always someone who has thirsted after truth. I guess someone can write their blog purely as an exercise in propaganda, promoting what they believe to be the truth while closing their eyes and ears to other points of view, but how strong is one's position if they can't even defend what they believe from criticism? Quite frankly, if you find yourself adopting a position that can't stand up to the most gentle of analysis, perhaps you should rethink your position. Or perhaps you should think of leaving the blogosphere altogether, because the blogosphere can be a rough environment and is no place for your insecurities and cowardice.

Need For Speed Carbon

2008-03-13T22:37:00.003+11:00

I've been playing Need For Speed Carbon lately. It has proved to be a fairly good way to relieve stress after a long day at the office. That said, I have become rather disconcerted with a few elements of the game that do not entirely appear realistic. Among my concerns are the following:

(1) How is it that I can slam into an $150,000 car at 200km/h and only cause $500 damage? The world of Need For Speed Carbon is either an insurers' dream or an insurers' nightmare depending on the way you look at it.

(2) How is it that I can slam into anything at 200km/h and live to tell the story?

(3) How is it that I can cause $100,000 worth of damage to the State and receive a $200 fine. Could it be that they have poor public prosecutors in the world of Need For Speed Carbon?

(4) Relating to the above, how is it that I never seem to get a criminal record, a custodial sentence or even the disqualification of my licence? Mind you, I suspect that waiting nine or so months to play the game again may not be optimal from a gameplay point of view.

(5) Why the need for police brutality in the world of Need For Speed Carbon, even when I give myself up quietly?

So many questions for such unimportant matters ...

And Now For Something a Little Bit Ambient ...

2008-03-12T22:05:00.003+11:00

I must confess that I quite like ambient music. When I listen to such music I always get a really sense of being sucked into this other-worldly vortex and or some reason, I begin to look at life and existence as a coherent whole. During these times I either feel like I have transcended the mundane nature of life, or I have intensified whatever I may feel about the situation. Even with the same piece of music I may feel ecstatic on one day and grief-stricken the next.

Tonight's selection is "Everloving" by Moby, who I believe to be a fascinating artist with some really interesting ideas on Christianity too. Sit back, release control and let the music do what it does best:

The Deep South in the Red Centre

2008-03-11T22:27:00.003+11:00

A day after we heard revelations that the education system is becoming racially segregation, a story comes out that an Alice Springs hostel asked patrons to leave because they were Aboriginal. Apparently, the groups were asked to leave after other guests at the backpacker lodged suggested they were "scared". Bethany Langdon, a member of the Yuendumu local community recounts the event as follows:

"The manager came out and told me that we weren't suitable to stay there," she told ABC1's Lateline program.

"They said, because you're Aboriginal, other tourists were making complaints that they were scared of us.

"I felt like I wanted to cry, because it made me feel like I wasn't an Australian."

Ms Langdon says it is her first experience of overt racism.

"It's a disgrace against Aboriginal people, especially when an Aboriginal women comes into town trying to be a role model to their community and get looked up to by elder people and younger people from their community and other communities," she said.

According to the Haven Resort, the group were asked to leave because the backpacker lodge catered for "international backpacking tourists which this group was not". However, just hours later, Greg Zammit the joint owner of the Haven Resort stated that the group was encouraged to stay, directly contradicting the previous statement. Something tells me that these owners aren't the most trustworthy individuals around.

I must admit that story make me feel sick to my stomach. I could hardly believe that something like that could happen in contemporary Australia. I mean it sounds like the kind of thing you would expect in Alabama in the 1950s. It would appear that the group are now assessing their legal options. To be perfectly frank, I'd be happy to see the Haven Resort taken for every cent they've got.

The Scourge of Systemic and Collective Evil

2008-03-10T22:37:00.003+11:00

Today I saw two stories that really affected me deeply. The first was on ABC online and The Sydney Morning Herald about the way in which Anglo-Saxon children are leaving public schools in droves because their parents do not want them to go to predominantly Aboriginal or Middle-Eastern schools. The second was a story about the marginalisation and stereotyping of Muslims in Australian society. Both stories challenge the rhetoric of egalitarianism said to be an intrinsic element of Australian society and both raise issues about the structural and collective evil that pervades our society.

