Happy Invasion Day

or Happy Australia Day, depending on how you like to see history.
yes, that's right, 220 years of colonisation of this great nation.

to commemorate the occasion, one of my favourite presenters on local ABC, Richard Glover, wrote this celebratory piece in yesterday's Herald.

here are my favourite pickings:

You know you're Australian if …

1. You believe that stubbies can be either drunk or worn.
   
2. You think it's normal to have a leader called Kevin.
   
3. You waddle when you walk due to the 53 expired petrol discount vouchers stuffed in your wallet or purse.
   
4. You've made a bong out of your garden hose rather than use it for something illegal such as watering the garden.
   
5. You believe it is appropriate to put a rubber in your son's pencil case when he first attends school.
   
6. When you hear that an American "roots for his team" you wonder how often and with whom.
   
7. You understand that the phrase "a group of women wearing black thongs" refers to footwear and may be less alluring than it sounds.
   
8. You can translate: "Dazza and Shazza played Acca Dacca on the way to Maccas."
   
9. You believe it makes perfect sense for a nation to decorate its highways with large fibreglass bananas, prawns and sheep.
   
10. You call your best friend "a total bastard" but someone you really, truly despise is just "a bit of a bastard".
    
11. You're secretly proud of our killer wildlife.
    
12. You believe it makes sense for a country to have a $1 coin that's twice as big as its $2 coin.
    
13. You understand that "Wagga Wagga" can be abbreviated to "Wagga" but "Woy Woy" can't be called "Woy".
    
14. You know that certain words must, by law, be shouted out during any rendition of the Angels' song Am I Ever Gonna See Your Face Again.
    
15. You believe, as an article of faith, that every important discovery in the world was made by an Australian but then sold off to the Yanks for a pittance.
    
16. You believe that the more you shorten someone's name the more you like them.
    
17. You understand that "you" has a plural and that it's "youse".
    
18. You know it's not summer until the steering wheel is too hot to handle.
    
19. You still think of Kylie (Minogue) as "that girl off Neighbours".
    
20. When returning home from overseas, you expect to be brutally strip-searched by Customs - just in case you're trying to sneak in fruit.
    
21. You believe the phrase "smart casual" refers to a pair of black tracky-daks, suitably laundered.
    
22. You understand that all train timetables are works of fiction.
    
23. When working on a bar, you understand male customers will feel the need to offer an excuse whenever they order low-alcohol beer.
    
24. You get choked up with emotion by the first verse of the national anthem and then have trouble remembering the second.
    

Happy Australia Day.

the science of religiosity

a colleague alerted me to this article from ninemsn, entitled Trendy spiritualism 'breeds unhappiness'.
this backs up Arthur C Clarke's thoughts that i mentioned several months ago here, that it may be "better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is best of all to be sane and happy."

however it is interesting to see the afore-mentioned article taking this thinking on.
although the tack it takes is slightly different, saying not simply that it is better to be un-sane (ie religious), but that it is better to follow a "real" religion, ie not a made-up one.

how many times do you talk to someone who says, "i don't like to think of God like that - for me, he's more like this..."

but not just saying that this is irrational, the article wants to talk about religious belief from a health point-of-view.
indeed, the article says, reporting on a Queensland* study,

Young men who held non-traditional religious views were at twice the risk of being more anxious and depressed than those with traditional beliefs.

the author of the study goes on to say that,

"This study suggests that new forms of religiosity demand further research attention to understand the extent that religious change is linked to population mental health and social behaviour among younger generations."

now i don't want to string too long a bow here, but does Romans 1:18-32 have anything to add to this research? perhaps not, but it's definitely a thought-provoking article.

