afoot and empty-handed

praying for rain

2005-06-06T17:29:00.000+10:00

yesterday in church we prayed for rain. most of the state of nsw, in fact most of australia, is besieged by one of the worst droughts on record (and in many places it is the worst on record). the inland city of goulburn, just an hour down the road from where we live, is at under 10% of it's water supply capacity. warragamba dam, the main reservoir for sydney's water, is getting close to 40% capacity. farmers all over new south wales are being forced deep into debt or off the land completely. so we pray for rain.

the problem is, i feel very uneasy about asking god to supernaturally send rain at this time and in this place. it's not that i don't believe all good things come from god and it's right and proper to acknowledge our reliance on god, it's that praying for rain feels extremely disingenuous when the reason it isn't raining is because of what we've done as humans to the climate and the environment.

tim flannery writes about a few of these human causes in today's smh ("Forecast deteriorates for the dry country"). according to flannery, the three major mechanisms behind the lack of rainfall are:

"the 0.63-degree warming that has occurred in the past 100 years, which has caused Australia's winter rainfall zone to contract";

"the ozone hole: with less ozone the stratosphere is cooler, causing circulation around the Antarctic to speed up, which draws winter clouds further south";

and that "[the] Pacific Ocean has warmed, and computer models predict that this will cause a semi-permanent el Nino phase of the el Nino southern oscillation cycle - the part that brings drought to Australia."

from other reading, i would add to this list the massive and ongoing land-clearing which has been done in eastern australia especially, because trees and bushland attract rain and also help to retain water in and under the ground.

how can we honestly rely now on god to save us from the effects of our greed and folly? is it even right to do so? in many ways it seems just another example of the modern malaise of do what you feel like and somebody else will pay to clean it up. as the u2 song says, "daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car".

god is infinite in mercy, but i don't believe he really wants to bail humans out for their wickedness or stupidity. what he wants is for us to grow up, to learn from our mistakes, to be better stewards of this incredible, beautiful planet he's given us.

will we learn greater respect for the earth and to treat her resources and environment better if god comes through now and sends rain supernaturally (because it just ain't gonna happen naturally)? maybe, but i think it's wrong to just sit back and expect god to intervene. all we can do is throw ourselves on his mercy, acknowledging our failings in caring for the earth and asking him to forgive us and save us. then we need to back up our words by doing as much as we can to fix the problem, relying on his boundless forbearance to do what we cannot and send rain back to this parched country.

you'll never walk alone

2005-05-26T13:09:00.000+10:00

liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool liverpool

need i say more?

not that i'm a fanatic or anything, but what a comeback and what a win. only my masochistic streak kept me watching the game at halftime. nobody comes back from 3-0 down, especially against italian teams that are historically shut-up-shop defensive. but in "six minutes of madness" (as ac milan's coach put it), liverpool scored 3 goals to even the score, then managed to hold on right through 30 minutes of extra time before winning on penalties. actually, i don't feel as elated as i would have been if it had been a field-of-play win. i don't like penalty shootouts to decide these kinds of games, and i feel sorry for milan losing in this way, but they're professionals and they'll get over it (and they did in fact win the championship league final - on penalties - against juventus two years ago).

(pictures courtesy of soccernet)

universalism and all that

2005-05-20T15:41:00.000+10:00

or, dave comes out of the closet...

to put it bluntly, i just can't believe that sending sinners to eternal torment in hell amounts to justice, no matter what the crime. it defies every principle of justice and punishment fitting the crime that we hold to as humans, and, as george macdonald says, if we don't think something is fair or right, it's tantamount to blasphemy to attribute it to god. god's sense of fairness must be at least as strong as ours, or else he's not the holy and just god we believe he is. on the other side of the coin, we also need to beware of attributing to god our human sense of revenge and wanting to get even. god's righteousness would mean nothing to us without his infinite capacity to forgive.

compounding the issue is the fact that we sin in ignorance: no child knows or understands before they start sinning that they will be forever damned for their actions. still further, even if we did understand the consequences, it wouldn't make a difference because of the innate sinful nature we inherit as descendents of adam. so we are in a catch-22 situation: we cannot help sinning but we are forever damned for it. how is that just?

this of course is an argument that has been made many times. i do not deny that we have been gifted (or burdened?) with free will, so we must take responsibility for our actions, but at the same time i do not believe god looks at us with a demanding, legalistic attitude, just waiting for us to slip up so he can get the rod out. i do not do this with my daughter, who i love more than my life, but instead expect her to be independent and (increasingly) rebellious, wanting to go her own way and do what she wants. in the same way, i believe god understands our rebellious natures and treats us with immeasurable forbearance, going so far as to give his son to provide a way out of our bondage to sin and into a new life of true freedom.

george macdonald put forward another argument against the eternal punishment doctrine which i find, if anything, even more compelling. if even one soul is separated from god for eternity, with no possible means of return, it means that satan has won a victory against god, and that is unthinkable. god must have the final, complete victory, but it would not be, could not be, an absolute victory if satan has succeeded in capturing any souls forever. when he died, jesus descended to hell and opened the gates, rendering it no longer an inescapable prison. if anyone chooses, they may simply walk out, and the eternal father is forever on the lookout to welcome each one with great celebration. since jesus' death, it is only our will that keeps us from god, but the way back will never be closed off. never ever.

obviously the implications of a universalist stance are many, going right to the heart of how we are to live as believers in this world. most importantly, i think, it puts a big question over many missionary and proselytising efforts. to my mind, that's not such a bad thing, because these kinds of endeavours have often had disturbing overtones of manipulation and coercion, if not downright convert-buying. at the more mundane level, i've always been at least a little uncomfortable with exhortations to befriend people in the hope of 'winning them to christ', because it smacks of false pretenses. don't we befriend people because they are fellow human beings who we can share our lives with and whose outlook and experience can teach and inform our own lives?

so why tell anyone about the good news of jesus, and why bother believing it and living it ourselves if it doesn't really make a difference for whether or not we go to heaven? after all, it's a lot easier and a lot more fun to ignore god and do our own thing...

well, no doubt it'd be easier, but since when was that the point? since adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit it's always been easier to follow our own desires, but that doesn't mean it's the better way to live. on the contrary, the bible makes it abundantly clear that the best way to live is according to god's law. as michael casey says in his book toward god:

"The ultimate truth of human life is that all our searching leads to God. In Saint Augustine's timeless words, 'You have made us for yourself [O God] and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.' This is something we know about every human being. He or she is made for God; there will always be an incompleteness until a person arrives at God.

...

"We were created with an orientation toward God, and so actions that direct us toward God accord with the imperatives of our nature. When we try to live moral lives after the example of Christ, and open our minds and hearts to prayer, we are not simply doing something 'religious'; we are fulfilling the most fundamental requirement of our humanity. By God's gift we can turn away from the intangible and immediate, transcend the attractions of sense and image, and stretch forth into the infinite sea of eternity. We can add a new dimension to our human experience." (p.3)

just before he slipped away, jesus gave his disciples 'the great commission':

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (matthew 28: 18-20, niv)

jesus knew what people need, how their lives can be lived to the full, and he taught this to his disciples, then told them to go tell it to the ends of the earth. there is nothing here about telling people that if they don't believe they'll go to hell for eternity, and neither was such a message part of the "everything I have commanded you" he told the disciples to pass on. it's true, especially towards the end of his ministry, jesus said a lot about the consequences of not following his teachings, but those words were all directed at the believers. in the parable of the sheep and goats, it is to the ones who claim to know jesus, who call out, "lord, lord," that he says, "depart from me, i never knew you." the others, who put their faith into practice, didn't even realise they were doing it for jesus, and he welcomes them into his rest.

which brings me to the second reason we should be following jesus and encouraging others to do the same: what we do has consequences, both here and after we die. i don't subscribe to the view that we'll all just stroll into heaven the minute we leave this mortal coil. such a view makes a mockery of god, and isn't in any way consistent with the bible's teaching. god is holy, and demands holiness from us. but while purity is a state (that disappears quickly!), holiness is a life. we cannot be declared holy, we can only learn to be holy through repentance. even jesus needed to be proved holy by his life, as it says in hebrews 5:8-9:

"Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him." (niv)

this doesn't mean jesus wasn't perfect through his life, but his perfection, his holiness, wasn't complete until he'd finished his work. we tend, i think, not to apply this to ourselves, but it doesn't make sense to me how i can be, for example, hateful to my neighbor one minute and holy the next, just because i died in between. being holy means learning how to love my neighbor, and i won't be holy until i've done that. and we will never enter the holy city of god, our final destination where all our desires will be completely fulfilled, until we are holy, until all unholiness has been purged from our lives, which can only be achieved by a long process of repentance, turning from our pride and selfishness and choosing to love.

george macdonald frequently made the point that jesus saves us from our sin, but not the consequences of our sin. i don't fully understand what he meant by this, but one of the obvious examples is our inevitable human death. the promise to adam and eve was that if they ate of the tree they would die, and as children of adam we inherit that promise, and hence we will all die as a consequence of our sin. but that's not the end of the story, as romans 6:23 says:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (niv)

this verse has most popularly been used to support the eternal punishment doctrine, but it doesn't seem inherent to me that the second part cancels out the first. instead, i think it makes sense to see it as saying that, yes, we die, but then god gives us eternal life as a gift, completely gratuitous and unearned. and this gift, this act of grace on god's part, is meaningless unless it is also universal, given freely and in equal measure to all.

finally (and maybe ironically having spent so much time on the subject), i don't actually get the impression from reading the bible that what happens to us after we die is an issue god wants us to be concerned about to a great extent. i believe that saving is god's work, and our task is to live as true followers of christ. the commandment of jesus was for us to love each other as he taught and modelled, and thus the world will know we are his disciples. to me this means that the primary mode of evangelism is believers living in community, demonstrating to the world the kingdom life which is love and service to each other. of course, this doesn't mean we ignore non-believers and stay in our holy huddles, but that we go and live the life of following jesus out in the open, in the view of all, and especially where there is no witness of this kind. and by being salt and light in the dark places, we will be used by god to draw all people to himself.

the good war?

2005-05-12T17:21:00.000+10:00

there's a great piece in today's smh by richard drayton, senior lecturer in history at Cambridge University, called War's moral compass is flawed and points in all directions (originally published in the guardian as An ethical blank cheque).

drayton mentions taken by force, a book by robert lilly which is a study of the rapes committed by american soldiers in europe between 1942 and 1945. lilly suggests a minimum of 10,000 rapes (which is probably a conservative estimate). elsewhere in the essay, drayton talks of crimes committed by allied soldiers in the pacific against japanese captives, quoting edgar james, an 'embedded' pacific war correspondent:

"We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments."

the point of bringing these things up is primarily because they are never mentioned or talked about, and thus largely unknown by the general population. we very readily remember the atrocities committed by the 'enemy' but sweep our own shameful actions under the carpet. once again marx's adage that history is written by the victors is proved correct. it's not just an issue of good guys and bad guys, needing to believe your side is right in order to sustain the will to win the war. as drayton says, the effect is much farther reaching:

"All this seems innocent fun, but patriotic myths have sharp edges. The 'good war' against Hitler has underwritten 60 years of warmaking. It has become an ethical blank cheque for British and US power. We claim the right to bomb, to maim, to imprison without trial on the basis of direct and implicit appeals to the war against fascism.

When we fall out with such tyrant friends as Noriega, Milosevic or Saddam we rebrand them as 'Hitler'. In the 'good war' against them, all bad things become forgettable 'collateral damage'. The devastation of civilian targets in Serbia or Iraq, torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the war crime of collective punishment in Falluja, fade to oblivion as the 'price of democracy'."

i find this all very interesting, and i'm not just trying to wack the purpetrators and supporters of the iraq war over the head once again (no matter how much i enjoy it :^). at the least i think we need to keep being reminded that, especially with issues of war, there is no black and white, right and wrong. not for the first time, bruce cockburn puts it perfectly:

God, damn the hands of glory
That hold the bloody firebrand high
Close the book and end the story
Of how so many men have died
Let the world retain in memory
That mighty tongues tell mighty lies
And if mankind must have an enemy
Let it be his warlike pride
Let it be his warlike pride

(from It's Going Down Slow, Bruce Cockburn, 1971)

new music

2005-04-29T17:17:00.000+10:00

a couple of weeks ago i received the shipment of 4 cds i'd ordered from pastemusic: drunkard's prayer, the latest offering from one of my favourite bands, over the rhine; their live cd changes come; one time otr guitarist ric hordinski's solo cd when i consider how my light is spent; and whoever it was that brought me here will have to take me home by welsh singer/songwriter martyn joseph.

all four discs are superb and i'm very happy with the purchase. over the rhine write some of the more thoughtful and challenging lyrics going around at the moment, their music is rich and melodic with generous (often sole) use of acoustic instrumentation, and karin bergquist's classically-trained voice is a delight to listen to. ric hordinski's half-instrumental cd is beautiful and atmospheric. and after wanting to get more of martyn joseph's music for ages (i've had the live cd an aching and a longing for over 10 years), wiwtbmhwhttmh doesn't disappoint, confirming my regard for him as an excellent songwriter who faces up honestly to the struggles and ambiguities of life. as the opening sentence of the pastemusic review puts it, "Perhaps there’s never been as adept a blend of the Bruces (Springsteen and Cockburn) as Welsh singer/songwriter Martyn Joseph."

one of the things i especially appreciate about both otr's drunkard's prayer and the martyn joseph cd is that they contain songs which deal with mature relationships going through less than rosy times, a place i know well. drunkard's prayer actually grew out of a period of major re-evaluation for linford and karin, as linford writes in the liner notes:

"[A] few months into our [Ohio] tour, Karin and I realized that although good things were happening with our music, there was just very little energy or creativity or time left over for our marriage, and it was taking a toll on us. I think we had to learn that puting a long-term relationship on autopilot indefinitely can be dangerous if not fatal. We decided we had to pull the plug on the tour and go home and figure out if being together was something we were still committed to.

We opted to start over, reinvent our own relationship, dig deep and do the homework to see if we could make our marriage sing. We decided to redirect the same thought and energy, that we had been putting into writing and performing, toward our life at home together. We prayed a lot. Our friends prayed a lot. It was the beginning of a wonderful new chapter for us..."

talking about the song Born:

"When we came home from the tour, we bought two cases of wine and decided we were going to put a bottle on the kitchen table every evening and start talking until nothing was left. The idea was not to get plowed, but to talk face to face deep into the night."

sounds like a great idea, though it would be difficult for couples with kids or for whom one or both had to go to work in the morning!

my favourite song, though, is from martyn joseph. i can relate to so much of what he says. janette had her hair cut quite significantly a few days ago, and she had to mention it to me before i noticed. of course, there were mitigating circumstances - it was dark, i was late home and tired, she went to bed early - but the words of the song ring too true, there are many days when i don't see her anymore, missing...

Every Little Sign

Susie, drain your glass
Let’s head on up the hill
Bring the coat I bought you
Against the evening chill
There's question marks between us
As you slip your arm in mine
There are days when I don't see you
I miss every little sign.

The lights are throwing shadows
And the streets are raining slow
In the yellow of the valley
We can hear the dreams below
I hope I read you right
From the angle of your chin
The our hearts are feeling sore tonight
And this town has hemmed us in

I want to take you somewhere
Where the clouds are never seen
Where now could be replaced
By a bigger brighter dream
Those nights when we were lovers
Have made us distant friends
Can you tell me how this happened
And who goes first to make amends.

I want to bless your heart with magic
And give you all you're due
I want you to have your radiance back
I want to fill your glass anew
To turn our bland verse conversation
Into sentences that rhyme
We could maybe make a rainbow
Instead of marking time.

It's hard to find the strength in love
When everything is frail
When words are wrapped and guarded
Too scared they're gonna fail
But we could ask for healing now
'Til all the veils have gone
And let the moonlight find for us
A better journey on.

Copyright Joseph/Henderson, 2003

more committed?

2005-04-22T16:44:00.000+10:00

thanks to backyard missionary andrew hamilton for the link to this excellent article, It's No Longer About Commitment.

i especially agree that real, 'deep', discipleship must start with the those in leadership (not just pastors, but including elders, deacons and those who may not hold any 'office' but who are effectively leaders because of their maturity in the faith). As the author, stephen hinks, says:

"The starting place for sacrifice to re-enter our parlance and practice is with leadership. Leaders need to lead the way with deep personal change. Leaders need to model what sacrifice is, how choices are made, how costs are weighed and how fruits are enjoyed. When the language of sacrifice is recaptured by individual Christians we can put depth into our disciple-making."

bunch of scheming swindlers

2005-04-21T17:01:00.000+10:00

i know this is lazy blogging, but i came across this excellent quote by soren kierkegaard at emergingsideways (picked up originally from mike at waving or drowing?) and wanted to pass it on:

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

the wonderful uighur

2005-04-15T16:36:00.000+10:00

last lot of pictures is from western china, home of the uighur (pronounced weeger)people, amongst others. uighurs are central asian, with a language and culture (including food) completely different to the chinese. they are in fact ethnically and linguistically related to turks, though they use a modified arabic script similar to urdu (turkish is written in a roman script). i don't think the uighurs have ever ruled themselves, their lands belonging to one or other of china, mongolia, russia, khasakhstan, etc., etc. through their history. the western chinese province of xin jiang, where most uighurs live, actually borders mongolia, russia, khazakhstan, kyrgystan, afghanistan, pakistan, india and tibet (it's a big province, rugged and beautiful, with snow-capped mountain ranges rising out of the barren deserts). we spent easter there, and i found it a little ironic that i had to travel to western china to hear the best sermon i've heard in many years, if not ever. but maybe that's not so surprising.

you can even see it from space*

2005-04-14T16:57:00.000+10:00

a few more pictures from our trip, mostly of the great wall. being the end of march, it was still pretty cold, though not as bad as we were told to expect. we were pretty lucky, actually, on the day we went to the wall, because the next day was miserably cold with a biting wind from the northwest.

*obscure bruce cockburn reference - this is a line from his song 'embers of eden', off the 1999 cd 'breakfast in new orleans dinner in timbuktu'.

there and back again

2005-04-12T13:46:00.000+10:00

in case you didn't notice, i haven't been around for a little while. janette, freya and i just got back from a three-week trip to hong kong and china. the main purpose was to visit friends (my brother and his family live in hong kong, and we have other friends in h.k. and in china), but we managed to fit in some sight-seeing along the way. our enjoyment of the trip was somewhat lessened by a bad flu we all picked up along the way, but it was great to visit our family/friends and see where they live, and get a few glimpses of what life is like for them.

naturally, we took a lot of pictures. we only took along a film camera (how terribly 20th century of us), but we've had some of the pics digitised. here are a few highlights from beijing, others to follow presently...

framing and families

2005-03-11T18:01:00.000+11:00

thanks to rowen at sailing close to the wind for the link to don't think of an elephant from a few weeks back. the link contains a review of, and extract from, george lakoff's book Don’t Think of an Elephant – Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (scribe publications, melbourne, 2005).

the idea of 'framing' is thought-provoking and provides a plausible explanation for the hold the bush and howard (aus) governments seem to have over the minds of their electorates at the conceptual level. what piqued my interest most, though, was the depiction of the conservative/progressive divide in terms of two different models of the family: "a strict father family and a nurturant parent family." the description of the 'strict father' model is made with reference to conservative christian author dr. james dobson, who's book dare to discipline has been the bible of child-rearing for conservative/evangelical christians for 30 years. lakoff summarises the set of assumptions behind this paradigm as follows:

The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good.

What is needed in this kind of a world is a strong, strict father who can:

• Protect the family in the dangerous world,

• Support the family in the difficult world, and

• Teach his children right from wrong.

What is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong. It is further assumed that the only way to teach kids obedience—that is, right from wrong— is through punishment, painful punishment, when they do wrong. This includes hitting them, and some authors on conservative child rearing recommend sticks, belts, and wooden paddles on the bare bottom. Some authors suggest this start at birth, but Dobson is more liberal. “There is no excuse for spanking babies younger than fifteen or eighteen months of age” (Dobson, The New Dare to Discipline, 65).