I would suggest that the mass exodus of Anglo-Saxon children from public schools owes largely to structural injustice. While I am sure that there will be many parents who wish to move their children out of an "Aboriginal school" for racist reasons, I believe that most parents do so only because they believe that the private system will offer their children a better education. Indeed, in certain rural areas these perceptions may be very well founded. However, this phenomenon makes me question whether private schools are overfunded and public schools are underfunded. And more importantly, is it fair that the quality of education one's children are entitled to is directly proportional to the size of one's bank balance? Ideologues may well point to the "right" of a parent to send their children to a school of their choice, but what does this mean that those who have no choice because they have no money? It seems to me that by subsidising private education at the expense of the underfunded public system, we are creating an underclass of Australians are pushed further behind the eight-ball with respect to the obstacles they face in society. The fact that indigenous Australians in rural communities are more likely to be impoverished than their Anglo-Saxon counterparts inevitably means that they will lack the opportunities the escape from the cycle of poverty. The fact that this system seems to be imposed upon an entire class of people seems to be the very essence of racism.

The second story looked at many different aspects of Muslim identity in Australia, but the scenes at Camden, where locals were protesting the planned establishment of an Islamic school impacted most heavily upon me. Most disturbing was the fact many of those who spoke most harshly about Muslims considered them to be Christians. Although he was not in the story, I remembered the role that the Reverend Fred Nile played in the saga with his inflammatory rhetoric. It horrifies me to think of what people watching this must think of Christians. But even among those who oppose racism, the Christian community has been woefully silent on the demonisation of Muslims in society. I believe that this simply isn't good enough. Christians must speak out against this type of evil both individually and collectively as the body of Christ. I believe that it is shameful that we have done not so and believe that this is cause for each and every one of us to repent.

My final consideration was about my relationship to the system. I realise that I am a product of the system and belong to a class of individuals that the system higher respects and esteems - legal practitioners. Every day I am being more and more made aware that I am on the inside of the system and this realisation makes me feel most uncomfortable. I am constantly thinking about how I can promote justice most effectively from within the system without being sucked into the vortex of the system itself and becoming apathetic to the demands that justice places upon my conscience. I really need God's help to tread this fine line and your prayers would be most welcome in this regard.

Being Blind to One's Blind Spots

2008-03-09T20:40:00.005+11:00

Over at "Craig's Blog's", Craig refers a post made over at "The Blogging Parson", where the author discusses the way in which the Bible was read (read "misread") is the South Africa of the Apartheid era, even by those who are sincere Christians trying honestly to read the Bible. In response, Craig has asked the question "What are our modern blind spots?" It's an excellent question, and one which I decided to take Craig up on. I pointed out that the issue of homosexuality and gender roles are two areas where sincere Christians could be misreading their Bible. Unfortunately, Craig is not open even to the idea that these could be blind spots to him and other Christians who share his stance on the two issues.

Indeed, this makes me wonder just how genuine the question was in the first place and whether Craig really believes that it is possible he has blind spots. This said, this response should not be at all surprising. It is a sad reminder of the way that we are often slow to learn the lessons of history. Take for instance this quote about slavery, made during the period leading up to the American Civil War:

If we prove that domestic slavery is, in the general, a natural and necessary institution, we remove the greatest stumbling block to belief in the Bible; for whilst texts, detached and torn from their context, may be found for any other purpose, none can be found that even militates against slavery. The distorted and forced construction of certain passages, for this purpose, by abolitionists, if employed as a common rule of construction, would reduce the Bible to a mere allegory, to be interpreted to suit every vicious taste and wicked purpose. - George Fitzhugh, 1857

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's just like the accusations levelled at people who say that the Bible allows women to be ministers and that there is no prohibition on monogamous homosexual relationships. Surely this should give those who make such accusation stop to pause for a second. You'd hope so, at least.

The thing about a blind spot is that one is blind to it. That is, if one knew that they had a blind spot, how could it be a blind spot anymore? Of course, it is true that once something unpleasant comes into one's field of vision, one could take steps to close their eyes and imagine that it is not there. However, whether or not those who use the Bible to perpetuate a sexist and homophobic agenda are doing so in a wilfully blind manner is not for me to say. Usually, I will try to attribute the best motives to someone, and as such, I'll suggest that it is merely ignorance and not contempt for Scripture that is their fault. This said, we must be mindful of the profound damage that has been done both to women and homosexuals in the church (and homosexuals outside the church) and the name of the church itself. For this reason, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye and must actively fight intolerance in all of its forms.