* the north-eastern-most state of Australia

to forgive is human, grace divine.

last week was the 2nd in our now annual summer series (well the 2nd of something makes it annual, does it not?), entitled the untouchables (check out wildstreet.org.au for further details); the topic this time was domestic abuse.

in thinking about what the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ has to say on the topic, you would assume forgiveness would be one of the main things.
indeed, the gospel allows the victim of such a heinous thing as domestic abuse to offer forgiveness to their abuser.

however, the definition of forgiveness given in the talk was that for full forgiveness to be given, there needs to be repentance from the abuser: they need to recognise their evil, admitting their culpability; their repentance recognising any forgiveness they receive would be completely undeserved.

when pressed on this, the idea was that forgiveness is a motion towards reconciliation. further to this, the normal context of forgiveness in the Bible is in that of seeking reconciliation.


which of course brings us to grace.
grace, Biblically, is the idea that forgiveness and reconciliation are given, not because we deserve it, but in spite of ourselves, in spite of our unrepentant sinful hearts.
as Ephesians 2:8-9 so well puts it,

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

indeed, a helpful book put out by matthias media, Forgiving Hitler explains, understanding that grace from God through Christ means we are able to give up our need for vengeance, to give up the requirement for the injurious party to seek forgiveness.


but still, after discussion, and in the case of domestic abuse, it was clear that without repentance there can still be only a partial forgiveness. the abused can never feel safe and secure in the presence of the abuser, the abuser in remaining unrepentant, only multiplies their gross sinfulness.


my question remained, "but can we not forgive with grace - not requiring their repentance?"

but that, it seems, is for God alone.
what in this case is impossible for man, ie forgiving and reconciling despite the enormity of the sinner's actions, is possibly - nay, is done, in Christ.

and for this we can give great thanks.

if you would like to do some more thinking on forgiveness, i can recommend byron's short series on forgiveness (1st post)

Manga Bible!

this article this morning was a nice wake-me-up.


some comments are always a little disturbing, tho, with this:

"You stay in the culture and we'll come to you."

being one corker.

you can get this bible in the full text version, or just the pictures (i guess at the same level as the brick testament


it was also especially nice to hear mention in the secular media of the Kriol Baibul, a bible published in May of last year (i think) in a language spoken by around 30,000 indigenous Australians in the top end.
in the afore-mentioned article, there's quite an aside about this

i pray this article indeed does great things, not that all will necessarily want to read the manga version (or the Kriol version either), but i pray that people will think anew about what importance this book holds, that it can be read in any language ever spoken, without changing the meaning, without affecting its inspiration, or truthfulness.


of course, there is more work to be done, for whilst you can now read the manga, kriol, and even klingon translations, there are still vast numbers of people without a translation, and even more without access to a bible.

we need to keep praying for people and working towards this, that all may know of our God's messiah, that all may have life in his name.

darjeeling ltd.

not much to report from my break
sydney work, canberra christmas, sydney new year, sydney work, move out, house-sit.

i did watch a movie with my friend robin and my cousin michelle, the new wes anderson film, darjeeling limited, which i greatly enjoyed


i think the thing i like about his films is the way they grow on you. you're along for the ride, and you just take what comes.
his other films,

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Rushmore (1998)

Bottle Rocket (1996)
at once are not, yet are, road movies, but they all feel like they are.

the thing i find with road movies is that you expect them to change. which they do - except they don't. the characters have these epiphanies, these experiences, which is great. but they're all external. they all happen to you.
what therefore depresses me is that we expect them to be different, we want to believe people can be changed by what happens to them, by putting yourself in a position where things can happen that will affect some change in you.
but as a rule, people are who they are, and any change is a rarity.
we may learn to adapt differently, but that doesn't mean we stop some of the more negative things that just keep happening to us.

so i still long for that life changing road-trip, i feel it's almost hard-wired into me. yet, still being a strong believer in a sovereign God, i need to keep reminding myself that the only thing that can truly affect lasting life change is a renewal in the Spirit.

how's YOUR ethics?