The rationale behind physical punishment is this: When children do something wrong, if they are physically disciplined they learn not to do it again. That means that they will develop internal discipline to keep themselves from doing wrong, so that in the future they will be obedient and act morally. Without such punishment, the world will go to hell. There will be no morality.

from what i know, this is a fairly accurate summary of the conservative attitude to child-rearing (as well as to social policy, as lakoff goes on to explain). it has particular personal resonance for me because it is more or less the model with which i was raised (as i expect most children of conservative christians have been from the 1950s to this day). based on my experience, and extensive subsequent reflection, i think that the assumptions and conclusions of this model are fundamentally flawed, and often have very harmful consequences. while it may produce a semblance of obedience and discipline, fear of punishment never by itself engenders true maturity. on the contrary, what it teaches is passive-aggressive conformity while the authority figure is present, and undisciplined free-for-all when it is believed there is little chance of 'being found out'. this is a far cry from the goal of producing adults who make the right choice because they believe it to be the best action, not because they are afraid of the consequences of doing the 'wrong' thing.

this whole subject is especially pertinent for me now that i have a child of my own. as with all children, she needs to learn that she can't do whatever she wants whenever she wants, but she often doesn't understand the boundaries we set for her or why we tell her not to do something, so she screams and resists or defiantly does what we've told her not to. i find it quite hard sometimes to resist dishing out some sort of physical punishment such as a slap, and occasionally i cross the boundary and immediately regret it. on the one hand i'm aware that my reaction is often more to do with what's going on for me than for her (for instance, i'm frustrated that she doesn't obey me, or she has done something that will require me to clean up - she's not of an age to clean up after herself yet). my greatest fear, though, is that she grows up in fear of me. i desperately want her to feel protected by my strength, for it to be a refuge for her, not a threat - no matter what she does.

if freya knows that our love for her is unconditional, that to the best of our knowledge and abilities we have her interest and well-being at heart, then i believe she'll be less likely to question and resist the things we ask her to do, even if she doesn't understand the reason behind it. at the same time, feeling secure in our love will allow her to explore and expand her boundaries, knowing that if she fails or does something wrong, we'll be there for her. then, as she grows up, she'll learn to seek and trust our advice and guidance, eventually becoming an adult who can trust herself to make good decisions based on a good understanding of the consequences.

at least that's the ideal. problem is, we're far from perfect parents and who knows what life will throw at us. boundaries and unconditional love is the principle, but i know we're still going to stuff things up big time. thank god for the resilience he's built into us as human beings. and most of all for his amazing grace to cover over our failures and make all things work for good.

pick of the pics

2005-03-08T17:13:00.000+11:00

if you haven't had a look at the world press photo site, i highly recommend it. the winners gallery for 2005 gives a great retrospective of the events of 2004, both high profile and low, ordinary and historic. excuse the pun, but i think this collection of photos (if it is preserved in any way, which i assume it will be) will be a fascinating snapshot for future generations of the world as it was circa 2004, providing as it does the occasionally intentional but often incidental glimpses of technology, fashion, living conditions, sports, and just about everything else that was part of life as we knew it in the last year.

i especially like these from the nature category:

the weirdest photo must be the headless gymnast:

my favourite, though, is the swimmer who left his legs behind:

also superb (as you'd expect) is the gallery of winners of the last 50 years. for the most part it is a chronicle of tragedy and suffering, but in many ways that is the exactly the history of the last 50 years. after how many millenia of living together in this world, the cruelty and indifference of human beings to others is absolutely shocking, and it continues seemingly unabated.

viewing these pictures, it is easy to believe the assertions of rene girard, that all human societies are structured around the making of victims, killing and excluding in order to define and assert the identity of the group. in knowing jesus, james alison brilliantly turns this idea to the dealings of god with humankind as told in the bible, reframing the gospel as the story of jesus, the gratuitously given, forgiving victim, who willingly suffered the ultimate exclusion and became the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide the way and means for us to have true life in ultimate freedom. this freedom is only found in escaping the tyranny of reactionary and reciprocating violence, moving from the endless cycle of victimhood and victimising to relationships of free and joyful giving of oneself to others, and, in so doing, joining the new society of forgiving victims which is the kingdom of god founded in jesus.

well, i didn't really intend to get all heavy, but these things are on my mind, and i am increasingly sickened by the violence and cruelty in the world and the wilful, repugnant indifference of the privileged (myself included) to the suffering of others. may we grow each day closer to the life god requires of us, in the words of the prophet, "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God" (micah 6:8, NIV).

timeless

2005-02-21T15:49:00.000+11:00

guess who wrote this:

"We have heard something lately about being willing to go to war for an idea. To go to war for an idea, if the war is aggressive, not defensive, is as criminal as to go to war for territory or revenue; for it is as little justified to force our ideas on other people, as to compel them to submit to our will in other respects."

sound pretty recent? think again...

these words were written by philosopher john stuart mill in 1859, in an essay entitled A Few Words on Non-Intervention, originally published in Fraser's Magazine and afterwards republished in the third volume of Dissertations and Discussions.

i got the quote from the piece in today's smh by owen harries, It pays to be prudent when it comes to morality in world politics (the article mistakenly attributes it to mills' treatise on liberty, though harries gets it right in his paper Morality and Foreign Policy).

victim mentality

2005-02-18T17:28:00.000+11:00

i'm just over a quarter of the way through james alison's knowing jesus, but from the first pages i knew it was going to be a significant experience, similar to my first encounters with henri nouwen and george macdonald. alison has an amazing way of presenting multifaceted truth in wonderfully simple language, and to make it feel revolutionary yet entirely traditional at the same time. this is the best kind of theological writing, drawing and stimulating and inspiring.

the foreward to the book is by archbishop of canterbury rowan williams, and is excellent in its own right. i'd like to quote it at length, because it does a great job of introducing and setting the tone for the book:

[We] do not meet Jesus simply as another human individual; but neither is he just the subject of inspiring stories. We meet Jesus as the resurrected one - the one who, after those closest to him have betrayed him and left him to die alone, returns as the source of grace and hope to those treacherous and fearful friends. What this means is that Jesus 'appears' now as the agency of a completely gratuitous love, right outside the calculations, rewards and punishments of human relationships, outside the complicated negotiations for living space that dominate the 'ordinary' human world, with its underlying assumption that we all live at each other's expense. And this makes clear to us as never before just how deep that assumption goes, and forces us to look afresh at those at whose expense we live - our victims. The resurrection of Jesus makes it impossible to take for granted that the world is nothing but a system of oppressors and victims, [an] endless cycle of reactive violence. We are free to understand ourselves and each other in a new way, as living in mutual gift not mutual threat. We can collaborate in the relations that the resurrection sets in motion, relations of forgiveness, equality and care. And if we recognise our habitual bondage to reactive relations, passing on or returning the wounds we have received, and feel in our lives together the solid reality of relationships that transcend this, then we 'know Jesus'.

...

James Alison is - among other things - restating what some of his Dominican ancestors meant by 'knowledge through participation', and indeed what the whole early and medieval Christian tradition understood as becoming 'divine' in communion with Christ - growing into freedom, beyond the prison of self-absorbed, self-referential feelings, beyond the reactive and repetitive world sustained by sin. But this recovery of older wisdom is given a profoundly contemporary slant in its concern with violence and victimage. As a culture, we have become more alert to the depth and breadth of historical and personal violence, to just how many victims our 'normative' culture creates. But if we are to believe in the hope of something more than just reparation or settling scores, we need the concrete presence of relations that transcend reaction, jostling for space, rivalry; we need Christ and the Church.

...

[True] theology, truthful reflection on what God is and does, can't be done without conversion to a new perspective on yourself and the world. God is not to be known unless we grasp the depth of our freedom and our unfreedom, unless we give up fictions about our purity or our innocence and become committed to searching out those we exclude and suppress, creating with them the promised community of mutual gift. This is the community that depends on the resurrection of Jesus; to belong wholeheartedly to it is to know Jesus - and the God whom Jesus called 'Father'.

Rowan Williams, Foreward to Knowing Jesus, pp vii - ix

there is so much here, and it certainly doesn't need me to add anything to it. the whole topic of "our freedom and our unfreedom" is in itself a huge one. the real gem in this for me, though, is that in bringing to light the victim mentality which is so strong in us. especially in our closest relationships, but to some extent with everyone we come in contact with, we are so quick to "[pass] on or [return] the wounds we have received". it is a natural and automatic response, which we feel is completely justified - after all, isn't it proper and just to punish the wrongdoer? but it is through the resurrection of jesus that we can gain access to "the solid reality of relationships that transcend this," and we can "collaborate in ... relations of forgiveness, equality and care." the resurrection of jesus breaks "endless cycle of reactive violence," and sets us free to live together in "mutual gift not mutual threat."

what a world that will be!

glimpsing the mystery

2005-02-05T23:57:00.000+11:00

this quote jumped out at me as i was reading on the train on the way home from work on friday evening:

The paradox of faith and of nature is this: the knowledge we gain will bring with it an overwhelming amount of mystery. One escalates in proportion to the other.

Cindy Crosby, The Reconstruction of a Prairie and a Faith, Mars Hill Review Issue 23, pg 130.

i think it's brilliant. the more we know about the world and in our faith, the more we become aware of how much we don't know. but it's not just about us, an awareness of our own ignorance. if we turn our eyes outside ourselves we catch a glimpse of the staggering depth of mystery out there, that we are part of something huge which for now is beyond our ability to see and understand. it's at once awesome and incredibly exciting.

book bonanza

2005-01-31T17:36:00.000+11:00

on the weekend i received a load of books i'd ordered from amazon, delivered to me by my brother scott who is visiting with his family from hong kong. scott picked the books up last week from his parents-in-law's home in los angeles, where i'd had them sent to save a bundle on shipping costs. many, many thanks, scott (and wolitarskys). i owe you big time!

i can't remember being as excited by a book purchase as i am with these. i decided, as i had the u.s. delivery option, to go bulk and blow my year's book budget (and then some...) on the complete james alison set, as well as the complete set by australian catholic monk and author michael casey. here is the entire list of books:

by james alison:
knowing jesus
the joy of being wrong: original sin through easter eyes
raising abel: the recovery of eschatological imagination
faith beyond resentment: fragments catholic and gay
on being liked

by gil bailie:
violence unveiled: humanity at the crossroads

by michael casey:
sacred reading: the ancient art of lectio divina
toward god: the ancient wisdom of western prayer
a guide to living in the truth: saint benedict's teaching on humility
fully human, fully divine: an interactive christology

you might notice that i'm a bit of a completist. it's one of my vices, i suppose, but when i find an excellent author (or singer/band) i just want to devour everything they've produced.

so it looks like my reading for this year (and beyond) is pretty much mapped out. i intend to read the books in chronological order, starting with alison's knowing jesus. i prefer to read an author's works in the order in which they were written anyway (another of my obsessive traits), and doing it this way will also mean skipping from author to author, which will help maintain a bit of variety. if the chronological order means consecutive books by one author, i'll intersperse with one or more of the many other books on my shelf (which i'll probably do anyway to get some fiction into the mix).

can't wait to get into them. this is going to be a great year - and this blog will no doubt be something of a james alison & michael casey journal, or rather (i hope), a dave roberts encounters god in new and life-changing ways through the teaching and facilitation of james alison and michael casey!

bring it on!

military takeover

2005-01-24T17:31:00.000+11:00

via juan cole's informed comment (from a couple of weeks ago - i'm a bit behind in my reading), a very informative and disturbing (though long) article by tom engelhardt. in it, engelhardt demonstrates how the military has come to dominate the u.s. government's response and approach to just about everything outside it's borders:

"The military has become not just our war-fighting and occupying force, but our main "nation-building" force, our major diplomatic force (now that military-to-military relations have become the essence of foreign policy), our preponderant intelligence force, a major propaganda outfit (or call it public diplomacy, if you will), our central ministry for advanced R&D research and basic science, the only part of the government seriously preparing for a global-warming world, and our planetary rescue outfit as well -- to name just a few of its roles. With more clearly to come.
...
That sums up our present Bush moment. In fact, little that this country does from diplomacy to torture to foreign aid is any longer imaginable absent the military. We are a nation whose public face -- however we may still think of ourselves -- is no longer a civilian one, not just in Iraq but in the world at large. This is essentially because, if the Bush people could be said to have a religion, it would not perhaps be fundamentalist Christianity so much as a deep and abiding belief in the ability of a militarized superpower to impose its views and desires on the world through military strength alone."

as part of his analysis, engelhardt highlights something that i have found quite puzzling myself - the u.s. contribution to the tsunami relief:

"[Three days after the event,] George emerged from hibernation to praise American generosity ("we're a very generous, kindhearted nation") and to announce that we would indeed mount a mighty relief effort to be led by… don't be surprised now… the Pentagon. ("We're dispatching a Marine expeditionary unit, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, and the Maritime pre-position squadron from Guam to the area to help with relief efforts."). The very concept of a civilian relief effort naturally never came to mind, except -- for an administration intent on stripping civil government of its role in society -- in terms of private charity for which two former presidents would later be mobilized. We then largely ignored the various global relief outfits (including the UN), civilian in nature, with extensive experience in such things, sent Hurricane Jeb and our increasingly pugnacious exiting secretary of state off to do an American assessment of Asian needs; declared our own coalition of the willing (Australia, Japan, India) willy-nilly, and generally rushed unilaterally into the breach."

of course, this all hasn't been a sudden development that can only be laid at feet of the bush administration, but neither have they been backwards in taking it forwards:

"As with extraordinary rendition in the Clinton era, or neocon plans laid out in the 1990s to take down Saddam Hussein, or the establishment of a national security state in the early years of the Cold War, or (as former Latin American prisoners from the 1960s to the 1980s can attest) torture methods employed or taught by CIA or U.S. military interrogators, much of what's happened since September 11, 2001 has a good deal of history behind it. The Bush administration hardly created our American world from scratch. But it certainly accelerated the trend toward militarism, brought torture out of the closet -- making it something close to official state policy -- began to build a small-scale global gulag to go with it, melded extremes of American political and religious expression in new ways, and established what might be called a National Insecurity Homeland in the process."

it's hard not to be deeply disturbed by this. when the guiding principle is 'might is right', neither peace nor justice (nor real freedom, contrary to bush's apparent belief) can prevail. violence of any kind only begets more violence. those who claim to be acting in the name of god are treading on very dangerous ground, as the psalmist says:

"The LORD examines both the righteous and the wicked. He hates everyone who loves violence." (Psalm 11:5, New Living Translation).

authentic

2005-01-21T18:12:00.000+11:00

i've been going through something of a personal crisis in the last few months, which is one of the reasons behind the sparsity in posting on this blog. i don't think it has been all that obvious to those i've been around, excepting janette of course (and probably freya too), but underneath the surface it's been a veritable battle royale.

a couple of days ago i read an essay in mars hill review (the surreal mccoys: a search for authenticity, by dale keller, issue 23), and a few quotes jumped out and grabbed me by the throat. discussing 'pure' as one of the meanings of authentic, keller writes,

"Applying this insight to authenticity in the human character, 'pure' people are those who are the same both inside and out."

the same both inside and out? that's definitely not me. on the contrary, there's a massive difference between what you see and what's happening 'on the inside'. hiding, for me, is more than a habit, it's a deeply ingrained response to the world and other people. it's the outworking of one of my deepest held (and hardest to dislodge) beliefs, that the 'true me' is too dirty, too warped and defiled, to be shown in the light of day, so must be kept deeply hidden. i know from experience that others either don't want to know about or can't handle the real me, so i never bring 'it' out in company.

problem is, i don't believe god can handle it either, that he doesn't want to know about me until i've gotten rid of the dirt. much of my christian experience has reinforced this, teaching me that what's important is maintaining the correct image, not rocking the boat, keeping that messy realities hidden from view. whatever the reason, and we can all play the blame game ad nauseum (and, after all, i'm the one who's ultimately responsible for my actions), the simple fact is that god can handle who i am, not matter how dirty. actually, it's even better than that - the truth is that god has handled it. it's not even a future certainty, it's something that has been accomplished already, the deal is done, the job finished, nothing more to say or do.

but even knowing that, i still fight against it constantly, thinking that i can handle it on my own. and the crap keeps building up, while i scamper around like a fool trying to keep it hidden from view.

later on in the essay, keller writes,

"God wants us to allow him to make a difference in others as a result of the difference he is making in us."

that's the meat of the issue. it's not just about me. i don't like admitting that who i am affects others, but it's an unavoidable reality of human life, if i care at all about those around me i need to face up to it. no matter how good i am at convincing myself that i'm not worth much, that i don't need to let god in for me, i don't want to stand in the way of what he wants to do for the ones i love, first and foremost my lovely 'girls', janette and freya. they are so worth it.

i know i posted this song not so long ago, but it fits too well with what i'm feeling, so here it is again:

Fascist architecture of my own design
Too long been keeping my love confined
You tore me out of myself alive

Those fingers drawing out blood like sweat
While the magnificent facades crumble and burn
The billion facets of brilliant love
The billion facets of freedom turning in the light

Bloody nose and burning eyes
Raised in laughter to the skies

I've been in trouble but I'm ok
Been through the ringer but I'm ok
Walls are falling and I'm ok
Under the mercy and I'm ok

Gonna tell my old lady
Gonna tell my little girl
There isn't anything in the world
That can lock up my love again

(Fascist Architecture, by Bruce Cockburn, from Humans, 1980)

giving, p.s.

2005-01-06T15:03:00.000+11:00

just as a postscript to my previous post, i've just read killing vs helping, an excellent essay by george monbiot on the aid given by the u.s.a. and britain to the tsunami relief effort compared to their spending on the iraq war:

"The US Government has so far pledged $US350million to the victims of the tsunami, and the British Government $US96 million. The US has spent $US148billion on the Iraq war and Britain $US11.5billion. The war has been running for 656 days. This means that the money pledged for the tsunami disaster by the US is the equivalent of 1 days' spending in Iraq. The money Britain has given equates to 5 days of the British involvement in the war."