h/t to byron for this ethics test

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
   
2. Spinoza (78%)
   
3. Aristotle (70%)
   
4. Aquinas (68%)
   
5. David Hume (65%)
   
6. Jeremy Bentham (59%)
   
7. Nietzsche (58%)
   
8. Ayn Rand (57%)
   
9. Kant (56%)
   
10. Nel Noddings (55%)
    
11. Stoics (54%)
    
12. St. Augustine (51%)
    
13. Thomas Hobbes (46%)
    
14. John Stuart Mill (45%)
    
15. Plato (41%)
    
16. Epicureans (38%)
    
17. Ockham (34%)
    
18. Prescriptivism (34%)
    
19. Cynics (25%)

i think this means that if Sartre were a girl, we'd hook up, and Augustine and I would have had a love-hate relationship. which is probably true (the latter one - i haven't even seen a photo of Sartre, although i plan to read his Dramaten when i find a spare minute)

Terminator Messiah

A few weeks ago i did a thing on Christ-figures in films. Some are more obvious than others, but things to look out for are sacrifice, taking the punishment others deserve, healing, having the initials J.C.; having a beard even seems to cut it in some films.

But for my thing on Heroes on Film, i thought i'd do the Christ-figures in the Terminator films.

firstly, a brief synopsis of the three films (at this time i hadn't seen T3, which filled in a lot of gaps):

• T1 T800 sent to kill Sarah Connor
  Kyle Reese to protect her because of the child she would bear.
  He would be the messiah of the Humans against the machines
  He ends up fathering a son, called John Connors
  Don’t miss the JC initials
  
• T2 T800 now the Cyborg Messiah,
  sent to protect the Human Messiah from the T1000
  
• T3 JC now the messiah he was predestined to be

These films deal with Ontological Paradoxes, that is,
An ontological paradox is a paradox of time travel that questions the existence and creation of information and objects that travel in time. It is very closely related to the predestination paradox and usually occurs at the same time. (definition from wikipedia)

c/f The End of Eternity by Isaac Asimov, written way back in 1954 - an amazing read if you can get a hold of it (mine's in a box at my parent's place in Canberra if you want to grab it)


“Critic Richard Corliss has...pointed out that the story parallels that of the New Testament, with a soldier from another world (the archangel Gabriel) visiting a woman (the Virgin Mary) to announce that she is to be mother to a messiah (John Connor has the same initials as Jesus Christ). She flees with him into the desert, where an angel of death becomes a protector/father.”

From Holy Aliens to Cyborg Saviours: Biblical Subtexts in Four Science Fiction Films, Anton Karl Kozlovic

In T2 that is.
The Cyborg Messiah takes over from the Human Messiah, taking the fore-front, and the many Christ-references.
with his wounds in his side, his Bullet Holes that Sarah needs, like Thomas in John 21, to check for herself.
The Terminator is killed by the T1000, but is resurrected, and then redeems humankind.

I guess, tho I haven’t [hadn't - ed.] seen it, that T3 is the next step, where the messiah (human John Connor, JC) takes control, on, of course, Judgement day, where he returns in power to rid the earth of evil once and for all.

For those interested, there is a fourth in the tubes, called Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins, in an odd tribute to science fiction history (in the End of Eternity), although in all probability this has more to do with the predominant US millenialist theology.

Each generation gets the cinema they deserve.


addendum - coming to Australian television screens is Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles, which may or may not be any good. it's a nice idea, despite her dying inbetween the 2nd and 3rd movies, unless they give some explanation, like she had to hide herself so no terminator would be able to use her to track John. i dunno.

now for some Christmas silliness - watch this, v.v. funny h/t to locusts and honey

A Clear and Present Word Part II

The second point of Mark Thompson’s observations on the clarity of scripture is;

2/ Christian Theology is unavoidably Trinitarian.

Again, using Peter Adam’s catchphrase, “God’s Words, to his people, by his Spirit, about his Son,” we see that even the most base study of the scriptures requires the foundation stone of Christian Theology is Theos, God – whom we know as he has revealed himself to us – that is, father, spirit, son.