(originally published in the guardian on tuesday, reprinted in today's smh)

giving

2005-01-06T13:35:00.000+11:00

one of the biggest stories in the wake of the bay of bengal tsunami disaster, sometimes even threatening to engulf news of the tragedy itself and its aftermath, is the amount of aid being given. a few news outlets (the abc among them sadly) were even reporting it like a contest or medal-tally between countries over who was giving the most. i'm disgusted by this apparent need we have to make everything into a contest, even generosity in response to an overwhelming tragedy. such news stories are obscene in the extreme and the editors or producers or whatever making the decision to run them need to take a good hard look at themselves and learn some decency and humanity.

there's no doubt, though, that the giving by individual australians to the disaster relief has been incredible and unprecedented. i'd like to say it's something we should be proud of, but that kind of sentiment seems completely inappropriate in the face of such a catastrophe. giving out of our comparative wealth to those that have lost everything is the absolute least we can do, and it's nothing to boast about.

i personally haven't made any donations yet towards the tsunami emergency appeal. i've been considering how to honour my christmas challenge, and have been thinking that my funds might be more usefully directed elsewhere because of the huge amount already donated. i'm not saying that no more needs to be given, because i know the disaster relief will continue for many months, but there are numerous other ongoing, daily, less glamourous tragedies around the world which are desperate for more to be done. nicholas kristof makes this point in his ny times column. for example, more people than died in the tsunami die every month of malaria - at least 165,000 (over 2 million a year), mostly children and mostly in africa. malaria is almost always curable, but the vast majority of africans can't afford the US$1 a dose medicine that would save them or their children. while not begrudging the millions donated towards the tsunami disaster, it's to causes such as preventing deaths from malaria that i wish more was given more often. which doesn't mean i can't do both...

i want to give special mention (and huge thanks) to my wonderful little sister elizabeth for giving me an adult literacy program from tear australia's (arguably) the world's most useful gift catalog for christmas. i was actually really surprised at how much it meant to me, seeing at how mercenary i usually feel about presents. i can honestly say that it was one of the best gifts i've ever received. huge thanks again, eb!

the christmas challenge

2004-12-20T16:43:00.000+11:00

i've been doing my best to ignore christmas this year, but it's creeping up with ominous inevitability. of course, i've been to a few christmas parties and get-togethers already, but they've been remarkably un-christmas-y, with just the obligatory "merry christmas and happy new year" on parting, if that. last night was the first christmas family gathering (janette's side, for her brother and sister-in-law who will be away on christmas day), but even then there was almost no mention of the 'c'-word, which suited me fine.

i'm certainly not alone in being disenchanted with the whole christmas thing. to me, it has become about as far removed from the 'real meaning' of christmas as you can imagine. i'm not even sure if i agree with the idea of having a holiday to celebrate the birth of jesus - apart from the dubious origin of christmas as the 'christianisation' of a pagan solstice festival, i have a strong feeling the apostles and early believers would have found the idea ludicrous if not blasphemous. the celebration of the gift of jesus is for every day, not to be relegated, as it were, to one day a year (two days including easter). of course, that's exactly how it turned out - jesus is conveniently ignored by most people apart from christmas and easter (and increasingly even on those days), just as he is ignored by many church-goers during the week. on the other hand, you could argue that those people would ignore jesus the whole 365 days of the year, so having two days to bring attention to him is better than none. but i think that's confusing things, because christmas and easter are not primarily 'evangelistic' days (ie. with the purpose of 'spreading the gospel') but days of remembrance for believers. and if that is the case, i can't see any justification in having a set-apart day for christmas, either for believers or as a public holiday (assuming, as is the case, that we live in a secular society).

be all that as it may, there's no ignoring the fact that christmas is a big thing in our society, especially for kids and the retail business. and it's not inherently a bad thing to have a day of giving gifts to the important people in your life. what is bad, in my opinion, is that it has become a time of consumer feeding-frenzy, in which the only consolation to the pressure and stress of getting gifts for everyone else is the loot you'll get yourself (though that's usually disappointing, one of the reasons, i'm sure, for the family 'unrest' that often occurs on christmas day).

it takes a huge amount of imagination, ingenuity and effort to come up with gifts that don't buy into the consumeristic mindset, but that all takes time which most people in our rat-race society don't have. the challenge i would like to set, then (for myself as well), is to match dollar for dollar (at least) the money spent in retail outlets for christmas with donations or gifts to the the most needy in the world. one of the ways to do this is to shop at tear australia's (arguably) the world's most useful gift catalog. apart from that, a couple of excellent organisations to support are data (debt aids trade africa) and oxfam.

hope your christmas is filled with love and the joy of giving.

ahhhhh life

2004-12-02T12:11:00.000+11:00

the last few weeks have been a bit rough, but i feel like i'm on the up again. nothing major has gone wrong but my mental has been way out of wack.

funnily enough (or maybe not), i think much of the depression has to do with blogging - or more to the point, not blogging. for quite a while (six months or more) there wasn't a whole lot to do at work, so it was easy to justify spending time reading and writing on the 'net. i suppose i got spoilt, because the appearance of a good block of stuff to do at work, and hence little time for 'personal work', hit me pretty hard.

it doesn't help that i'm really disliking this job. it's never been the most riveting or stimulating, but i'm getting right sick of it, along with the whole 'getting up at the crack of dawn and getting home after the bub's gone to bed' song and dance. problem is, there's not much alternative at the moment so it's the old case of bite the bullet. i'm really really hoping the book editing and proofreading course i'm working through (slowly) will lead to something.

what i really long for is an unhurried life, with time to read and contemplate and write, to sit (or walk or whatever) with friends and family and have meaningful conversations without feeling the pressure to leave, to go somewhere or do something 'useful', to work but not be consumed or overwhelmed by it. i want my work to be honest, contributing to the good of people and the environment, not just helping some corporation or other make more money out of its customers more efficiently. i want it to be something i believe in, not just something i have to do to maintain a certain 'lifestyle'.

ahhh, dreams...

checking back in

2004-11-23T17:36:00.000+11:00

yes, i'm still here (i know you've missed me), just been mighty busy at work and home. everything's pretty fine, though freya's been sick with a virus the last week (which we thought might have been a form of measles but apparently isn't).

finally got the fence at home we've been working on for months pretty much finished last weekend, thanks to janette's excellent uncle brian. now it's just the gates to be done!

i have a whole bunch of stuff on the back-burner waiting to be put down in writing, but for now i'll just leave you with the latest u.s. republican party ad campaign...

long-time love

2004-11-12T17:49:00.000+11:00

since i don't seem to have too many of my own words this week, i'll go with what looks like becoming a tradition on fridays - something from bruce cockburn...

A Long-Time Love Song

Can't trace this conversation --
Words fragment and fall
Into blue shadows by a white-baked wall.
Through shimmering spaces a single thrush calls --
A song when it's over is no song at all

And you know I long to feel that sail
Leaping in the wind
And i long to see what lies beyond that rim
Oh, ever-new lover and friend
Sing me that love song again.

Time measured in summersaults
And flickering kids' play --
Cross-world and southward it's a fine summer day
Translucent life-span evaporates away
To bead on the cool grass in a cyclic ballet

bruce said about this song:

"There was an old people's home near where I used to live in Toronto - sometimes walking the dog late at night I'd come upon them loading a body in a long black hearse. Only at night. In the light of afternoon, you could see them enjoying the large garden. One wizened gray couple was always holding hands and looking at each other so romantically that it had to be a song."

(from "All The Diamonds" songbook, edited by Arthur McGregor, OFC Publications 1986)

this is a song i want played at my funeral. it connects with my heart-song in a way that no other song does. i love the counterpoint between the images of the transient and cyclical nature of life in the verses and the yearning for something more permanent, "ever-new", in the chorus. it is a beautiful expression of a yearning to be free of the confines of this present life.

there's something in me that really identifies with this longing to "feel that sail leaping in the wind", to know the wildness and freedom of life "beyond that rim" (images here of reepicheep at the end of the voyage of the dawn treader from c.s. lewis' narnia series).

i can't imagine a better articulation of 'what it's all about' than the final lines of the chorus: "ever-new lover and friend, sing me that love song again". this is the purpose and goal of all god's dealings with his creation, the expression of his perfect and undying love, for ever renewing and being renewed.

prized peace

2004-11-04T15:06:00.000+11:00

there's been a fair bit of controversy surrounding the recipient of this year's Sydney Peace Prize, indian author arundhati roy, though not quite as much as last year's, palestinian hanan ashrawi. personally, i think both were excellent choices, and both women very deserving of the prize. this edited extract from roy's peace prize lecture, given at the seymour centre in sydney last night, is well worth a read.

"It is mendacious to make moral distinction between the unspeakable brutality of terrorism and the indiscriminate carnage of war and occupation. Both kinds of violence are unacceptable. We cannot support one and condemn the other."

the obligatory

2004-11-04T14:14:00.000+11:00

i wasn't going to comment on the u.s. election result, basically because, though i deplore the things that dubya bush has done and shudder to think what he will do in the next four years, i never put much hope in there being any significant change under kerry. however, i thought i'd pass on a couple of very good articles: why kerry lost from 'christians for dean' and progressive faith did not lose this election by jim wallis of sojourners.

it seems to me that those who oppose bush tried to make kerry (or whoever else had been nominated) into a kind of messiah. as a christian at least, my hope for change is not in political power. the truth is that whoever is in the white house (or the lodge), it is only human power, only this or that lot of humans doing the mouse-wheel thing in a human-devised system.

jesus made it clear that 'true religion' isn't centred on a place, but the whole earth is god's temple and every human being has dignity, glory and honour as carriers of his image, not just the anointed priests. in the same way, i think, we can't put our hope in the centres of political power as the places where change is going to happen. true change only happens in the individual, and each of us is completely free to live as dignified beings treating others with dignity, regardless of who believes they're running things in washington, canberra, or wherever.

children's stories

2004-11-02T15:09:00.000+11:00

i suppose it's relatively early days yet, but i've started thinking about what janette and i can do so that freya grows up feeling free to think about and choose what she will believe in, but is also attracted to the faith of her parents.

it seems to me that a lot of what goes on in christian circles in regards to 'teaching' children about christianity/jesus/god is not too far removed from indoctrination or brainwashing. we tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think for themselves. the agenda is often clearly more to do with getting kids to behave in order to make their parents' feel good about themselves or to make life easier for them and other adults.

almost every 'children's talk' i've seen in churches follows the basic pattern "blah blah blah be good (for jesus)" or "blah blah blah god says honour your parents so be good". when i hear this (which is quite often now that i 'attend church' fairly regularly again), i want to shout out "give them a break! they get the whole be good thing everywhere else, so can't we lay off the guilt tripping in this one place at least where grace not performance is supposed to be the principle." as believers, we really should know better, and it's a sad indictment on the general environment and teaching in churches that this kind of thing is the norm, if not explicitly encouraged. if we truly believe that how good we are is NOT the basis of god's acceptance of us, how come we're teaching our kids that very thing?

i think adults in general seriously disrespect children. in many ways kids are treated as less than human, without minds of their own and not able to think through things and come to appropriate conclusions. we too often try to mold them in our image, forgetting that first and foremost they are children of god and he alone knows what is best for them.

one of the ways i think we disrespect children is by attaching morals to the stories we tell them. this especially applies to stories from the bible or others that illustrate a christian principle. we aren't content to just tell the story, we seem to think we have to spell out the lesson as if our young listeners can't think for themselves. in addition, the 'lesson' is often something we've forced on the story, and reflects an agenda of trying to instill behaviour conformity instead of revealing the infinite love and grace of god.

jesus told many stories, but explained 'the moral' of few of them, and even then only to a select few. i think one of the reasons for this was that he knew most of his hearers weren't ready to receive the message, and spelling it out for them would do more harm than good because they would turn them into principles and rules and thereby fence in the spirit. however, even if few people really understood what he was getting at, i think the stories/parables still had a positive effect by challenging the assumptions and worldview of those listening, confronting them with a different way of seeing things than the prevailing dogma. to use an analogy, the stories were helping to break up the ground so that the seed could eventually sink in and take root.

without denying or downplaying the very real relationship children can have with god, i think most of the task of parents and other adults is at this level of preparing the ground for children to develop their own unique and mature faith in god's good time. to my mind, this means is not being prescriptive about matters of faith, but instead providing an imaginative framework in the form of stories which demonstrate the love and grace of god. these stories can be narratives, fiction or otherwise, from the bible and elsewhere, but the main component is our lives as their parents. it's no secret that kids learn far more from what they see their parents doing than from what they are told. too often kids in 'christian' families grow up getting double messages and basically learn that hypocrisy is the normal mode of being. the 'trick' as parents is for our faith to be natural and consistent, while being upfront about our failures, which, not surprisingly, is what the whole thing is about anyway!

mood music

2004-10-29T17:57:00.000+10:00

i've been in one of those "what's the use?" moods the last few days. it feels like some kind of mild depression, but i have no idea what's causing it. i get it periodically, so maybe it's just a 'time of the month' thing. the moon's full at the moment so that could have something to do with it. aroooooooooooo

apart from anything else, this kind of mood isn't conducive to highly inspired blogging. just in case you hadn't noticed...

on days like these i feel fed-up with my own efforts and pretenses to knowing or achieving anything. but even in my failure and discouragement there is grace. i have so much - a wonderful wife and gorgeous daughter, a pretty cool family (all things considered ;^), a beautiful home a long way from the noise and pollution of the 'big smoke'.

one of my favourite bruce cockburn songs expresses it perfectly:

Fascist architecture of my own design
Too long been keeping my love confined
You tore me out of myself alive

Those fingers drawing out blood like sweat
While the magnificent facades crumble and burn
The billion facets of brilliant love
The billion facets of freedom turning in the light

Bloody nose and burning eyes
Raised in laughter to the skies

I've been in trouble but I'm ok
Been through the ringer but I'm ok
Walls are falling and I'm ok
Under the mercy and I'm ok

Gonna tell my old lady
Gonna tell my little girl
There isn't anything in the world
That can lock up my love again

(Fascist Architecture, from Humans, 1980)

intervention

2004-10-26T17:29:00.000+10:00

last night's australian story - "friends in deed" - was excellent. it told the story of three men who played significant roles in the 10 nation Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) led by australia. the three men were ben mcdevitt, the afp assistant commissioner responsible for the police side of the mission, diplomat nick warner and john frewin from the military. mcdevitt arguably had the toughest jobs of ridding the solomon islands police force of corruption, basically rebuilding it from scratch, and bringing about the arrest of rebel militia leader harold keke, which was almost miraculously accomplished without a shot being fired. due largely to the efforts of mcdevitt, warner and frewin, the solomons has returned to peace and the rule of law. it's a wonderful success story accomplished by level-headedness, determination, bravery and ingenuity. a very big hats off to these great ambassadors of our country.

while watching the program last night, my mind snagged on the term 'failed state', which was used to describe the solomon islands before the intervention. for whatever reason, my word association processor immediately came up with 'failed marriage', and it got me thinking about separation/divorce from the perspective of what i was watching. while there's not a lot of similarity between a state and a marriage, i think there are some interesting parallels in the larger context of failure and intervention.

to a certain extent we have the attitude that internal conflicts in other countries need to be sorted out by themselves, but there is an acknowledgement that what is happening, especially in near or neighbouring countries, impacts on the region and our own national interest. however, we don't seem to have this same acknowledgement that relationship difficulties between a couple significantly impact others (more than just the immediate family), but usually view it as just something the couple need to sort out (or not). sadly, it's often worse in a christian context, because marriage difficulty is usually treated as anathema, something to be left at home and not mentioned at church where you are expected to wear the facade that everything is happy and rosy and you're living the 'victorious life'.

so is 'outside intervention' a good idea in the context of relationships? i think it can be, but definitely not if it is pre-emptive intervention. in the case of the solomon islands, the government knew they were in dire straits and asked for assistance. i think its a tragic indictment on our lack of real involvement with each other that this kind of request for help is rarely made by couples, and when it is, the assistance is almost always sought from a counsellor or therapist who doesn't know the couple outside of the therapy room. while professional input of this kind is often helpful (though just as often not), doesn't it make more sense for people who know the couple well and have a significant degree of 'personal interest' in the relationship to be the ones helping out? why does it seem more difficult for a couple to go to the people close to them for help? this is a community issue because it's not just a case of the couple not wanting to talk about what's going on, but often also a clear, though usually unspoken, message from others that, for whatever reason, they don't want to know about it, so the ones going through the difficulties feel isolated and left to sort it out themselves.

another aspect of the solomon islands intervention was that it was a 10-nation assistance mission. i think this is another helpful example for 'relationship intervention', because if more people are involved there are more ideas and perspectives brought to the table, and the impact of any individual self-serving agendas is also reduced. while in this context you can't really talk about others solving any of the problems (and even in a country context it is the people themselves who must have the will to change for the peace to last), a mix of friends and family, most productively, i think, together (ie. in a kind of 'intervention meeting'), can offer a combination of advice and feedback to the couple which is greater than if each was to do so individually. of course, there is a (pretty small) limit to the number of people for which this would be helpful, as it would just become chaotic and do more harm than good.

one other example from the solomon islands case i think is pertinent is the gun amnesty. apart from the surrender of harold keke, probably the most significant turning point for the solomons was the rebels handing in their weapons. these were then melted down and the remains buried, with a plaque erected at the site as a reminder of the chaos and violence that widespread proliferation of guns can lead to. anyone who is or has been in a long term relationship knows about the weapons partners use against each other, proliferating and growing in strength as time goes by if not 'disarmed'. for a relationship in crisis (and even for those not on the rocks), i think a kind of weapons amnesty might be a good idea. this could be something like an informal ceremony with others present in which the partners would 'give up' their weapons, stating the things they use to try to wound the other and promising not to use them again. i think it's important that it's not done the other way around, each partner accusing the other of using this or that, and also that there is no rejoinder to each 'confession'. the aim is not to continue the battle, but to lay the weapons on the table and by doing so remove their potency.

too much input

2004-10-22T16:36:00.000+10:00

i'm your standard garden variety (how's that for an original phrase?) news and views junkie, but i'm feeling completely overwhelmed by all the stuff that's out there to read. last week i registered with the ny times and now get a daily rundown of the headlines, and this week i added the revealer to my list after following a link from the saint. that's on top of the sydney morning herald and slate on the news side (is that all?), as well as the obligatory sports (soccernet and yahoo). i'd like to keep an eye on common dreams and truthout, too, but can't imagine having the time - i feel like i read all day as it is. i only manage to keep up to date with about half a dozen blogs (if that), but there are a whole bunch more that i'd really love to read regularly because i know they are posting worthwhile thoughts that would inform or enrich me.

i have no idea how some people seem to get the time to read up to 10 or 20 blogs (or more?), comment on a few, then post an entry or two on their own blog. and some of them even have real jobs and families. maybe they don't sleep. maybe i'm just too slow a reader (and don't mention the time it takes me to write anything).

i've heard it said that if you want to write (which i do), you should keep your reading to a minimum, but pretty much all my thinking is provoked or catalysed by reading something by somebody else. i know there's got to be a balance somewhere but i haven't found it yet. tucked in somewhere in there is also the desire to keep up with 'the crowd', to be relevant, to have an opinion on and write about the topics being discussed in blogdom (at least the small corner of it that i presume to inhabit, though mostly invisible).

the other thing i'm feeling is that my mind is just filling up with stuff, to the point where there's no room for my own thoughts to form and develop. with so much coming in there isn't any time or space to contemplate or meditate. the worst part of this is what it's doing to my relationships, especially the closest ones. too much input and noise means little time to just be with people, to give them my attention, to listen and play. worst of all, no time for contemplation means no time to pray, to connect with the source of life and love.

i think i need to get a life...

president of the new age

2004-10-19T10:49:00.000+10:00

i know i said i didn't want to harp on about the dubya bush thing, but thanks to the saint for the link to our magical president, an excellent review and critique of the ny times article by ron suskind i mentioned yesterday (without a doubt).

jeff sharlet, the author of this piece, makes a convincing case that bush's worldview is closer to new age magic realism than fundamental christianity. recalling joe biden's encounter with bush which opens suskind's article, in which biden asks bush, "how can you be so sure when you know you don’t know the facts?" and bush replies, "my instincts," sharlet comments:

"In this particular sense, Bush does seem to be a descendent of the Enlightenment: He's Rousseau's noble savage, operating on the pure, animal instincts that're true because they are, and are because they're true. The noble savage does not live in what Bush's aide contemptuously calls "the reality-based community"; he is in and is of a 'nature' more real than reality, which, in an unexpected nod to postmodernism, Bush believers seem to dismiss as a social construct."

the conclusion that sharlet reaches is that:

"Believing, it seems, is more important to the President than the substance of his belief. Jesus Christ's particular teachings -- well, those are good, too. But what really matters is that if you believe you can do something, you can."

this belief in the power of the mind is a hallmark of so-called new age religions, which

"emphasize that certainty is easy, if you'll just give up the illusion of reality, since certainty is as close to you as your own heart. One need not investigate with the tools of rationalism, but rather, simply -- the simplicity of it all is key -- feel."

in-depth analysis or understanding of a situation, or, heaven forbid, nuance, are not required, are in fact unwanted distractions. instead it is a case of decision-making by the gut, arguably the most powerful man on earth putting his faith in

"the kind of magic that says, If you believe you can do something -- become president despite losing the popular vote, launch a war without evidence, and maybe, if you REALLY believe, get re-elected anyway -- you can."

all this rings pretty true from what i've seen and read. moreover, it gives a very ironic twist to the almost rabid allegiance of the 'religious right' to bush. but don't tell them that...

bush the christian without a doubt

2004-10-18T16:18:00.000+10:00

i don't want to harp on about this subject, but juan cole at informed comment has mentioned a couple of articles in the last few days which i thought i'd pass on. the first is bush the christian by conservative writer christopher manion. the article is a critique of claims that bush is 'a good christian', listing "a few of the temptations – and outright errors – that have hounded 'good Christians' as they have confronted the political realm during the past two thousand years." these 'temptations' include thomas hobbes' leviathan state, gnosticism and utopianism.

the second is a long piece from the ny times magazine by ron suskind called without a doubt. it is an analysis of what suskind calls the 'faith-based' presidency of george w. bush, which can't admit the possibility of being in error because of its claim to be on direct speaking terms with god. here are a couple of paragraphs:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

bipolar disorder

2004-10-16T18:51:00.000+10:00

i'm a member of a mailing group for bruce cockburn fans called humans ('humans' is the title of one of bruce's albums). in the last week there has been a bit of discussion on the group about the 'religious right' in the u.s. elections. a few of the members wrote about recent experiences they had talking to christians about the elections. one wrote:

"I happened to be talking with a fundamentalist christian preacher who is also a distant cousin to me (here in Appalachia/southern Ohio). The more I talked about Jesus being a man of peace and love, the more this other fellow became agitated and tried to label me as being unpatriotic. He eventually said that americans should believe whatever president bush says because he is a christian, and americans should always obey what their government tells them to do. That means, we should agree with and support the war, any war. And if it goes against our conscience, then we are sinners..."

and another:

"I stopped by the home of a fellow I've known since grade school. He wasn't home, but his wife came to the door and we spoke for a few minutes. General chit-chat and then I casually asked whether they planned to watch the presidential debate on TV that night. That set her off on a diatribe almost escalating into a tirade against 'liberals' of which she insinuated I was one. She had heard me mention the protest march in the streets of NYC during the RNC. So she thinks I'm against Bush, who is God's chosen servant. She said that most people decide on the basis of one or two issues, and so she threw at me abortion and gay marriage. I tried talking about Jesus and his teachings, but she wouldn't hear it! Then her voice quivered more and her eyes began to glaze and turn hot, and she babbled about the need to be protected from terrorists, and it's 'better to have the war over there than here.' Then she said it's a sin to vote for any candidate other than Bush."

while no doubt these are relatively extreme examples, they illustrate the depth of feeling and polarisation in the u.s. electorate at the moment, and how effectively the republican propaganda machine has been able to sell the christian=republican lie. much has said about this in the media, including a couple of excellent documentaries shown on the abc and sbs recently, and there's probably not a lot i can add (or need to).

meanwhile, anglican dean of sydney (the very reverend) phil jensen has been talking up storm in england. one wonders what jensen was trying to achieve by such intemperate words, except to draw a line in the anglican sandbox and try to force people to choose one side of the other: either with his dogmatic fundamentalism or against the gospel (as he would put it). he obviously believes that division and schism are lesser evils than doctrinal error, inspired by verses such as "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division" (Luke 12:51, NIV). it's a dangerous path to tread because it requires an incredible (many would say foolhardy or arrogant) confidence in one's own 'rightness', but this has been a characteristic of sydney anglicans for the last 15 years at least, and they seem to be going about their 'purification' crusade with a great deal of purpose and zeal.

while this ideological campaign is polarising the anglican church, i don't think the same will happen, thankfully, in the broader community in australia, despite the apparent conservative trend in australian political and social life and its link to a growing 'religious right' movement. i think our national psyche, with our anti-authority bent and tendency to laugh at ourselves, is not as prone to the kind of religious extremism that seems almost rampant in the united states. however, there are similarities, and it would be foolish to say we are immune. it's no brilliant insight to say that a rise in conservatism is linked to higher living standards and greater material wealth: once you have it, the human tendency is to want to keep it for oneself and protect it at all costs. as i've said before, i find it immensely sad that christians seem to be a major part of this conservative trend, because jesus spoke directly and clearly against holding onto and protecting our possessions, but instead to live openly and generously, giving away what we have so that there is no inequality or basis for attitudes of superiority.

polarisation is never a good thing in a civil society, as it can only bring conflict. at the extreme, it could lead to the forcible subjugation and oppression of the weaker side or minority, or if the two sides are of similar strength, outright civil war. and once the weaker has been subdued, the strong more often than not will continue the war elsewhere, to spread their superior ideology. as we've seen in history, things get really really ugly when a belief in ideological superiority is combined with military power. this was the case in germany in the 1930s and is one of the reasons that comparisons are made between the nazi regime and the current political situation in the u.s.

the problem is, i don't think anything can be done about it. once the process has begun, the only way to stop it is for those causing the polarisation to start doubting their ideological agenda and seek conciliation, but this is extremely unlikely, especially if they have had a taste of power. the united states may have already gone too far down the road to turn back. we may know on the 3rd of november, but even a john kerry victory may not be enough because it might only serve to give the 'right' an increased determination to win next time, and make sure they keep winning after that. no doubt time will tell, but the signs are not good, at least to this observer. i can't help but think that this is all set up for a cataclysmic event in human history, something for which the word armageddon will not be inappropriate.

is this the only way that we as a human race know how to 'progress', to sink to the depths of pride and avarice before we come to our senses and realise that we're all one, that our glory and fulfilment lie in unity not division? is it possible to believe we do not desperately need to be saved from ourselves, hellbent as we are on destruction?

w.w.j.b.

2004-10-15T17:24:00.000+10:00

americans seem to have a passion for bumper stickers, especially during an election campaign. this must be one of the better ones:

there are a whole lot more here.

beginning of change

2004-10-14T17:16:00.000+10:00

i did something today which i hope is a significant first step into something new: i posted my first assignment for a correspondence course in 'professional editing and proofreading' through the australian college of journalism. there are 12 tutorials/assignments to get through, which should take less than 6 months to finish.

in my blogger profile (on the sidebar) i've described myself as a 'wannabe writer/editor'. i suppose i'm some sort of writer already by having this blog (and it may never get beyond that), so this course should get me going on the editor track. i've been working in the i.t. industry for over 10 years. i'm good at it, because i have a logical and systematic brain, but it's not the kind of job i ever wanted to do long-term. it just seems too soul-less, too much a part of the machine, too much about helping companies make more money and not about helping people live better. added to that the fact that i live 2 hours outside the city where all the i.t. jobs are, and it seems pretty unsustainable.

i don't have any grand hopes of making a motsa through proofreading/editing, though i think it's something i'll be good at it since i read heaps and often notice grammatical or punctuation errors, or how sentences/paragraphs could be better worded (which is obviously not to say this blog is perfect in any of those regards). however, what kind of work i get and how much is a big unknown. the acj assures me there's a lot of work out there, and being close to sydney will help as it's a large publishing centre, so i'm reasonable optimistic.

the hope is to ultimately (over the next year or so, if possible) get to a place where i can give up my 'real' job and be able to work mostly from home, though i'm prepared to look into other employment to supplement the income if necessary. actually, i'd prefer to do something away from the house as well, to get out into 'the community' and keep from getting too hermit-like, which i admit i have a tendency towards. it would have to be something local, though, as i believe living and working should happen in the same physical/geographical area as far as possible. at the moment i don't feel 'part' of the local community at all because i work so far away, leave for work very early, get back late, and spend much of the other days recovering and catching up on family time. anyway, that's the goal, but as in most things there are a large number of variables and who knows how things pan will out.

so if there's anyone out there who has a manuscript, manifesto, book, article, review, technical document, cartoon, song, poem, anything at all they'd like proofread or edited, drop me line. special discount rates apply until i'm fully qualified!

maggie's words on words and the word

2004-10-12T17:13:00.000+10:00

you may have noticed the link to maggie dawn's blog (among others) on the right of the screen. maggie has a heap of wisdom and insight, and i think you'll find it very worthwhile to check her out.

over the last number of weeks maggie has written an excellent series of posts called words and the word, which started as excerpts from her talk on the authority of the bible at greenbelt this year. she gives a very informative and scholarly, though easy to read, analysis of the issue of the inspiration of scripture, including discussions about translation, compilation of the canon, the true Word of God, 2 timothy 3:16, and much more. there are 7 parts to the series, the last just posted (the link above is to the first, and each has a link to the next at the bottom).

highly recommended.

post-mortem

2004-10-11T14:41:00.000+10:00

literally, almost. maybe it's not quite that bad, but alan ramsey expresses my sentiments exactly (Nothing will save us from gullibility and greedy self-interest).

this was a triumph of negative campaigning and fear-mongering, a victory for short-sightedness, selfishness and greed, as clive hamilton, executive director of The Australia Institute, also writes in today's smh (Self-absorption wins the day). we've made the dollar god, and we're blindly prostrating ourselves before the altar. may god (the real one) help us, because the dollar is a mean and fickle mistress, with a history of enslaving her lovers and crippling their souls. what we reap we certainly shall sow.

one thing i can't understand is how so many of my fellow australians bought the interest rates lie. forget the fact that house affordability is at an all-time low, or that job security is so low - or maybe these were part of the tactic: deliver property prices that mean the mortgage takes up at least 50% of the average household's disposable income, then deliver job insecurity, and it's a sure bet that the "higher interest rates" scare tactic will hit home.

it only gets worse. there's a very good chance that the coalition will also have a majority in the senate (39 seats - they'll definitely have at least 38), so legislation will pass through unhindered and un-amended. that really is the most frightening result of this election.

the only silver lining i can think of is that the last time any leader has controlled both chambers was malcolm fraser between 1976 and 1981, which directly preceded the hawke/keating dynasty, and that is a hopeful precedent. i think it's more than likely that the 'mandate' (aka power) will go to the government's head and they'll screw us over (sale of remaining 51% of telstra, even-more-business-friendly-employee-exploiting industrial relations laws, removal of cross-media ownership rules) to such an extent that we'll finally see the light and get rid of them for a good long while. but Labor still has to play it right, and rowen atkinson's gratuitous advice is right on the money.

it seems that the trend in australia (similarly to the u.s.) is towards the conservative. this may be linked (in australia at least) with a resurgence in church-going, or it could just be a reflection of an increase in the upper-middle income demographic, which is where churches draw most of their members from. it really angers me, though, that there is such a strong perception that 'conservative' is more 'christian'. you'd be hard-pressed to find conservative or so-called family values in the gospels. on the contrary, you'd almost think jesus was anti-family by some of the things he said, and he made it pretty clear that the kingdom of god is a higher priority than the family. in fact, jesus was saying is that the kingdom, not the traditional, nuclear conception, is the real family, that it is to be open and organic, not closed, rigidly defined and self-protecting.

moreover, the conservative agenda tends towards increasing inequality in society, rewarding the 'haves' and leaving the 'have-nots' further behind (with the arrogant, superior, admonition that "if you just tried harder you could become a 'have' too"). many christians would implicitly, if not explicitly, agree with this attitude of 'god helps those who help themselves', not least those who hold to the 'blessing' or 'prosperity' doctrine so common in charismatic and pentecostal churches. but this is completely contrary to the kingdom values of equality for all, of giving a voice and place of honour to the exploited, the marginalised and disenfranchised, of the last being first and the first last.

ultimately, no matter what the government, believers are called to live according to the radical, society-transforming agenda of the kingdom. there is a grave danger, though, that christians in this country will become complacent in a political environment which they are told is in line with their values, or even worse, think that the government's agenda is basically 'christian' so nothing else needs to be done. is it foolish to hope that the opposite can happen, that a soul-less, materialistic society will drive believers back to their true values of compassion and justice?

near the end, thank god

2004-10-08T16:26:00.000+10:00

election day is almost upon us, and not a moment too soon. it's felt like a very long six weeks, so i can't imagine what it must be like in the u.s. with the election dragging on for months if not years. i must admit i've been impressed with latham. he's done much better than i'd expected, taking risks and coming up with some bold policies. alas, i don't think it has been enough. he just hasn't been in the public eye long enough for people to trust him to run the country, and howard's repulsive scare tactics have been too effective (on this point the coalition have obviously learned a lot from the u.s. republican party). all the polls are indicating it will be a very tight contest, but i'm expecting the coalition to be returned, albeit with a reduced majority (maybe even a minority?). the prospect fills me with dread, though. howard's australia is not one i'm proud to be a part of, and i feel sick at the thought of the smugness and superiority on his face when he claims victory on saturday night (or sunday morning or even later if it is as close as expected and a number of seats go down to the wire with preference distribution).

christians and politics

2004-10-07T12:09:00.000+10:00

been struck down by the 'flu this week and only now managing to get my head back above water (more or less). it's definitely not a pleasant place to be, but the bright side is that it forced me to catch up on some sleep, though even that would have been much better if 'the little one' (freya - 18 mths old tomorrow) hadn't had her own health/sleep issues. she's had a runny nose for several weeks, which obviously affects her sleep because of breathing problems. over the weekend it got so bad, though, that the mucous was seeping through to her eyes and crusting them up. not really an issue when she was sleeping, and apparently not painful, but a bit distressing when her eyes were so 'crusted up' that she couldn't open them when she woke up, and she wasn't too impressed when mum & dad tried to clean them up either. then yesterday afternoon she got really listless and had a high temperature so it seems she's caught the flu from me, the poor thing. thankfully we have an excellent doctor (who’s also a homeopath), and he's given us some good remedies, and freya was already noticeably improved by the evening, and slept quite well (relatively speaking) last night.

speaking of family (how's that for a segue), one of the hot topics around aussie blogs in relation to the election is the Family First party (a handful of posts, which include links to articles and other blogs on the subject, from the saint here, here, here, here and here; also this from backyardmissionary, which has a comment with a link to this blog by a member of the hawkesbury aog church). at the church we've started attending (though still spasmodically), a couple of people, including the service leader (not the pastor, who wasn't present), made statements on sunday in support of Family First. i actually found it quite offensive – not the content of what they said, but the fact that they endorsed a particular political party from the front, with the inherent authority that carries, in effect telling the people present how they should vote.

i suppose the assumption is that a voting christian should vote for a christian party. the irony with Family First is of course that they vehemently deny the 'christian party' tag (as much, one wonders, as an atheistic party would?), though they have very strong ties to the australian Assemblies of God evangelical/pentecostal denomination. obviously the first question is, regardless of whether or not the party is christian/religious, if the individuals themselves are christian, what kind of image is it sending to be dishonest and dissembling in the face of media questions on the aog links. this is what you would (sadly) expect from politicians, but hopefully not from christians, or does the former take precedence in this case, the ends (seats in parliament) justifying the means?

for me this illustrates the more fundamental question, which is whether a christian can or should be a politician at all, because of the self-promotion, dissembling, dishonesty and power-seeking which seem requisite with that job. is it possible to be a successful politician and be a follower of jesus, with the attributes of complete honesty and integrity, seeking to be the last instead of the first, the servant instead of the lord, taking the lowest seat instead of the place of honour, always promoting others instead of ourselves. call me naive or ignorant, but it would seem to me that these things are completely at odds with a life in politics in a modern day democracy.

it is a human desire to want to influence the way one's country is run, wanting the 'values' (getting really sick of that word) one believes in to be universally upheld. the first question must be, even if one legislates one's values, does that mean they will be accepted by the people? of course not, but does it matter? isn't it good enough that it is the law, so those who disagree must abide by it anyway? but isn't the point of christianity the changing of mind and heart? isn't this what we want for all the people? would not legislating our 'values' be counter-productive to this endeavour, creating resistance in those who do not appreciate being bludgeoned into acquiesence? do we really believe changing behaviour will lead to changing of the heart and mind? the great tragedy is that, at least from what you see and hear in most churches, this is exactly what christians believe...

my basic philosophy in relation to democratic politics is that the way to change what politicians do and decide is to change the people. politicians are obviously part of the population, and by and large reflect and pander to the will of the people, basically because that's the only way to get elected. though i don't believe democracy is inherently christian, this tenet of changing the people instead of seeking political power would seem to me to be congruent with christian principles.

though god at times (at least in the old testament) used nations to carry out his justice on other nations (which is nothing to be proud of), i think he's mostly indifferent about who has political power. what he's more interested in is how his people live, and living as a community according to his commands, pursuing justice and relief for the oppressed, cannot help but be a political act, highlighting and critiquing the nation's laws where they are unjust and oppressive. this is the way that i believe christians are called to change their world.

just pics

2004-10-01T13:31:00.000+10:00

a few more pics, mostly from last weekend's visit to floriade, though you can't really see much of the flowers...

girard and ventura

2004-10-01T12:02:00.000+10:00

thanks to whoever it was who came across this blog via this search (in italian), because it also came up with this excellent recent article on rene girard by michael kirwan. the article gives a brief background to girard's theories on religion and violence, as well as a basic description of those theories and their implications in regards to the recent hostage killings in iraq.

this paragraph in particular caught my eye:

"Of the many perspectives that this insight opens up, it is worth mentioning at least one. Girard asserts at one point that he is interested in 'conflict as a subtle destroyer of the differential meaning it seems to inflate'. What this means in plain language is none other than the paradox that violence makes antagonists identical to one another, even when their mutual hatred stresses only the differences (racial, religious) between them."

i think this is an extremely important observation, one that needs to be highlighted again and again in a political climate that gains so much mileage out of preaching a polarised, 'us good them evil', view of the world. of all the lies and deceptions which have been told us by our leaders since september 11 2001, this is, in my view, the most odious and destructive.

while on the subject, i highly recommend michael ventura's brilliant essay the lessons of guernica on the evidence that conflict makes antagonists resemble each other (though it's not clear if he owes the insight to girard). as ventura writes:

"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods, your enemy has won. The rest is suffering and historical opera."

the aussie dream

2004-09-30T18:46:00.000+10:00

there was an interesting essay in monday's sydney morning herald about how renters have been left out of the 'great australian dream'. the author cites statistics that show that while the price of homes has soared, the distribution of wealth has become more and more in favour of those who already own their homes. one obvious contributing factor is the decreasing availability of space to build new homes in the major cities (where most of the jobs are), while immigration (both from overseas and from rural areas) incessantly drives up demand for housing. another factor is australia's negative-gearing laws which favour property investment, so that once you have 'liquidity' in a home it is not difficult to "make money from money." it's an equation that favours the 'haves' and makes it increasingly difficult for the have-nots to get a foot in the door. personally speaking, i think it’s immoral, but it seems hell with freeze over before either of the major political parties does anything about it. as the article says, nothing has been mentioned during this election campaign about assisting renters or making houses more affordable. it's either in the too-hard basket or that constituency is not considered important enough to pander to – after all, in australia, the rate of home ownership is a whopping 80%, compared to, say, 43% in germany, which has laws that give greater protection of renters' rights. i'm surprised that Labor, at least, hasn’t pointed out how disastrously counter-productive the Liberal government's first home-buyers grant has been, by pushing more buyers into an already over-crowded market, driving up prices even more, not to mention the fools-gold promise of ownership for the many who wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise, and who, after being handed their slice of the dream, found that they couldn't keep up the payments and ended up in a worse position than before.

deep breath. rant over. the real reason i brought this up was to explore the subject of renting vs. home ownership from a 'christian' point of view, because i believe this is an issue in which believers can, and maybe even should, stand out from the crowd.

it's not new to say that ownership in general, and property ownership in particular, is an illusion. nobody on this earth ever owns anything that is external to themselves. the most that can be said is that we take care of something for a while, until it either passes into the care of someone else or decays (or we send it to a place where we hope it decays, though it might take many hundreds of years, as in the case of most plastics).

not surprisingly, jesus wasn't big on ownership. in fact, he seemed to do all he can to discourage it, telling people to do strange things like sell all they had and give the money to the poor. i suspect that a lot of the time this was rhetorical (though not always, as in the story of the rich young ruler in luke 18), a way of highlighting the contrast between the attitude of the world and the attitude that a disciple should have, of not holding onto things and not trusting in money or possessions to give a sense of security, but to trust in god instead, the giver of all good and perfect gifts who clothes the lilies of the field in such beauty.

but, i hear you say, jesus also taught us to be good stewards, so he must have thought that owning stuff was ok. that's true, but jesus was a realist and he knew that, until his kingdom is fully established, there will always be a need to own things because, human nature being what it is, without some ownership the strong would too easily exploit the weak. but he still taught his disciples time and time again that living in the kingdom, which was and is a present reality for those who believe in him, means not holding onto anything, trusting instead in god for everything.

i should make it clear at this point that i don't believe owning a home is inherently sinful, and in fact my wife and i have a mortgage (though it sits uneasily with me, not just for the obvious nose-to-the-grindstone reasons, and we've started to reconsider). but i do believe that it is a relic, necessary or financially prudent though it may be, of the world that is passing away and that it will have no place in the kingdom. but then again, neither will renting...

as i said before, i think this issue is a perfect opportunity for christians to display to those who aren't believers that their values are different, informed by the kingdom not by the world. but while it's often easy to see the problem, the solution is rarely as clear. i'm also convinced that getting prescriptive is an error, no matter how attractive, because it's just replacing the old law for a new one. imagination and creative thinking are called for, as in all aspects of living in a kingdom that is here but not yet fully realised.

the principle, though, is that we as believers don't subscribe to 'the dream' and don't live as if we do. the dream isn't just about owning a home, though. it has more to do with having a place that we can turn into our own little kingdom, where we have control over what happens, where we can basically do what we like (as long as we can hide it from the authorities if it's illegal), where we decide who comes and goes. it's the old feudal lord syndrome (aka FDS, or maybe it's FDE – feudal lord envy) in modern dress. no peasants or any other riff-raff allowed, thank you very much. how different this is to the kingdom values of openness, other-centredness and hospitality to all without condition or favour? how can living by these values become evident in our day to day lives?

another obvious issue is the hold that possessions have on their owners, the greater the value the greater the hold. would it be possible to be indifferent if your home was suddenly destroyed by a freak event, to see such an event as basically irrelevant to your well-being and quality of life? would it be easier if the home was in mt druitt or double bay? as in the case of wealth (and who in australia, especially among us non-aboriginals, is not wealthy by world standards), the having is not evil, but the temptations to greed, materialism and idolatry it lets in the door are enough for all but the extremely foolhardy to want to be free of it.

i don't have any easy answers, but its seems clear to me that on the issue of home ownership, we as believers have the opportunity and responsibility to show that we don't blindly follow the values and dreams of those around us. we need to work out, as individuals and groups in our particular situations and circumstances, what it means to challenge and subvert this rarely-questioned ideal of our society, to make it glaringly obvious, like a city on a hill, that we live by a different set of values, because we have a deeper and more real citizenship, that of the kingdom of jesus.

many apologies if this all sounded too much like a sermon...

the ultimate

2004-09-28T11:38:00.000+10:00

i used to be a regular (some might say fanatical) ultimate frisbee player, but i haven't played much in the last few years since we moved out of the city.

ultimate frisbee is like a cross between american football and netball - it's a team sport (7 a side) played with a flying disc (frisbee is actually a brand name, and ultimate is usually played with a 175g. ultrastar disc, not a frisbee). the american football bit is that it is played on a field with endzones, and you have to throw into the endzone to one of your teammates to score (not through a goal). the netball bit is that you can't run with the disc when you have it (but there aren't any of the zone restrictions that netball has). it's a fast-paced non-contact (well, in theory at least) sport that requires a lot of fitness and skill (catching and throwing for starters).

the best aspect of the game, though, is that there are no referees or umpires - the players make their own calls, including for fouls and other infringements like in/out of bounds and 'travelling' (similar rule to basketball). there are accomodations in the rules for disputed calls, though naturally these can get a bit heated. the over-arching principle and primary ethos of the sport, however, is the spirit of the game. players and teams that play with good 'spirit' are highly esteemed, and similarly those that have bad spirit are shunned or ostracised. you might think this would mean that it's a bit of a 'sissy' sport that lacks passion, but that couldn't be further from the truth. ultimate players love their sport passionately, and play (and party) hard (one of my cherished frisbee t-shirts - of which i have many - carries the slogan "work hard, play harder").

ultimate is a fast-growing sport, here in australia and around the world. it is very likely that it will become an olympic sport in the next 20 years, and is already included in the world games. it has held it's own world championships for the last 20 years or so, as well as world club championships. at the 'worlds' held in finland earlier this year, australia came THIRD in the open (men's) division, which is by far the best we've ever done (previous best was 6th i think). in this tournament we beat both finland and sweden for the first time ever, with the latter no fluke because we did it twice, including the 'bronze medal' playoff game. historically speaking this is an incredible feat, as sweden has been one of the dominant countries, winning worlds in 1996 when the u.s. was beaten for the first time. in the 'gold medal' game this year, canada beat the u.s. to become world champions for the second time (the first was in 1998). there are a heap of great pictures from this year's worlds here.

the australian flying disc association has an excellent website, which has a heap of news, articles and other information. australia is actually hosting the world club championships in perth in 2006, so any sandgropers reading this keep an eye out. i definitely plan to be part of it, but obviously in the masters division (a nice way of saying 'the old buggers').

being human

2004-09-27T17:21:00.000+10:00

yesterday afternoon/evening was the last cafe grace. there were going to be a two more in the next couple of months, but mark will be too busy with travel and preparations for taking up his new job at the bible college of new zealand and training others to take over his business here in sydney.

so i'm glad i went yesterday, despite the tiring (but good) weekend, which included a trip to canberra and back (two hours each way) with my mum & dad on saturday to see floriade, then packing and driving up to parramatta (over an hour) lunchtime sunday before heading out to the the strom's house west of richmond (another hour). a lot of driving but all very worth it.

as i said, it wasn't planned to be the last cafe grace, but it ended fittingly as mark basically gave an overview or summary of all he'd talked about over the last couple of years. the reason for this was that it was being video-taped, basically to get it down on some sort of hard-copy for mark to use as he sees fit, including turning it into a book (which i think would be excellent). i don't know if he'll ever make the video widely available (i doubt he'd sell it but could do a mail-order thing with it if he ever gets the time), but it would be an great introduction to the what he's been thinking and studying and teaching over the last few years, stuff which is, in my most humble opinion, quite revolutionary for the church, though it is completely biblically based. on the other hand, its quite possible that many christians wouldn't be ready or receptive to it, because they want to keep doing christianity and church they way they're comfortable with. but i think there is a growing number of believers (including myself) who are just not satisfied with the status quo anymore, and it is to these that mark's exposition of the scriptures is, i think, like rain to a drought-striken land.

one of the major themes of what mark had to say yesterday was the dignity and glory that we have as god's children. so often we have the attitude that we're basically good-for-nothing worms that are not worth anybody's time or attention, let alone god's! but this is not how the bible portrays us. god made us in his image, which gives us enormous dignity and worth - as psalm 8 says,

"What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor."
(vs 4 & 5, NIV)

we find it easy to relate to the first part, but it is the second part that is the truth, the answer to the "what is man?" question.

one of the illustrations of this that mark talked about yesterday was something he heard recently from a guy named rick watts (i think), to do with the way moses wrote the book of genesis. in ancient near east religions, when people had finished building a temple, the last thing they did was to place the image of their god in it. this is paralleled in the opening chapter of genesis, where god creates the world, which is his temple, then finishes the job by placing human beings, bearing his image, in the temple.

of course this image was corrupted by sin, but the rest of the story of the bible, culminating in jesus, is about the god putting the whole thing back together again, restorating us to that place of dignity and glory which god always intended for us, and through us the rest of creation. in romans 8:18-21, paul says

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." (NIV)

again, we are so used to hearing the 'creation is groaning' bit (vs. 22), but we miss that what creation is waiting for is not to burn but to be liberated, and that liberation is going to come through us, by "the glorious freedom of the children of god."

another aspect of the ancient near east religious custom was to 'animate' the image of the god in the temple, by rituals which highlighted the mouth, eyes and ears of the image, as well as its hands and feet. again, there is a wonderful parallel in the bible, with the bulk of jesus' miracles dealing with those things, the eyes, ears, speech, hands and feet. so we can see these miracles, not just as a display of the divinity of jesus, but as reflecting the heart of god to bring restoration to our physical bodies.

finally, in the resurrection of jesus into a human body, instead of some 'heavenly' or 'alien' form, we see the ultimate reaffirmation and vindication of our human-ness. and it is in and because of the resurrection that we are (and will be) ultimately and finally restored, in jesus, to who we were meant to be.

this is truth. are you ready to live it?

aaahhh, friday

2004-09-24T15:19:00.000+10:00

at the end of another week and hanging out for the weekend. saturday we're going down to floriade with my parents (and also meeting my lil sis there, who lives the other side of canberra), then on sunday it's cafe grace (this is the 3rd last at mark & sue strom's place before they head to n.z.). looking forward to it all but there won't be much time for rest...

had my eyes tested this afternoon, as i've been noticing that i've had to work harder at seeing/reading signs at a moderate distance over the last few months. i've never had problems with my eyes and don't wear glasses, unlike almost everyone else in my family. the optometrist said that there's a 'small' defect in my vision, a bit of short-sightedness in my right eye and a bit of astigmatism in my left. it's probably always been there but my eyes aren't as adept or quick to adjust for it as they used to be. he said it's not the kind of thing that will get any worse, and it will only be a problem when i'm trying to read things at a distance for an extended time, like the scoreboard at a cricket match, or driving for more long periods, especially at night. he didn't actually say that i don't really need glasses (it's his livelihood, after all), but he didn't say i need them either. on the other hand, if i do get glasses that i can put on when i need to (like when driving), they'll be good for a long time because my vision isn't expected to change significantly (though the fashion side of things will!).

i've been wanting to post some more recent pics of the gorgeous freya, so took a bunch of snaps on wednesday (my usual day at home). she's getting on towards 18 months and every day is seeming more 'little girl' than baby. she talks a lot, but not in english yet - though we're pretty sure she said "dancing" this week (she was also doing the hand sign for dancing at the time). i know i'm a bit biased, but she really is an absolute delight, and it's an immense privilege to have a whole extra day with her each week (almost makes up for hardly seeing her the other 4 days)...

growth by imagination

2004-09-20T18:11:00.000+10:00

leighton tebay at the heresy asked this question of church in one of his recent blog entries (First church plant meeting): "Do we rely on God to change people or do we convince them by challenging them rationally or stimulating them emotionally?"

i've been thinking a bit about this issue myself recently. the problems of the rational and emotional are well-documented, the former being either too abstract and cut off from reality or too prescriptive and legalistic, the latter being too fickle and short-lived, while both are in danger of promoting a hypocritical life, dividing the mind and emotions, suppressing the one at the expense of the other. i think, though, that the best and most productive way to encourage change in others is neither of these, but a third option, which is by stimulating the imagination.

i read something to this effect a while back in one of george macdonald's 'unspoken sermons' and didn't really get it at the time, but i noticed recently when listening to a sermon that where it really grabbed me was when a point or comment or phrase sparked my imagination, sending my mind off on a 'wander' about how the point connected with my life. its a bit ironic (but no less funny ;^) that the one thing most preachers dread (their 'audience' daydreaming) might in fact be the most productive thing that happens during the sermon!

it is at the level of imagination, i think, that we know and relate to god - we can't see him or pin him down rationally, so we imagine him as best we can. this is not a bad thing, and is definitely not saying that god doesn't really exist or that our relationship to him is not absolute fact, its just a fact of our limited lives on this earth. it is also in our imagination that we connect what we read and hear with our lives - when reading a good book, for example, we imagine ourselves in the story, or when we're listening to someone, we're almost always thinking about how the same thing happened to us.

i think the gospel becomes real to us in a similar way, firstly by imagining ourselves into the kingdom story (which is not an exercise in fiction because we really are part of the story - see my post living the story), and secondly by imagining the truth into our lives. by this latter i mean something like i mentioned above about what happened to me while listening to a sermon recently: we hear a point of truth and it makes a connection in our minds with our own lives and we imagine what it would mean to put it into practice. of course, this doesn't always end up as changed behaviour (is that really the point anyway?), but i think it results in more authentic change because each person is applying the truth creatively in their own situations, giving them a sense of involvement and ownership in the process which is impossible to achieve by only appealing to the rational or emotional.

naturally, it is far easier to impart truth in this way when it is contained in a story, so it's not surprising that jesus often taught in parables, which were simple stories to which his listeners could connect their lives, containing enough familiar to pull them in, then imparting the truth by an unexpected twist which subverted their expectations and challenged their understanding of god and his dealings with them. it's a pretty tall ask, though, to expect pastors and bible teachers to come up with modern parables which function in the same way for their congregations, but that's not necessary because in each gathering of believers there is a veritable treasure trove of stories from the lives of those present waiting to be told. by hearing each other's different stories, we discover the many ways in which the truth of the gospel can take form in daily life, and our imaginations are stimulated to consider how to apply it in our own unique situations.

i've said this before, but i think 'church' would feel much more interesting and relevant if it was based around conversations, each one learning from the others, not to mention the respect and dignity it would impart to each one instead of all the focus being on one person. maybe its a bit harder to see, but i believe such a model would also be far more effective (though maybe less manageable) in bringing about true christian growth and maturity in people's lives.

imagine that!

contemplation in a world of violence

2004-09-17T12:52:00.000+10:00

i've been wanting to write something about james alison's paper Contemplation in a World of Violence, which i've read and re-read over the past week. i’m staggered by the profundity of what he says – words that my heart attests are true because they don’t so much teach me what i didn’t know but give voice and form to a knowing which was always there.

the paper, originally presented in november 2001, addresses the events of september 11 2001 and their 'meaning', so i think it holds particular resonance at the moment, with the recent 3rd anniversary of "9/11" just gone, preceded closely by the tragic events in beslan and last week's bomb attack on the australian embassy in jakarta.

the starting point of what alison says in this paper is a recognition that the terrible acts of violence such as those of september 11 2001, and indeed to some extent any acts of violence, suck us in to seeing the world through the eyes of the violent, summoning us, as he says, "to participate in something satanic." it is not the events themselves which are satanic, but the meaning we give them and hence the meaning they give to us of belonging "to something bigger, more important, with hints of nobility and solidarity." alison calls this satanic for the precise reason that it is a "lie from the one who was a murderer and liar from the beginning, the same lie behind all human sacrifices, all attempts to create social order and meaning out of a sacred space of victimization."

one indication that this feeling of unanimity and solidarity is a lie and illusion is that it is not a true universal oneness but an attitude of us and them, of the good and innocent against the 'evildoers'. such a framing of things breaks down further because it requires classifying everyone into 'with us' or 'against us', a task which brings more and more division as it becomes increasingly clear that there are some amongst us who are not fully on our side. the outworkings of this mindset are clear to see in the united states (and, to a lesser extent, australia and britain) over the last 3 years.

the contrast with the workings of god in jesus could not be more stark. on this point its worth quoting alison at length:

"Jesus not only taught us to look away, not to allow ourselves to be seduced by the satanic. He also acted out what the undoing of the satanic meant: he was so powerful that he was able to lose to its need to sacrifice so as to show that it was entirely unnecessary. We are so used to describing Jesus cross and resurrection as a victory - a description taken from the military hardware store of satanic meaning - that we easily forget that what that victory looked like was a failure. So great is the power behind Jesus teaching and self-giving that he was able to fail, thus showing once and for all that 'having to win', the grasping on to meaning, success, reputation, life and so on is of no consequence at all. Death could not hold him in, because he was held in being by one for whom death does not exist, is not even the sort of rival who might be challenged to a duel which someone might win. But if death can only get meaning by having victory, if the order of sacred violence can only have meaning if it matters to us to survive, to be, to feel good, at the expense of someone, then someone for whom it doesn't matter to lose is someone who is playing its game on totally different terms, and its potential for giving meaning collapses."

here we see the true revelation and revolution of jesus, "a human heart and eyes so utterly held by the Creator that they speak the Creator's heart about this world . . . not just in word, but by a creative acting out and living so-as-to-lose to the sacrificial game in order to undo it, thus enabling creation to be unsnarled from our truncation of it into a violent perversion and trap."

this is truly gospel, good news which has the power to change lives. jesus showed us "what living from utterly non-rivalistic creative power for which death is not, looks like," and then died to set us free from "the world of our meaning and our death." death has no real meaning or power because god is beyond and above death, and it is in his arms that we are held.

alison's questing mind takes him further into the heart of the matter by asking why god would want to do such a thing for us: "Why not leave us to get on with it, stuck in our charades, thinking the world of our meaning and our death?" what is behind this "desire for us not to be trapped in death?" the answer he comes up with his simple but profound:

"The staggering thing that this means, for me, is that the most extraordinary fruit of contemplation in the shadow of the violence which we are experiencing is this: God likes us. All of us. God likes me and I like being liked. It has nothing to do with whether we are bad or good, indeed, he takes it for granted that we are all more or less strongly tied up in the sacred lie. In teaching after teaching he makes the same point: all are invited, bad and good. Those are our categories, part of the problem not part of the solution, not God's category. God's 'category' for us is 'created' and 'created' means 'liked spaciously, delighted in, wanted to give extension, fulfilment, fruition to, to share in just being'. We are missing out on something huge and powerful and serene and enjoyable and safe and meaningful by being caught up in something less than that, an ersatz perversion of each of those things. And because God likes us he wants us to get out of our addiction to the ersatz so as to become free and happy."

i think this conclusion has incredible implications, especially for those of us who call ourselves followers of jesus. it completely removes all basis for division or exclusion, for thinking and acting in terms of in and out, us and them. it shows up our rivalries and struggles for control as folly, nothing but clutching after illusions. and because we are secure in the gentle, strong liking of god we are able to live truly without fear or favour. alison concludes his essay with by revealing the subversive potential of such a life, lived safe in the "powerful, infinitely restful" hands of god:

"Personally, the strongest feeling I have had over the last few weeks is the quite unexpected discovery that I am no longer frightened of Muslims, and that I like them, and that this is only the beginning of discovering what it will mean to rejoice in them and see them as part of an 'us'. Is this not the deepest act of treachery against the satanic order which was turned on in a part of all our minds and hearts by the events of September 11th?

"And where on earth will it end?"

Where indeed...

new discoveries

2004-09-09T14:19:00.000+10:00

i've been reading through some of the back-catalog on paul fromont's blog, and just came across one from about a month ago on james alison (see also james alison - essays of interest). as paul describes, james alison "is a theology professor, journalist, author, and openly gay Roman Catholic priest." he is also the author of Knowing Jesus, Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay and On Being Liked, among other books.

i suppose the reason this caught my eye is the link between a couple of my recent posts - the fact that alison is gay, as well as his thinking regarding the atonement (you can read my poor and fumbling thoughts on this subject here). this latter link is comes from the book description of his latest book:

On Being Liked is the transforming and joyful sequel to Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay, which established the Catholic priest and writer James Alison as one of the most striking, original, and intellectually irresistible voices in the church. Alison invites us to let go of a commonly held account of salvation that is nonsensical, scandalous and damaging. He takes us step-by-step through a bold adventure of re-imagining the central axis of the Christian story, not as ‘How does God deal with sin?’ but as ‘How do we take up God’s invitation to share in the act of creation?’ All the while, to our growing astonishment and wonder, we discover ourselves as liked – not only loved - in the eyes of God.

this sounds like a book that is definitely worth checking out.

alison recently gave a lecture titled "Who Sacrifices Whom to Whom? Rethinking Atonement" at trinity college, university of melbourne (on september 2nd). i did a google search to see if anything has been written up about it but came up empty. i did, however, find this link to a study of the theory and theology of rene girard in regards to sin and redemption (alison's book is listed in the bibliography). girard is another thinker i hadn't heard about until today, but who i will also be exploring more deeply (starting by reading the above study).

elections

2004-09-07T12:26:00.000+10:00

we're in election mode here in australia, with the incumbent Liberal-National party coalition led by "honest john" howard fending off the challenge of the Labor party led by mark latham. today's herald poll is reporting a substantial lead for howard, and i predict he'll maintain it and win a fourth term in office. australians are notoriously conservative at the ballot box and, though there is a substantial amount of anger in some sections of the electorate towards howard and his perceived kow-towing to the u.s. over iraq and the australia-u.s. free trade agreement, the fact that the australian economy is one of the strongest in the world (despite a property bubble that is in the process of popping), along with the challenger latham being widely viewed as untested and a bit too much of a maverick (though he's been trying desperately to shake that image), makes the task of overthrowing the government just a little too hard i think.

i share an antipathy towards howard and the coalition, but i'm not drawn by latham. not that it makes much difference because i live in a safe federal liberal seat. but my upper house (senate) votes will be going towards the greens.

similarly, i see the u.s. elections going the way of the incumbent. a recent poll puts bush 11 points ahead though it's probably closer than that. the u.s. electorate is a lot more polarised than the australian, but i don't think kerry has the charisma or vision to draw enough voters, whereas the republican base will turn out in droves to re-elect their darling bush. i shudder to imagine, though, what the next 4 years will bring if bush does win...

the chechens

2004-09-07T09:35:00.000+10:00

in my blog yesterday i spoke of the horrific events in southern russia over the last week as being part of the wider war on terror. while this is true, the chechen issue (which is more than likely, though not yet conclusively proved, to be behind the hostage tragedy in beslan) has quite different causes to the arab/muslim terrorist uprising, as this informative article from slate describes. the hatred by chechens for russia is quite understandable in the light of this background:

"In 1944, the Chechens, along with several other ethnic groups, were accused of having collaborated with the Nazis and deported to Siberia. Their collective guilt established by the order of Stalin, on Feb. 23, 1944, more than half a million Chechens were forcibly herded onto cattle cars and sent to Western Siberia. As many as half died en route, and uncounted others perished in the harsh Siberian winter; the exiles were literally dumped in the open snowy fields and left to fend for themselves.