Although questions and debates have come up over time (most importantly with Athanasius’ debates with Arius, and even on this very blog (here!)), the consistent revelation of God, that has shaped and by definition must continue to shape Christian Theology, is at once the unity and distinct personae of the Godhead.

Therefore, when discussing God, when ‘doing theology’, we must deal with him on his terms. It therefore ceases to be Christian Theology when we cease to engage with his special revelation to mankind as it is.

I guess it goes without saying, but the new and captivating debates in what one might even call “secular theology”, seem to revolve around a re-discovery of God, a new reading of Jesus, “the God the Church never wanted you to find”, or similar rot.

It gives people what their itching ears want to hear, but unfortunately a god that is not the God of the Bible, is not the God who gives life, by his Son, as revealed to his people, by his Spirit.

mere informality

seeing as i just received a new hit on my post from way back when on the informal church i thought it was noteworthy to mention;
a german friend, when asked to compare the evangelical churches in germany with the australian ones, was struck by the informality here.
he said that although he in some ways expected australian churches to be informal, for them to be so informal was a real shock.

the quest remains then to retain the helpful, the welcoming, the revering, liturgy; and to remain free from the stilted, the unhelpful, the deterring, the unthinking formulaity that has so plagued us.

i might have to well to discuss with this friend about the reasons for their formality, versus our informality - though of course informality is rarely the true case (song, welcome, announcements, bible, song, supper - sound familiar?), non-liturgical being probably more accurate.

a moment of lapsidaisy

why can i not find the word lapsidaisical in any dictionary, online or otherwise???

what's with this place?

A Clear and Present Word Part I

Reflections, in light of the five key points from Mark Thompson’s new book (A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture), as well as Peter Adam’s talks at this year’s National Training Event (NTE), all about Receiving God’s Word, Written for his People, by his Spirit, about his Son (check out this, or a shorter version here on youtube for the mnemonic).


Christian theology, at its most basic, is talk about God.

One of the things I struggle with, thinking about writing “theologically”, is what it means to do so.
Questions I have, for example, are “Can a Christian book be untheological?” as well as “how far from the central themes of the Bible do you have to stray before you cease to be theological?”
The second question in particular interests me, mainly because I’m easily sidetracked. For example, using your Strong’s concordance, you could trace every occurance of the word Hittite, and then work out what role the Hittites played in Biblical history, what they got up to, whether there were Hittites who converted to the God of Israel, and so on.
And I would probably find it quite interesting.

But at the end of the day, such talk is probably along the lines of what we are warned about in 1 Timothy 1:4, that is, it is fruitless, idle speculation, and of little, if any consequence theologically. Of course, historians, sociologists etc may be fascinated by this.

Christian Theology, however, is most interested in God. What this word study of the Hittites may teach us of God, I can only imagine. But if that is not the aim, then the searching of, and reflecting upon the scriptures is completely missing the point.

I guess there could then be things we think may tell us things about God, that, midway through the process, we need to actually jettison as unfruitful.

I therefore feel very sorry (and very soon probably empathy) for those doing 4th yr theses, as I fear they may have no choice in the matter...

The Golden Compass (some thoughts)

The vitriol surrounding the next installment in the atheistic euangellion (after Dawkins’ books, his series, not to mention Hitchens and Onfray), the Golden Compass, is surely the sweetest thing to hit the producers’ ears since Nicole Kidman signed on to star in the project.

This is the movie version of Philip Pullman’s novel Northern Lights, part of the Dark Materials trilogy.
In the Sydney Morning Herald’s Spectrum from the 1st of December (I’ve been a little busy!), Pullman is quoted as saying, ”My story resolved itself into an account of the necessity of growing up and a refusal to lament the loss of innocence.”

That is, he pictures a world, which, when considered from a Religious point-of-view, is full of naughty people, who have discovered how much fun life is, with the church chasing them around and telling them to stop it. He traces this back, as I take it from his comments, to Adam and Eve in Eden listening to the serpent, who actually knew that God was a big kill-joy.