"The Chechens were not allowed to return home until 1976. So by the time of perestroika, virtually all Chechen adults were people born in Siberian exile. No wonder they didn't want to live side by side with the Russians, who had mangled their lives."

the article also highlights another terrorist incident which i think is particularly pertinent to last week's events:

"In June 1995, a group of rebels emerged from what seemed at the time to be a nearly defeated Chechnya and tried to take over the small Russian town of Budyonnovsk. Dozens of armed men ended up barricading themselves in the local hospital, where the patients, including women with their newborns, became their hostages. Russian troops tried to storm the building but aborted the attack quickly. In the end, Moscow negotiated a cease-fire in Chechnya and let the terrorists get away in exchange for the hostages' release. Immediately after Budyonnovsk, Russia started peace negotiations with the Chechen rebels, making the hospital siege probably the most successful act of terrorism in history. It is also the only large-scale hostage-taking that didn't end in a storm."

there are obvious similarities with beslan, and it is very likely that those responsible for last week's actions were hoping for a similar outcome. it is still unclear how russian president putin will respond, but the indications (and historical precedent) are that it will be on the side of greater force. i certainly wouldn't like to be in his shoes, with the impossible decision between perpetuating the cycle of violence and rewarding the terrorist act by opening negotiations. as hard as this must be, though, and as heart-breaking these events have been for people of beslan, i would want even less to be in the place of the chechen people who are trapped in a lose-lose situation that only seems to get more and more desperate and hopeless.

sad and empty

2004-09-06T17:40:00.000+10:00

how can anyone feel any different today? the events in Russia over the last few days are nothing short of profoundly tragic. in many ways it feels worse than '9/11' because so many of the victims are children. if there ever was cause for a global day of mourning, this must be one...

these events have also sparked condemnation across the arab world. it may be that this will be a turning point in the so-called war on terror, but i don't hold much hope. what we sow, so shall we reap, and we in the west have pursued our own greed at the expense of all others for far too long. justice will be served, and i suspect this is just the beginning of a gigantic upheaval that will shake the foundations of the world as we know it.

"one day you'll rise
from your habitual feast,
and find yourself staring
down the throat of the beast
they call the revolution"

(from Call It Democracy by Bruce Cockburn)

god have mercy.

clean

2004-09-03T17:34:00.000+10:00

i can't remember what the context of my thoughts were at the time, but it occurred to me yesterday that gays/homosexuals are to contemporary evangelical christians as lepers were to first-century jews. by this i mean they are basically considered sinners and diseased, and are treated as outcasts, unwelcome in the community (until they are 'healed', which requires verification by the 'priest', and even then are looked upon with distrust and suspicion because its not really believed that such a 'disease' can be healed).

though i haven't done an in-depth study into it, i'm aware of the bible passages which condemn homosexual behaviour. i wonder, though, if these verses really do speak to our contemporary situation, because back when they were written they the 'category' of gay or homosexual didn't exist as we know it. from my observation, most gay people these days see themselves as exclusively homosexual, that it is not so much a behavioural decision as a reality which has been forced upon them. of course i can't be certain about this, but i don't think anyone in the ancient world who participated in homosexual acts would have thought of themselves in that way. it is more likely that these acts were done out of perversion or abuse of power, in which case it is right to condemn them. it hardly needs saying, but abuse of sexuality for reasons of perversion or abuse of power is by no means restricted to homosexual relations, and it could even be said that these kinds of abuses committed in heterosexual relations are far worse, because they usually come under the disguise of 'normality' and respectability, husbands towards wives, fathers towards daughters, bosses to vulnerable employees. if christians condemned these things anywhere near as vehemently and persistently as they condemn gays, this world would be a far far better place.

there's a beautiful moment near the beginning of the american tv miniseries angels in america in which one of the characters, who has just found out that her husband is gay, is speaking in a kind of dream sequence with another (gay) character who has just been told that he has aids. she says to him, "deep inside you, there is a part of you - your innermost part - that is entirely free of disease."

as told in matthew 8:2-3, a man with leprosy came to jesus and said, "lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean. jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "i am willing," he said. "be clean." the man was healed from the leprosy but jesus was doing something much deeper than that, pronouncing the man clean independent of his physical condition.

i think it is time for the church, as the representative of jesus in the world, to reach out our hands to the homosexual community, touch them and say, "you are clean because of what jesus has done. come and dine with us. it is not our place to keep you out."

getting passionate

2004-09-02T13:04:00.000+10:00

a guy i work with just watched the passion of the christ on dvd yesterday and was talking to me about it (he knows i have beliefs about the jesus guy, though he is skeptical even that such a person ever lived).

he said that the movie was basically two hours of torturing someone, and he ended up reading a book while it was on (while still keeping an eye on the screen). he also had questions about whether it was historically accurate, because he can't understand how someone can be tortured in that way and survive to still be crucified. i haven't seen the movie (still undecided on that front), but he said he can't imagine why a christian would want to see such an extended and relentless depiction of the torture and death of 'their hero', and for non-christians there's not enough story context given for it to make sense.

the thing that he said that struck me most, though, was about pontius pilate "giving in to the church." what the? i corrected him and told him it was the jews, the church didn't exist yet. he said, "well, it looked like church, they were wearing robes and stuff."

forgive the term, but oh my god!! how the hell did we get to this place, where 'the church' is identified by religious trappings?

it's been said before, but jesus didn't start a religion (nor did paul, contrary to popular belief). all the religious trappings are just that, non-essential frills and trimmings that have nothing to do with what jesus was on about. jesus came to show us how life was meant to be lived, and to give us the means of doing it, of living to the full. but it's just life, not an add-on which gives us more meaning or a sense of belonging. it's not something we do on top of the rest of life. it's not a club that requires membership. there are no initiation rites or entrance conditions, no rituals or ceremonies, no closed meetings for 'the chosen ones', no special language, no secret handshakes, no other paraphernalia or trimmings. it's not religion. it's just life, nothing more.

living the story

2004-08-30T13:09:00.000+10:00

i never really came through on my promise to write about the "[Almost the Whole] Bible in a Day" seminar given by mark strom a couple of months ago, but one of the things it gave me was a renewed appreciation for the unity of the bible (which was basically the aim of the seminar). the bible is not a manual for how to live, but an unfolding story which spans the history of humanity and is centred around jesus the messiah of israel. there is a progression and flow of ideas and events, carried by god's promises (eg. to noah, abraham, david, the israelites at sinai, etc.), moving from creation to fall to redemption as recreation. it is a history that moves from humanity to one nation to one man to humanity, everything leading up to and pointing towards the life, death and resurrection of jesus. this is not Plan B – it was all there from the beginning, god's plan to redeem humanity through his messiah.

one of the revolutionary things for me about this understanding of the scriptures is that it means that we, here and now in the 21st century, are part of the story. one of the major problems with the contemporary church is, i think, that we've lost any real connection with the story of redemption – it all happened so long ago and seems so remote that we don't feel a part of it in any way, though we know we benefit from what jesus did for us. this is exacerbated by the prominence given by evangelicals to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the scriptures, because it's hard to avoid the implication that everything important happened way back then, and nothing that has occurred or been written since then is as significant, including (and probably especially) our own lives. instead, we generally believe that we're in a 'waiting period' until the real story resumes when jesus returns. similarly, our lives as believers are lived as if between the two important events of our 'conversion' and our 'glorification' when we die and go to heaven, and nothing in between has any real importance (except maybe to tell others that they too can go to heaven when they die).

what happened to life now? what happened to the church as the living, incarnate body of christ in this world?

during the "[Almost the Whole] Bible in a Day" seminar, mark shared something he heard from n. t. wright (i think), an image of a drama with 5 acts, in which the first 3 acts and beginning of the 4th have been written, as well as an outline of the 5th. this is basically what we have as believers, but the point is that god has given us the task of writing the rest of the 4th act. what an idea! i think most christians would balk at such a suggestion. many would consider the thought of us being involved in writing what is in effect a continuation of the scriptures to be tantamount to blasphemy. others would find it very difficult to imagine themselves in such a significant role (as if there is any such thing as an insignificant person!). but I believe that this is exactly the situation that we are in and the task that we have before us, an enormous responsibility but also an incredible privilege. we're not members of a dead or dried-up religion, but active partakers in a living story, the story of god's redemption of humankind: the ending is sure, but we have a major part in determining how (or even if) we move towards that end in our lifetime. forgive my enthusiasm, but is that exciting or what!

i think this also gives a whole different slant on church. instead of being somewhere we go to hear and/or discuss abstract doctrine, it is where we join up all our individual stories to make up the collective story of the kingdom of god, real and living in this time and place. to tell our stories to each other is to continue the narrative of kingdom, grounding our faith in day to day life, weaving together a rich and beautiful tapestry (though we seldom catch a glimpse of its beauty we usually only see the reverse side with its confusion of colours and threads). what a difference that would be from the intellectual, irrelevant, guilt-provoking experience that most people have of church...

truth incarnate

2004-08-27T11:47:00.000+10:00

i'm really late to the party here, but i've just read paul fromont's blog on emerging truth and orthodoxy. this is some of what he wrote:

Where is truth located? For me, I’m increasingly relocating “truth” and “orthodoxy” from the solely rational sphere to the embodied and incarnational, e.g. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life – so what does that look like, feel like, taste like, smell like, and sound like in embodied realities such as church, community, and world? Truth is not abstract and solely propositional, truth in embodied in flesh and blood. The truth of what is said is seen and experienced. Don’t talk to me about “love” – show the truth of love by the reality of its being experienced by me in a very multi-sensual way. Truth then is not a matter of opinion, truth is incarnation and embodiment, truth is a particular story lived into and especially lived out of. Tell me your truth and I’ll look, taste, touch, smell, and listen. Does it make a difference?

this makes a whole lot of sense to me, at the same time as scaring me half to death. i like to keep my 'truth' cerebral and propositional, it feels safer and somehow less demanding that way. i fool myself that i can 'figure it all out' before putting it into action, but that's just empty vanity and doesn't help myself or anyone else. knowledge is useless if its not lived. truth is meaningless if its not incarnate, radiating out of one's life like a strong aroma.

i need to be reminded of this often, and i need to do something about it. i'm very aware at the moment that my rubber hasn't been hitting the road, that my life has been pretty much tasteless and lukewarm for a long time. i want to have a positive affect on those around me, but that's not going to happen by just talking the talk.

stay tuned, this journey has only just begun.

conversations

2004-08-20T12:35:00.000+10:00

a few weeks ago i was listening to a friend of mine give a sermon. as always, my mind drifted and i started thinking about why it seems so hard for believers to talk about their faith with each other. we sit 'in church', participate more or less (usually a lot less than more), most often sing about god and jesus and salvation, listen for a while to somebody talk about same, then when its all over (usually to everyone's relief, most of all the pastor/leader) we stand around drinking our cup of tea or coffee and talk about everything but god and jesus and salvation.

why is this? what makes it so hard? why does it feel so unnatural?

i've continued to think about this on and off since then, trying to come up with an answer (as is my want). i think part of the reason is the 'personalisation' of faith - we've had it drummed into us, by our surrounding culture as well as church culture, that faith is a personal thing, so we keep it inside and respect other people's similar desire to not talk about it. added to this is the elitism which seems almost an integral part of evangelical christianity - most of us haven't been trained theologically, so we don't feel competent or comfortable to talk about 'the faith'. this is perpetuated, among other things, by the focus of our gatherings being 'up the front', usually on a raised stage or dais if not a towering pulpit, where the chosen ones do their stuff, usually using language and other subtle (or not so subtle) hints which accentuate their superiour knowledge and distances them from the 'common people' in the audience. the pervasive academicism also gives the impression that talking about our faith means discoursing on theological ideas, not speaking of how jesus is real to us in our everyday lives. this highlights a further issue, probably the most pertinent (and tragic) of all: most of us don't feel that jesus or our faith really connects to our everyday lives.

mark strom has this to say in his book reframing paul: conversations in grace & community:

Evangelicals like to distance themselves from the ritual traditions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. To be sure, we are a long way from the more overt religiosity of the Graeco-Roman cults and clubs. Yet when we consider the entirely nonreligious character of Paul's ekklesiai and his struggle to keep them free from the religious mindset, we may well ask how much of that same mindset we have perpetuated. Church services are religious occasions structured around formal proceedings conducted by authorised leaders – a far cry from the spontaneity of the ekklesia and the central place it gave to conversation between all participants. Even more informal and relaxed modes of meeting, such as seeker services and 'sharing times,' remain more in the domain of entertainment or of a token nod in the direction of egalitarianism. Rarely do they accord the dignity and freedom that Paul attributed to the conversations within his ekklesiai.

How far have we drifted from the spirit of Paul? We need only consider our loss of the capacity for sustained conversation about Christ and the affairs of our everyday lives. It is no wonder so many struggle to imagine a world of rich conversation integrating faith and everyday life, a world of sustained conversation unfettered by irrelevant sermons and theological disputes, a world of sustained conversation freed from the confining agendas of the professional elites of clergy and theologians. (p. 141)

mark and his wife sue have put this into practice with cafe grace, which is the most refreshing experience of 'church' i've had in a long time, if not ever. while undoubtably mark's theological training adds significantly to the 'meat' of the discussions at cafe grace, the hallmark of the gatherings is the relevance and immediacy of the subject matter to our everyday lives. i think a large part of this is because more than anything else it is a conversation in which all are free to participate, with the topic moving fluidly as people share their perspectives and how it relates to their lives. in addition, the teaching that mark gives isn't delivered in an abstract or remote manner which highlights his academic credentials and distances his listeners, but his enthusiasm and 'realness' invite and engage those present, imparting a sense of excitement about the life of faith in jesus and its relevance to our whole lives. there's also a strong awareness throughout these gatherings of the significance of every believer and of what each one contributes to the whole.

ok, i didn't intend this to be a mark strom admiration post, but i do really respect the guy and what he does. sadly, we're going to lose him again soon, as he takes up the post of principal of the bible college of new zealand in auckland in the new year. but the cafe grace gatherings have given me an experience of what i believe church should be like, and inspiration for getting something similar started in our own area. to bring this back to the original topic, i believe that it is by moving away from the existing church structures and patterns to a conversational model which relates the gospel to everyday life and work and imparts a sense of the true equality and significance of all believers by involving everyone in the conversation that we will be able to re-integrate our lives and our faith and thereby bring the good news back to our lips as we speak to each other, in a way that is spontaneous and natural. imagine that!

atonement

2004-08-13T14:52:00.000+10:00

many thanks again to the organic church blog for the link to this great essay on the atonement.

the essay begins with a critique of the satisfaction model of atonement, which was first propounded by anselm, bishop of canterbury, in the 11th century, then further developed by luther, calvin and others until today it is the most popular understanding of the atonement in western theology. here are a few paragraphs:

Denny Weaver [in The Nonviolent Atonement, p.203] argues that "satisfaction atonement in any form depends on divinely sanctioned violence that follows from the assumption that doing justice means to punish." This not only paints a picture of God as a violent and vengeful deity, but it also shows God acting in ways that contradict the non-violent Christ of the gospel.

Moreover, it is pastorally irresponsible as it discourages resistance to violent oppression. This has been a major complaint of black theologians and feminists. Anselm’s model makes a positive virtue out of innocent suffering and passive submission to an abusive authority. It is historically true that such an approach has been used to stifle the complaints of slaves and to silence the cries of abused spouses. It has sanctioned ill-treatment of the marginalized and placed incontestable power in the hands of ungodly oppressors.

Additionally, the satisfaction model is ahistorical and consequently devoid of ethical content. It conceives of atonement as something that takes place outside of actual history. It depends on some “spiritual” (read, ‘abstract’) transaction between God the Father and the Son that removes human guilt and restores God's honour but fails to address the actual structures of oppression.

Satisfaction atonement also takes place outside the particular history of Jesus' earthly ministry. His life and teachings are somehow divorced from his death. In fact, it reduces the meaning of Jesus' life to some elongated preface – a demonstration that the lamb was spotless and apt to die in our place. It might even be said that the best thing about Jesus' life is that it came to an end!

personally, i've been dissatisfied (boom boom) with the 'satisfaction model' for a number of years. apart from the issues quoted above (and others in the essay), i think it promotes, because of it's abstractness and a-historicity, a wrong view of christian life in which, once someone 'becomes a christian', what they do for the rest of their life is basically irrelevant (except to try and persuade others to become christians as well). in other words, just as the act of atonement is basically divorced from the rest of jesus' life and ministry according to the satisfaction model, partaking in the benefits of atonement is, for all intents and purposes, divorced from the day to day life of a believer, other than providing the hope of eternal life after we die. whether or not this is stated explicitly in evangelical circles, i think the truth of it can be seen in the lives of christians, which for the most part are indistinguishable from generally moral, clean-living non-christians. of course christians aren’t supposed to be criminals, but the radical, subversive, counter-cultural kingdom lifestyle that jesus taught and demonstrated is almost impossible to find, because christians generally believe that getting to heaven is the important thing, not how we live now. if we think that when we die we'll be perfected instantly anyway, there's not a huge amount of incentive to put any effort into real personal change other than to gain some sense of personal satisfaction (there's that word again). a further outcome is that christians often develop an arrogant and superior attitude, believing they are somehow better because they’ve been ‘saved’ and expect to spend eternity in heaven, instead of being one of the condemned who will suffer for eternity.

jesus did not die to satisfy god’s requirement for blood or payment for crimes committed. any victim knows that justice is not served by punishment. punishment is the poor alternative we resort to because we cannot achieve true justice, but god is just and he is able to accomplish justice without resorting to punishment. we live with the consequences of our sins constantly, in the pain we experience, in our broken relationships, and ultimately in our death. god doesn't require any more punishment for us than this punishment we inflict on ourselves. there is no way that condemning a sinner to eternal torment satisfies any true notion of justice, or could conceivably make recompense for the wrongs that were committed. it runs completely counter to all notions of god as loving, righteous and just.

jesus was sinless and so did not have to endure pain or death, but he chose to live amongst us and experience the pain caused by the sins of others against him, and ultimately to die because of those sins. it was literally our sin that put him to death, and if you or i had been there we would have done the same. the only reason he died is because we killed him. if sin had not entered the world through adam, jesus would still have come, but it would have been a joyous, triumphant coming capped off with the crowning of the King of Kings and a reign that never ends. this is going to happen, but it’s going to be the second time round because the first time we were still lost in our sins and hell-bent on destruction.

jesus had to die because he chose to be born into the line of adam, who was condemned along with his descendents by the promise of god that if you eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil you will surely die. but god raised jesus, vindicating him as righteous, and so he became the new adam, the firstborn of the new creation. it is to this renewed, resurrected, line of humanity that we can be joined by the grace of god, who through his sheer mercy justifies us and remembers our sin no more, cancelling our identity in adam and replacing it with a new identity in christ. this is a present reality, not just a future hope, though we still live in a world ruled by sin. by living according to our new identity we actively bring the kingom of god into being here and now, bringing blessing to everyone around us, so how we live as christians is incredibly important. and we have the assurance that one day we will be resurrected into the finally and perfectly realised kingdom of jesus that will last forever.

this really is good news!

i hate cars

2004-08-12T14:36:00.000+10:00

cars are nothing but a drain of money and non-renewable resources. they are deadly weapons that are very often in the hands of the inexperienced and inadequately skilled. i can’t think of anything good about them, except maybe one might get you to hospital quicker when you’re injured.

of course, i’ve watched the odd v8 supercar race or formula one grand prix in my time, and i appreciate the aesthetic beauty of a ferrari or lamborghini. i’ve even been known to dream about owning a nissan skyline gtr. but all of that is just due to cultural conditioning.

in my ideal world, there would be no cars. as an ultimate frisbee playing friend of mine likes to quote, “two legs good, two wheels better, four wheels bad.”

the fact is, in my current circumstance, i have to drive over half an hour to and from the train station every day. yes, there is a public transport alternative, but it would make my commute impossibly long (its over 2 hours each way as it is).

i hate driving. apart from any potentially disastrous mistakes that i might make, i hate being at the mercy of other drivers. i could be a perfect driver and still be killed by another driver’s error or momentary inattention. add to that the various wild or domestic animals that often venture onto the roads, especially in the semi-rural area in which i live, especially in the early and twilight hours that i’m usually on the road. my drive to and from the train station feels like a ticking bomb, a game of russian roulette that i play day after day. i hate the thought that my life could so easily be ended or at the least dramatically changed, that i’m regularly just seconds away from missing being there with my daughter as she grows up. i know there are many ways other than by vehicle accident that it could happen, but cars are the only way i so often put myself directly in the line of fire.

i’ve got to get out of this race.

don't mention the war

2004-08-12T11:31:00.000+10:00

i've just been catching up with back to iraq, and learned about godwin's law, which states that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

i like it! lamentably, i can't claim to be the exception that proves the rule, as i succumbed to the hitler comparison with only my fourth post!

the power and the glory

2004-08-11T12:52:00.000+10:00

this is a bit of a long one, which i've been working on for a while...

i’m currently reading mark strom’s brilliant book reframing paul: conversations in grace & community. one of the many things it’s given me to think about is the subject of suffering.

a lack of suffering is, i believe, one the symptoms of the general malaise that i see afflicting the western church at the moment. this might sound strange in light of the fact that one of the most popular christian movements at the moment holds to what has been called a prosperity doctrine, a philosophy which seems to preclude any notion that suffering is to be expected for believers, but holds that it is instead quite the opposite – a sign of sin or, at best, a lack of faith (which is often seen as more or less the same thing). to my mind, this is a remarkable return to an old testament way of thinking, so it is maybe not surprising that the scripture verses used to support this doctrine are almost entirely from the old testament. while it may have been the pattern of the old covenant for the signs and proofs of god’s blessing to be the health and material prosperity of the people of god here and now, we are now living in the era of the new covenant, which is radically different – to the point of being diametrically opposite. the new covenant is a covenant of spirit, not of flesh. it is a new way of being in which we participate in the new creation in our hearts and minds (and occasionally among other believers), while living in a world still ruled by sin. the riches we now have in christ are spiritual, not material, while we wait for the new physical creation to break forth.

i’m not suggesting that the church or individual believers should go out looking to suffer (and many who do suffer, needlessly bring it on themselves by intentionally and unhelpfully provoking others), but that suffering would be a clear sign that we are following and obeying jesus, and so its apparent lack indicates to me that we aren’t. instead, christians are generally not differentiated from the rest of the population in terms of lifestyle, material wealth, privilege or opportunities. in fact, evangelical christians on average are better off than others – in sydney, for instance, the bible belt is on the north shore, which is one of the most affluent parts of the city.

its just as true for me personally. while my life isn’t a complete bed of roses (though in many ways i’m incredibly privileged, especially from a world average perspective), none of the mostly trivial hardships i go through have anything to do with the fact that i’m a believer. i’m not a cultural sheep by any means – in fact i dislike and disagree with many aspects of australian culture and way of life – but from the point of view of a casual observer, I wouldn’t be seen as substantially different from any other slightly counter-cultural-yuppie type, many of whom would have vastly different belief systems to my own. so what sets me apart?

the apostle paul believed that suffering was a natural result of having his identity in jesus, saying in 2 Cor 4:10, “We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.” mark strom takes up this theme in reframing paul:

“[The] dying and rising of Christ had become the pattern and the motivation for Paul’s continuing life. Imitating Christ meant deliberately conforming to his humiliation and exaltation. Paul extended the theme beyond himself to the new community and their mutual sharing in the sufferings and comforts of Christ” (p.96).

and again:

“The dying and rising of Christ led Paul to step down in the world in terms of personal and social prestige (Phil 3:1-11). It led him to be ridiculed, opposed and rejected” (p.97).

then further on:

“Having spoken of his relation to Christ, instead of proceeding to the customary delineation of personal honors, Paul speaks of his humiliations, disgrace and hardship, culminating in his confession of personal weakness (2 Cor 11:29). This weakness was primarily social, not psychological – the helplessness of one who had chosen little power or status, and his humiliation in the eyes of those who were honoured. These trials were the test of his work” (p.112, italics mine).

as I said, the fact that believers generally live comfortably and anonymously (unless we actively identify ourselves) alongside the rest of the population indicates to me that we are not living as jesus taught. the lives of believers should always stand out in stark contrast to the lives of those around, because we have a different identity and hold to vastly different values. as jesus said, we are to be salt and light, standing out like a city on a hill and giving flavour to the blandness of a society that lives for itself (as someone has quipped, given the choice, almost everyone will follow the crowd). living according to the identity and value system of jesus cannot fail to be a critique on the lives and values of others – as paul says, “a stench to those that are dying.” to say “i will not live by your values” will be received as criticism by those who hold to those values, provoking a reaction of defensiveness and probably counter-attack. this is how their contemporaries responded to jesus and paul, who both powerfully challenged the status quo, and if we do likewise by living according to the commands and teachings of jesus, it will without a doubt be how people today will respond to us.

the really ironic thing is that the society around us is in a mess: stress, anxiety, depression, drug use (not just of the illegal kind), high rates of suicide, domestic and social violence, environmental degradation – and that’s not an exhaustive list. everybody knows it, too – there are news reports every day about one or more of these issues, with someone spouting an opinion about society’s ills and what should be done to fix them. so to live according to the values of this society seems incredibly foolish – especially for a believer who knows has access to a far, far better way, as revealed in the bible and by god’s spirit living within.

i’d really hate for this to be taken as another guilt trip because that couldn’t be further from what i’m trying to say. the life that jesus has called us to is about freedom, love and joy, but we miss out on these things when we live according to the rules and aspirations of our society. its time to rediscover "the way, the truth and the life" that is only in jesus, and to make it a reality in our personal lives and church communities.

i’ll leave the final word to peter marshall, as quoted on p. 97 of reframing paul:

“Death has a positive power. God uses death for good, ie. uses it transformatively. God has commandeered the power of the old age for his own use and death acts upon the apostle with the contradictory effect of giving and promoting life. Dying as suffering is purposefully related to participation in life for oneself and for life in others. It retains this positive sense through the apostle’s continuous participation in dying and rising with Christ as suffering as a power which keeps him from returning to his former trust in himself. Weakness as a dying with Christ is the necessary means by which power is brought to perfection. Power and weakness or suffering are no longer polar antitheses, but are now brought together in a new relationship as a means by which Paul understands the experiences in his own life and his relationship with others and his world.” Peter Marshall, The Enigmatic Apostle – Paul and Social Change: Did Paul Seek to Change Graeco-Roman Society? (Melbourne: ITIM, 1993), pp. 22-23.

getting lessons from bush

2004-08-09T17:48:00.000+10:00

i read this report in slate today about a speech george bush gave in columbus, ohio. here's a sample:

Bush isn't a fire-and-brimstone preacher, talking about sinners in the hands of an angry God. He's a hippie priest, emphasizing the Christian message of brotherly love. I can almost hear the guitars and tambourines. He says, "I know we can change America for the better by calling on those who are change agents, those who are willing to put our arm around someone who needs love and say, 'I love you, brother. I love you, sister. What can I do to help you have a better life here in America?'"

now i know he's preaching to the republican choir, and as americans they are obviously most interested in "a better life here in America," but i get really angry when i hear life in america talked about as more important than life anywhere else, especially when the actions of the u.s. administration show a clear willingness to maintain and protect a better life in america at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of innocent people in other countries.

the report continues:

From there, Bush becomes a teacher, imparting "the lessons of September the 11th, 2001." "We'll never forget!" a man seated among the firefighters calls out. Bush's Lesson 1: "We're facing an enemy which has no heart, no compassion. And that puts them at an advantage in a way, because we're a country of heart and compassion." Lesson 2: "In order to defend the homeland, we got to be on the offense. We must deal with those people overseas, so we don't have to face them here at home." Lesson 3: "In order to be able to defend ourselves, we've got to say to people who are willing to harbor a terrorist or feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." Lesson 4: "When we see threats, we must deal with them before they fully materialize." Lesson 5 is a corollary of Lesson 4: "We saw a threat in Iraq."

again, the clear statement that the preservation of life in america is more important, that "we will kill as many people as we think necessary in other lands in order to save one or two in our blessed land." obviously more than one or two were killed on september 11 2001, but realistically the chances of being killed in 'the west' by terrorist attack is remotely small, so it strikes me as immoral in the extreme to try and justify the deaths of so many in afghanistan and iraq on the basis of a possible future attack. to be sure, be vigilant and hunt down those that might be planning such an attack, but killing many thousands of innocent men, women and children for the sake of a few is more than just misguided, its evil.

this has all been said before, but somehow we've got to change this way of thinking and it won't happen by just sitting around and hoping...

back again

2004-08-06T16:03:00.000+10:00

life's been amazingly busy the last couple of weeks, especially with a deadline at work, but hopefully its calmed down again for a while. now its the friday afternoon wind-down, i'm listening to the cool vibes of van morrison's poetic champions compose and thinking about my two gorgeous girls...

yep, we've got pictures! many thanks to my most excellent friend paul. among many other talents, he and his beautiful wife iona are great with the camera, as you can see here.

hope you all have a great weekend. i'm definitely going to enjoy mine...

too busy to blog

2004-07-27T13:48:00.000+10:00

which is why i haven't been for the last week. blame the BAS (business activity statement - an australian tax form which i have to fill in quarterly) and lots to do at work (which is actually a good thing as it increases my prospects of remaining employed). it goes without saying that i never get time to blog at home (i work on the BAS during my commute on the train, which might otherwise be blogging time).

some good things have been happening. my hand is healing well. last saturday morning i started taking freya (15 1/2 months) to a swimming class - she just LOVES the water so might turn out to be a natural, though of course she's not doing any actual swimming yet. we lost soccer 5-0 on saturday afternoon but it could have been a lot worse (they're a top 4 team and we're at the bottom of the table). and i might actually get paid this week (don't ask).

anyway, just wanted to poke my head above the ice and let you all know i haven't drowned (yet).

winter finally arrives

2004-07-19T15:04:00.000+10:00

another weekend gone. finally got some 'real' winter weather with a strong icy southerly and storm on saturday night. we didn't get any snow at our place but i'm sure they did 5 minutes up the road at Hilltop, though we didn't go up there and have a look ourselves. we heard they had 4 inches at Bowral, which is just 20 minutes away.

my personal 'event' of the weekend was putting the corner of a hatchet blade through the heel of my hand. it was late saturday afternoon, trying to get as much wood chopped as i could before cold and dark forced me inside. i was holding a pretty small piece with my left hand, intending to chop the layer of bark off with the hatchet (the bark isn't very friendly with our wood-burning stove), but got momentarily distracted and hit my hand instead. i was remarkably fortunate, really - the blade went in (and out again) the heel of my thumb parallel to my palm, managing to tread the fine line between slicing off a nice chunk of flesh on the 'shallow' side and hitting any tendons on the 'deep' side. the entrance cut was about an inch long and the exit cut about half that, with an inch or so between the two. another remarkable thing is that i didn't suffer any shock, something i've been prone to in the past. so i bound my hand up, had a bit to eat and took myself up to the hospital where i got properly bandaged up (no stitches thankfully), along with a tetanus jab. as i said, i was extremely fortunate.

on sunday morning we went to church (no, it didn't have anything to do with the previous evening's incident). it's the second time we've visited this particular group, in a town about 10 minutes drive from home. the main reason we've gone is because a couple who are good friends of ours are considering/applying for the soon-to-be-vacated pastor's job. there's a very good chance they'll get the position, and if they do we'll definitely commit ourselves to the place as well, but that might happen even if they aren't accepted.

this is a scary thought. we haven't been regular 'church' attenders for almost five years since moving to the area. frankly, i haven't missed it much, despite occasional guilt and 'encouragement' from others worried about the state of our faith. i have a host of intellectual/theological/doctrinal issues with the 'traditional' church scene (organisation & heirarchy, church building, sunday morning 'services' with the standard structure, etc, etc, etc.), and had pretty much convinced myself that it was no longer for me, that i'd find (or start) an alternative which was closer to what i believe 'church' should be.

so why the change of heart? obviously, our friends being there makes a lot of difference, as we'll start with one solid relationship already 'built-in'. the fact that it is one of the closest 'established' churches to our house is also important, as i believe very strongly that 'church' community and 'world' community (for want of a better term) should be as physically coincident as possible. i'm also aware that there are many advantages in tapping into an existing group (the old 'change the system from the inside' strategy) rather than trying to get something going ourselves - and of course the former doesn't necessarily preclude the latter anyway, and can even provide support and resources that wouldn't otherwise be available.

the clincher, though, for me at least, is the way we felt with this particular group of people. it's hard to put a finger on what it is - it's not just that they're friendly or welcoming, though they definitely are, without it feeling creepy or forced. in some ways it was quite a bizarre experience because we felt so 'at ease' yesterday, on only our second visit. they had a luncheon thing going after the meeting and we were having soup and talking to people while running around after freya, trying to feed her something and keep her out of trouble. but there was no stress involved, it just felt very relaxed and comfortable, like we'd been part of the group for a while. it was almost surreal, and had both of us doing repeated mental double-takes, thinking "is this for real?" needless to say, we were quite impressed.

so, despite misgivings, i'm pretty happy with the prospect, which is saying something in itself. of course, you won't hear me commit to anything, but at this point it looks like we'll be moving in that direction... ;^)

do unto the children

2004-07-16T13:07:00.000+10:00

i'm sickened by this story from sydney of a nine-year-old girl set alight by two teenage girls. i know that far worse things happen to kids every day, but can someone please tell me what the f**k is this world coming to?

since becoming a dad, i've been ultra-sensitive to harm done to children. about six months ago my little girl freya spilled a cup of hot tea on herself that we had carelessly left in her reach. the burns didn't end up being very bad and haven't left any scars, thanks mainly to my wife janette's 0.1 sec dash with baby to the bathroom followed by the administration of copious amounts of cold water, but the hardest thing for us was hearing her screams of agony and incomprehension (what's happening to me? why is it happening? what have i done to deserve this?) and knowing that we couldn't do anything to make the pain stop right now.

children are helpless and innocent, and they don't understand why anyone would want to harm them. in my opinion, harming a child is the worst crime on the face of the earth, and anyone who deliberately injures a child should be shot on sight, no questions asked. there can never be any excuse or justification for such an act.

this includes smoking. it should be illegal to smoke in the presence of a child or of a pregnant woman, especially in a confined space such as a house, and any pregnant woman who smokes should be locked up. i know it sounds harsh, but we know that cigarette smoke harms children, especially the unborn, so how can we continue to tolerate it and just advise people against it. its obvious that people aren't heeding the advice, so the government needs to step in to protect these helpless victims.

another thing i'm thinking about here is war. the unceasing reports of death and injury to children and their parents in iraq make me sick, especially when they're a result of coalition force action. i know its not a simple issue, but these things are the direct and foreseeable consequence of the invasion, and so its our fault as the invaders, not saddam hussein's. of course, there's a time and place for protecting the helpless and innocent from tyrants, but the invasion of iraq was never about that (except in history-rewriting hindsight). may god have mercy on george w bush, tony blair and john howard for the innocent blood on their hands, and the rest of us citizens of the 'coalition of the willing' for not doing more to stop the madness.

the world is not black and white, and no child will ever grow up free from harm of some sort, but as their elders and protectors, its our responsibility to do all we can to minimise this harm, to the best of our knowledge and ability.

show me your values

2004-07-16T09:57:00.000+10:00

thanks again to bobbie at emerging sideways for this link, which is a comment by jim wallis about a recent debate he had with jerry falwell on the subject of values:

"I happen to think that both abortion and gay marriage are important issues, but they are not the only issues. Many Christians are getting tired of the tirades of the Jerry Falwells who repeatedly claim that all values issues have to do with sex and that every Christian must vote for their Republican friends. Family values are important to many Christians, but so are social values. And many Christians are pro-family without being anti-gay the way Falwell is. And many of us believe that a deep commitment to the sacredness of human life requires a consistent ethic of life, which also regards the destruction of war, the death penalty, and the scandal of global poverty as deeply moral concerns, not just abortion."

it's maybe interesting the our revered prime minister, john howard, brought 'values' up as a major issue not too long ago, denigrating government schools (does that strike anyone else as extremely odd from the head of the government?) as providing a value-less education. of course, this attack was the old tactic of wedge-politics, with the aim of polarising the electorate and entrenching support from 'the right' for the continued draining of funds from public education.

as jim wallis said, "overcoming poverty [is] a values issue, as [is] protecting the environment, as [is] fighting unnecessary wars on false pretenses, as [is] the abuse of Iraqi prisoners." how well are your elite private schools doing in teaching these values, mr howard?

for my daughter

2004-07-15T11:58:00.000+10:00

there's a beautiful post from bobbie of emerging sideways called daddy's girl - an open letter to fathers of daughters.

i have an incredibly wonderful and gorgeous 15 month old daughter. i know my relationship to her as her father is in many ways the most important she'll ever have with another human being. i also know i'm too easily distracted and focussed on other things, such as the tv or what i want to get done. it is one of my deepest hopes and prayers that freya will feel noticed by me, that my love will be a tangible and constant reality for her, not just an abstract concept, that she will experience my interest and involvement in her life and know i am proud of her. my heart breaks when i think that she might not have this, that she won't have this as truly and deeply as she deserves.

may god never let me forget this.

the big issue

2004-07-12T10:40:00.000+10:00

after my post quoting a couple of bruce cockburn songs and briefly mentioning economic justice issues in iraq, this morning i read this excellent post on the organic church blog, which contains a lengthy excerpt from an interview with n.t. wright by the u.s. national catholic reporter.

tom wright is one of the humans i most respect in the world today, and i think what he says in this interview is spot on. so much of what we worry about in the west are first world, top of the mudheap issues, happily ignoring (or willfully ignorant of) the serious economic injustice that underpins our lifestyle, that keeps 'us' on the top and 'them' on the bottom.

i seriously believe that this is a life and death issue for the 'western church', something that must be addressed if it is to survive. its not good enough to lie back and accept the economic status quo as 'just the way things are'. god's concern for economic justice is overwhelmingly obvious throughout the bible, and jesus repeatedly said "go and sell what you own and give to the poor?" if the church, the body incarnate of jesus in this world, fails to live out this concern, it is at best just a jesus fan club, a bunch of people who admire the guy (and sing songs ad nauseum about it) but who aren't too interested in taking what he said seriously.

i often think that its too late, especially for the institutional church in 'the west', but there is always grace. if we don't treat the situation as critical, though, we'll soon choke to death on our affluence. of course, we might go on looking alive for years to come, but only because we humans are so adept at perpetuating our own man-made structures (and all structure is man-made), but no quantity of programs or pretty buildings or exciting meetings will be able to cover the stench of the corpse for long.

a bit of bruce for a friday afternoon

2004-07-09T17:00:00.000+10:00

so much of what i hear in the news these days brings to mind the songs of bruce cockburn from his 'angry' period in the 80s. he could be a prophet. that would be the most comforting explanation, in a way, because the other, more disquieting, explanation for the immediacy and applicability of his songs from 20 years ago is that history is repeating, that what he was documenting and describing then is just happening again.

take the song People See Through You. it could easily have been written about the current u.s. administration (but was actually about the government of the recently departed ronnie reagan). we can only hope that its true that 'people see through you', because it looks more and more like people just aren't watching anymore, and that would be the most frightening thing of all...