However, respectfully, I think he may be a little skew-if.
Eating of the tree of knowledge gave us not the choice of knowledge as against innocence, but the choice of doing bad as against good, i.e. what we were able to do with our knowledge.

For God isn’t against pleasure, against life. In fact, we are told “taste, and see that the LORD is good.” (Psalm 34:8)

God wants us to use our knowledge for good.

An obvious example is what we do with radioactivity – we can use it for medicine, to save lives, or alternatively we can bomb the heck out of one another, or at least threaten to, and in the process assemble enough weaponry to destroy the world many times over.


Perhaps Pullman has been hanging out with the Amish?

I say this because it’s logically implausible for the many Christian scientists, authors, futurists to not be condemned as stepping out of the orthodoxy of Ludditism.


I worry Pullman read until the third page of the Bible and never kept going, never saw the problem, the outworking of original sin.
And if that’s the case, then he obviously is unaware of God’s solution to the problem of mankind’s rebellion against him.


So sure, see the film – it sounds sort of interesting – but please know that the paper-doll this film sets up to assasinate, bears no relationship to the God of Wonders who created the universe, sustaining it by his word, and who is worthy of all glory, honour and praise.

noone thinks big of me?

i've been thinking a bit about this ad, especially with all the wet weather we've been having the last few weeks.
(check out the other RTA ads here)

now, these ads are quite clever, and i even heard of a man suing for sexual harassment after getting "the pinkie" (whether or not he was speeding or exhibiting similar hoon-esque behaviour i'm unsure).

i may be in the minority, but when i think getting sideways, doheys, fishtailing, i'm not thinking voyeurism.
rather, it's a little bit of fun, to slip and slide, knowing you're in charge of a vehicle, that you're throwing about like a BMX, but you don't have to pedal really hard, rather just hit the gas.

i realise this is un-pc, and i in no way advocate this type of behaviour in any place where you may put others in danger, or even scare people.
i'm just saying the insinuation that the only reason one might ever feel the urge to behave such is 1/ because they're insecure with their man-hood, and 2/ that they do it to show off, tho perhaps the case in individuals, not the only possible explanation.

religion and politics (with a back-at-ya twist!)

the ruddite's switch over the election campaign, from christian socialist to economic conservative, seems to say a lot about the state of conservative politics and its relationship to religious belief.

it is therefore with interest that i notice one of the republican front-runners in the US presidential race is a devout mormon.

but the headline for the linked news story says, Mormons won't run my White House, that is, he will leave his religion at the door.

i remember what i considered an outrageous comment from Amanda Vanstone, calling on all politicians to essentially do the same. (see this article, for example)


so how should we feel about one the world's self-appointed sheriff potentially being led by a devout adherent to what has in many places been rightfully given "cult" status?

about as uneasy as with their current president and his self-declared God-given right to wage war as he wills?

perhaps controversially, i would like those in politics to not necessarily wear their religion on their sleeve, but still to be genuine about what they believe, and the way it impacts their decisions.
where their religion causes them to care for the disadvantaged, reach out to the needy, i wouldn't mind knowing about it.

it's far better than finding out that it really only matters when the election looms nearer.

h/t to my dad!

smiting or giving over?

we had a talk tonight at Wild Street, entitled "Hotter than Hell - God and Global Warming", which drew upon Genesis 1:26-31, for our mandate to care for creation, as well as 2 Peter 3, reminding us of the Christian expectation, and the way we are to live in the meanwhilst.

my question, particularly regarding global warming, is whether this is a smiting-thing, or a giving-over-thing?

Romans 2:18-32 has the logic of God letting us go, when it comes to sinfulness. that is, he says, "if that's the way you want to live, go for it. see what life looks like without me," the result being death and destruction.

there is of course the examples of God striking down sinful individuals, couples, cities and even the world, which isn't a direct cause-and-effect thing, but a punishment.

so what is global warming? simply the result of our sinfulness? or is there also an element of God smiting us because of our failure to care for his creation?