You've got covert action
Prejudice to extremes
You've got primitive cunning
And high tech means
You've got eyes everywhere
But people see through you

You've got good manipulators
Got your store of dupes
You've got the idiot clamour
Of your lobby groups
You like to play on fears
But people see through you

You've got instant communication
Instant data tabulation
You got the forces of occupation
But you don't get capitulation
Cause people see through you

You've got the sounding brass
You've got the triumph of the will
You do what you want to
And we pay the bills
You hype the need for sacrifice
But people see through you

You've got anti-matter language
Contrived to conceal
You've been lying so long
You don't know what's real
You're a figment of your own imagination
And people see through you

You've got lip service tributaries
You've got death fetish mercenaries
You hold the tickets to the cemetaries
You're big and bad and scary
But people see through you

(Copyright Bruce Cockburn 1985)

something we don't see or hear about often is the money its going to take to get iraq back on its feet. of course there is a fair bit of foreign aid flowing in at the moment, but don't think for a moment that the imf and world bank aren't sinking in their dirty claws as deep as they can go. that massive oil reserve is going to be very good for loan interest payments for years and years to come, thank you very much. but we all knew this is what 'democratising' is all about, didn't we: letting foreign banks and corporations have free rein (or is that reign?), and if they bleed the country dry, well that's just market forces.

did i say "get iraq back on its feet?" more like keep it on its knees...

Call it Democracy

Padded with power here they come
International loan sharks backed by the guns
Of market hungry military profiteers
Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared
With the blood of the poor

Who rob life of its quality
Who render rage a necessity
By turning countries into labour camps
Modern slavers in drag as champions of freedom

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament --
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called "developed" nations'
Idolatry of ideology

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy

See the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you're going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

And they call it democracy

(Copyright Bruce Cockburn 1985)

presence

2004-07-06T12:45:00.000+10:00

darren rowse has a great post on his blog called Rhythmic Mission.

first a comment on the word 'mission': i don't like it at all, because it implies that for a believer life can be compartmentalised into 'mission' and 'non-mission'. the prevalence of this kind of duality in christian thought today (and historically) just sucks, in my (not so) humble opinion. life is just life. whatever you happen to be doing, its part of life. and for believers, everything we do is part of the witness to those who don't believe, not just the bits we categorise as 'mission'. darren actually seems to be saying this in his post when he talks about connecting the daily rhythms of one's life with the daily rhythms of others, but this point is watered down unhelpfully (i think) by using the 'm' word.

the thing which twigged for me, though, in darren's post is the idea of not just being proximate to the people we meet and interact with, but being present with them.

presence requires much more than mere proximity. it involves giving of ourselves, dropping our defenses and actually meeting the other person, looking them in the eye and acknowledging our shared humanity.

i'm not very good with presence. i'm a whole lot better at absence, staying within my protected shell, keeping myself emotionally removed, observing and analysing from a safe distance. i don't connect too often or too well.

i really want to learn how to be present, if nothing else because my wife and daughter desperately need it...

back from the dead...

2004-07-05T15:23:00.000+10:00

...at least that's what it feels like, and i'm still not fully alive...

i've been doing mighty battle with the mother of all colds - ears, nose, throat, sinus, cough, head-in-a-vice agony, the whole lunchbox. even threw up once, just for good measure. its been going on since at least wednesday, with friday the worst.

back at work today, but still feeling well under the weather, nose still leaking, sinuses still congested, head still aching. i want this to be over with now, please!

then when i got in the car (20 y.o. toyota celica) to drive to the train station this morning, the clutch was gone. what a pain, and i was already running late (this already being 6:45am).

it could have been worse. i managed to get the car going in first gear out of the driveway, then going again in second gear on the road (what a car!), limped the 15kms to the nearest mechanic (things are few and far between out our way - think country not suburbia), left the car there for future attention and walked the 3kms to the nearest train station, making it a good 3 minutes before the next train was due (it was 5 minutes late), and in only another 2 1/2 hours i was at work!

here's hoping the trip home this evening is a bit better...

temporarily out of the room

2004-06-29T14:04:00.000+10:00

one of the reasons i haven't posted for a few days, apart from the weekend when its next to impossible to spend time on the computer, or the head/throat cold that i've been battling, is that i've been having an interesting dialog with ‘backyard missionary’ Andrew Hamilton on the role of ‘the church’, amongst other things.

my basic understanding is that believers in Jesus need to focus primarily on living as a loving, accepting, accountable community of the redeemed. if this is done well, i believe, others will be drawn in by the love and integrity of life that is being demonstrated.

a prime indicator of this understanding of the people of god is the old testament covenant with israel. one of the major purposes of the covenant was that the israelites would be a blessing to the whole world, but there is no explicit command (that i know of anyway) to go out proselytising among the gentiles. instead, the commandments they were given were all about how to live with each other and how to relate as a people to god. the purpose of these laws was that they would “live long and prosper in the land.” that is, if they lived in harmony with each other and the environment and cared about justice, they would do well and god would bless them abundantly.

there were also laws which appear arbitrary but i believe were all about being different, being unique among other peoples, so that they would stick out and the other peoples would notice that they were different, then notice that they were doing well (assuming the laws were being kept), and be attracted. in a way, the israelites were to be a huge advertisement or working model for how a community was to live and be successful, so that eventually the whole world would be blessed through them (one of god's original promises to abraham).

for us living under the new covenant, the law has been condensed (but not simplified) into ‘love god and love your neighbour’. the purpose is the same, to live in harmony with each other and to care about justice, so that things will go well with you and the world (however, the ‘go well’ is not a material outcome as it was under the old covenant, and so doesn’t mean that ‘bad’ things won’t happen to you). the warnings that jesus gave (remember he was talking to jews who were the ‘in’ people, the ones claiming to represent god) were to those who say they are following god's way but are not living according to the law of love, thereby misrepresenting him. so in the parable of the sheep and the goats, the goats are the ones that say, we did all these things, we followed you, blah blah blah, and jesus says depart from me, i never knew you, it doesn't matter what you say or who your dad was, what matters is that you live according to the way of justice and love. as for the uniqueness part, i think its pretty obvious that a group of people actively living by and pursuing love and justice are going to stand out like a sore thumb in this world.

of course this means different things in different contexts, and i'm not suggesting that believers never talk to non-believers and that we go off into our christian enclaves and just live for ourselves. on the contrary, the community of believers need to be “IN the world but not OF the world,” highly visible in the general community as a living example of what true community should look like in clear and radical contrast to the way the world lives.

what do you think?

emerging...

2004-06-25T09:45:00.000+10:00

haven't posted for a few days because i've been struggling with this one, trying to 'get it right' and express my thoughts clearly, so here goes...

while i've heard in the past about alt.church (alternative church) and similar ideas, i've only become aware in the last couple of weeks of the phenomenon/movement called 'emerging church'. have a look here and here for a bit more info, or read a few blogs such as living room or the lingering lemon of death (and follow more links on those pages).

my first impression was that a lot of what is called 'emerging church' seems to be about dressing evangelicalism up in post-modern garb: changing the location of 'gatherings' away from traditional buildings and changing the setup and structure of the gatherings by, among other things, incorporating alternative 'worship' forms and/or input from different branches of the arts, all in the hope of making these gatherings more relaxed and/or accessible to a certain demographic (eg. skateboarders), or to the non-churched in general. in other words, along the lines of what paul the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 9:22 - "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

this is all good and admirable, and many excellent things are being done in this regard by people who are sincerely and honestly seeking god's will in bringing the gospel to those who haven't heard about jesus or are/have been alienated by traditional church. i don't want to denigrate those ministries in any way, but if this is all that what is being called 'emerging church' is about, i wouldn't, as a de-churched person and therefore nominally at least in the 'target demographic', feel particularly excited or drawn to the concept - it would still leave me feeling dissatisfied and wanting more...

i know a lot of this is just my personal response, coming from a reasonably traditional church background, but i feel like a bigger and more significant change is needed, that most if not all accepted evangelical doctrine needs to be re-visited, re-thought, renewed. i believe we need to find a post-evangelicalism, not post-modern evangelicalism. i'm not saying that we should abandon our heritage or discard the many gains and advances that have been made by the evangelical 'movement', but i think that by and large its done its job and run its course, at least for the contemporary 'western' world, and now its time to move on. we need to build on the foundation that evangelicalism has given us, especially the emphasis on the bible as the primary revelation of jesus, and create something new and wonderful for this new millenium.

actually, in some sense i think we need to move backwards - from Paul back to Jesus, from the epistles back to the gospels. maybe i'm wrong on this, but the way i see a lot of what Paul was trying to do, especially in his writings, was to give a consistent moral/ethical framework to christianity in relation to his contemporary milieu. it took a while to take hold, but modern democratic society is arguably based on christian, or more accurately pauline, principles. mark strom commented during the "[Almost the whole] Bible in a Day" seminar last Saturday that the creed "there is now neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, slave or free" described paul's program of social change, and went on to say that he thought paul was mostly successful in the first, but less so in the second and third - we know that the slave/free issue in western society at least was not finally dealt with until early last century, and the male/female issue more recently still, with the church if anything lagging the furthest behind.

to continue what i see as our evangelical fixation on paul, then, is, i believe, somewhat akin to flogging a dead horse. its not new or revolutionary anymore, as it most definitely was when paul was elucidating it. as far as I can see, post-modern society has gone past it, its now a case of ‘been there and done that’, and now something new and equally revolutionary is desperately needed. i’m convinced that the gospel is radically counter-cultural, whatever culture (and age) you choose to name, but in today’s western society the church is so deeply entwined with culture and identified with contemporary values that it is either invisible or completely irrelevant, or both. and the people know it, so nobody bothers ‘going to church’ anymore (its just another club, a mostly superficial one at that, and its more fun to choose the people i hang out with because at least they don't pretend as much), and christians are viewed as wackos who believe in fairy tales, otherwordly, head-in-the-clouds, not-in-touch-with-reality irrelevancies, hypocrites or some combination of the above. the only christians that are respected by society in general are the ones seen to be practicing what they preach in a tangible way, which almost always involves helping the poor and disadvantaged in some way.

so i believe a new revolution is needed, maybe even a new reformation. its great to see that some elements at least within emerging church are talking about emerging theology/doctrine, such as here and here, and also to see that there are a number of books addressing these kinds of issues, for example Christi-Anarchy by Dave Andrews, Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community by Mark Strom and The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is by N. T. Wright, among a number of others.

of course i have some ideas about what this renewed faith might look like, but this post is long enough already, so i'll just list a few of the topics i think need to be covered:

- the person and work of jesus the messiah
- the meaning, significance and practical outworking of grace
- the nature of sin and what god has done/is doing about it
- the understanding of the after-life (and how is significant it is)
- the nature and role of the church
- the future of the human race on this planet

obviously not too much there...

i'm aware that there's a very good chance that, as we travel this journey, what we'll find is more familiar than unfamiliar. if so, well and good, but i'm convinced that there is immense benefit in travelling the path nonetheless.

advertising jesus

2004-06-21T10:41:00.000+10:00

"Follow JESUS" was being written in the sky over sydney as i arrived at work this morning...

who does this sort of thing?

more importantly, why?? i can't think of any positive effect that it can have, except to give a few christians a bit of an ego boost on a monday morning. to most christians its just an embarrassment, and to everyone else its basically meaningless, if not another reason to ridicule those not-in-touch-with-reality bible-bashers.

is writing "Jesus" in the sky glorifying to him? does he see it and think, 'hey, wow, my name is up in smoke over sydney today, isn't that great?'

i very seriously doubt it.

what is glorifying to jesus is for the people who claim to follow him (and you have to be 'in the know' of the lingo to know what the hell that means anyway) actually DOING WHAT HE SAID.

any other form of advertising - writing words in the sky, putting up supposedly clever, catchy phrases on church posterboards, to name just a couple - are just, in my opinion, futile, mis-guided, desperate ploys to cover up the failure of the church to do its job, trying to lure people in while hoping they don't notice that its all a facade, an empty shell, maybe even a white-washed tomb.

what was the advertising campaign that jesus recommended? love one another. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:35

simple. incredibly effective. doesn't cost much (other than everything you have).

tgif

2004-06-18T16:38:00.000+10:00

not much to say today. freya cried for close to 2 hours straight last night (from about 12:30am on), and i'm not talking quiet whimpering - for long stretches it was full-blown near-hysterical 'my world is ending' top of the lungs yelling. so we're a bit tired today...

tomorrow i'm going to a workshop with Mark Strom titled "[Almost the Whole] Bible in a Day". Mark is the author of The Symphony of Scripture (originally published as Days Are Coming), and Reframing Paul. Mark and Sue also open up their house monthly for Cafe Grace, which we try to get to when we can.

i hope to post my reflections from the workshop next week.

churchless faith

2004-06-17T13:51:00.000+10:00

just read A Churchless Faith by kiwi Alan Jamieson, which i linked to from the lingering lemon of death blog.

the article fits me because i am ex-churched (de-churched?), having being brought up church-going (most often willingly!) but not attending for the last 4 years since moving to a new area.

i'd locate myself in the 'transitional explorers' category at the moment, but i'd like to think i'm well on the way towards becoming an 'integrated way-finder.'

disturbing echoes

2004-06-17T09:34:00.000+10:00

watched part of a documentary on dietrich bonhoeffer yesterday (taped off the abc's compass a couple of weeks ago), which has provided much food for thought. i'll comment on the 'christian' side of things in a later post, but the political/historical aspect (ie. the rise of hitler) was also eye-opening. here are some quotes:

"Hitler often spoke about the Almighty, and the Almighty was behind the scenery of the destiny of the German people. so this was a completely ideological God who justified the own estimations and expectations of the people who justified the exclusion of others, justified the superiority of the German people." - Bishop Wolfgang Huber

"Lord...now bless our struggle, our liberty, and with that our German people and our Fatherland." - from speech by Hitler

"Hitler promised the removal of all democratic ways of thought, not a republic but a 'leader state,' a continuation of the monarchy, with the leadership of Adolph Hitler, blessed by God."

then this morning i read the following in a slate article titled david brooks - why liberals are turning on their favourite conservative:

"In 1997, Brooks wrote an influential manifesto for the Weekly Standard, "A Return to National Greatness." Brooks claimed the United States was losing the sense of grand national mission that built the Panama Canal, conquered the West, won the Cold War, built the interstates, and walked on the moon. America needed to reanimate itself with a cause, and the federal government needed to "convey a spirit of confidence and vigor that can then spill across the life of the nation." It didn't really matter what the cause was—maybe colonizing Mars—but it had to be something...

National Greatness became a powerful idea in the Republican Party's Teddy Roosevelt wing, and when Sept. 11 occurred, National Greatness found its cause: rooting out terror, bringing democracy to the Middle East. Brooks and his Weekly Standard colleagues called for war in Iraq, and Brooks preached about the noble benefits of democratizing the Arab world."

i know i'm not the first to say this, but there do seem to be disturbing similarities between the current u.s. administration's ambitions to restore america's 'national greatness' and hitler's campaign to restore the standing and pride of the german people during the 1930s.

hitler believed he was anointed by god and that god blessed his "struggle" for liberty, and proceeded to attempt to 'liberate' (through invasion and subjugation) europe and beyond. george w. bush believes he is on a mission from god, and speaks about the american people's struggle to bring 'liberty and democracy', apparently by invasion and subjugation, to the rest of the world.

hitler had a vision for the Third Reich. the neo-conservatives in the u.s. republican party have The Project for the New American Century. it isn't hard to believe, in line with one of the above quotes, that the american neo-cons want "not a republic but a 'leader state,' ... with the leadership of [George Bush], blessed by God."

according to the bonhoeffer documentary, "hitler promised the removal of all democratic ways of thought." while george bush speaks incessantly of democracy, the u.s. patriot act and the suppression through intimidation of 'unpatriotic' speech in whatever form, show up his true anti-democratic agenda.

no surprises that the 'new jews' are muslims, who are blamed as the cause of america's ills: the reason that the u.s. is in a constant state of fear, with all the emotional and social dis-hesion that entails; the reason for the mind-blowing size of the u.s. budget deficit, with all the long-term economic and social implications; the reason for the economic recession post september 11 which resulted in many thousands losing their jobs and/or life savings; the reason for the high price of oil which, apart from the economic impact, is supposedly putting a huge dent in the summer holiday plans of many americans.

now, before you write me off as a crackpot conspiracy theorist, i'm well aware that there are a host of differences between the rise of hitler and the current u.s. administration, and i'm definitely not saying or even trying to imply that america is about to embark on a program to wipe out muslims from the face of the earth.

having said that, few could have predicted during hitler's early years as german chancellor that he would attempt the extermination of the jews in europe. hitler himself would have vehemently and (i believe) honestly denied it at the time (early 1930s), but he came to blame the jews for all the ills of the german people, and, due i think to an unstable personality and the corruption of power, his anti-judaism became more and more extreme until it made perfect sense in his mind that all jews needed to be eliminated. this does not in any way justify hitler's actions, but is just to say that the road leading to the Holocaust was not a short one but a step by step progression over a number of years.

i know its been said many times, but the point is, to forget history is to repeat it, and to remain 'blissfully' unaware or, worse, unconcerned that we might be going down a certain path is to be complicit in the destination that is reached. at the risk of sounding preachy (anathema in a blog?), we can't just sit back on our couches with our x-boxes and say it will never happen. every one of us is constantly involved in creating the community and world we live in, and it won't be a community or world we can be proud of unless we take purposeful and active steps to make it that way.

flabbergasted

2004-06-16T12:13:00.000+10:00

really surprised to check in today and find 3 comments! thanks to hamo, suzy and jtm for taking the time to welcome me.

today i'm on home duties, taking care of our gorgeous 14 month old daughter while Janette (my darling wife) is at work. i was hoping i could check up on blogdom while Freya had her morning nap, but some chores got in the way, then the phone rang and woke her, so i'm typing this while attempting to keep the little girl from going completely postal. so far not doing so well on that latter front so this will have to be short.

i was going to put some personal details in my profile but blogspot had some maintenance issues yesterday and weren't allowing profile editing. so (in answer to hamo), i'm not the 'mandurah dave' - the 'obscure corner of australia i refer to is balmoral village, a tiny 'hamlet' in an area of nsw (that's in australia for any non-aussies out there) called the southern highlands, which is really neither southern or highlands (even for australia), but is both compared to sydney, which is what counts in these parts.

i already mentioned that i'm married to janette (almost 11 years at time of posting) and we have a beautiful daughter who is, without exaggeration, the delight of our lives.

better go and give this girl some lunch. talk to you soon...

on worship

2004-06-15T14:37:00.000+10:00

this is one of those 'what really pisses me off' posts...

i absolutely detest the way the word 'worship' so used (more accurately, abused) in christian (protestant/evangelical) circles these days. worship is not what you 'go to church' to do. worship is what you do with your whole life. repeat, your whole life. you might sing songs on a sunday with some other people, but that is not worship, so don't call it that. please.

blog's beginning

2004-06-11T16:55:00.000+10:00

Greetings all...

The name for this blog comes from the song Don't Forget About Delight by Bruce Cockburn. By the way, that's pronounced Co-burn, not the other way.

Other names on the shortlist were 'Kick at the Darkness', from the Cockburn song Lovers in a Dangerous Time (also quoted by U2 in their song God Pt II): describes what I want my life to be about, but sounds a little violent for a blog; 'Water into Wine', the title of my favourite Cockburn instrumental: nice but maybe carries a little too much hubris (implying a divine inspiration for my words); a bunch of others from various other Cockburn songs: No Footprints, Light Falling All Around, Never So Free, Life Will Open, ...

But I chose 'afoot and empty-handed' because it describes how I feel as a poor, earth-bound human being, a blind man among the blind, struggling to make sense of it all while at the same time trying to keep a sense of wonder and delight at the mystery that we're all a part of and the breathtaking story that is unfolding.

"If we can sing with the wind song
Chant with thunder
Play upon the lightning
Melodies of wonder
Into wonder life will open"
- Bruce Cockburn, Life Will Open (from Sunwheel Dance, 1971).

Since this seems to have morphed into a Cockburn post, I'll finish off with a quote by Bruce from a recent interview in The Sun:

"For me the essential point of life is the fact that we are spiritual beings and that there is a divine in which we should be connected - in fact, are connected, but its up to us to recognize that connection and pay attention to it. Everything else we do has value based on its relationship to that central point."

Couldn't have put it better myself...