slaves and free

reading through Colossians, and thinking about the up-coming 1 Peter series, i got to thinking:
the Apostles Paul and Peter both address slaves and teach the subversive message of Christ; that this world is passing away, along with its distinctions of slave and free.
at no point do they encourage dissent against human authorities, so long as this does not contravene their master who is in heaven.
how did william wilberforce*, and how do we, justify the abolition of slavery?

* a late 18th/early 19th century (Christian) leader of the campaign to abolish slavery

one-stop shop?

listening to sunday night safran on the 10th of september, right at the very end of the show they started discussing the paradigm boundaries that should exist.
the example they discussed was in a doctor's surgery you expect traditional western medicine. if you wanted crystals or reiki, there'd be more appropriate places to go.
in the same way, a church should be clear about what their business is. if they are about preaching the word, then they should preach the word. if they are about support groups - surely AA or GA or wherever else, may be more appropriate.
the boundaries around the world are becoming more and more blurred - do we really want to be a one-stop AA-Bible-Cafe-sporting club?
maybe we do...
i'd appreciate your thoughts - do we need to be more careful about our role, but more particularly how that role is perceived?

Hot Doug

how cool is that! a confectionary named after moi!
next there'll be little psychodougie figurines, then the cartoon, then the animated movie.
of course the next step would be the "real-life" movie (hugh jackman is apparently the nearest hollywood comparison to myself).
who knows where it'll go from there!

(i might add, however, that there has been nothing forthcoming from the gary larson cartoon, 'beware of the doug', so i don't expect too much)

eschatology and music (and angels!)

having read many a blog (drew et al) as well as articles suach as in the case magazine, and also seeing as drew's blog is inaccessible to simpletons such as myself (beta what?), i thought i'd make my response here!
Drew was commenting more specifically on U2, who claim to be Christian.
Nick Cave's claims, on the other hand, are not so straightforward. Having written the introduction to the book of Mark seems to have been more of a pop-culture-hook than embracing a fellow Christian with a common faith in a common God, the God of the Bible.
His eschatology is indeed quite sketchy, with a view few Christians would agree with.

But Drew's point about what i shall call 'osmosis' of spirituality, is something that quite intrigues me.
One of my favourite artists, Ben Harper, has some interesting thoughts in his music, yet is quite inconsistent with his thoughts when it comes to eschatology.

for example this section from waiting on an angel:

So speak kind to a stranger
cause you'll never know
it just might be an angel come
knockin' at your door
knockin' at your door
And I'm waiting on an angel
and I know it won't be long
to find myself a resting place
in my angel's arms
in my angel's arms
Waiting on an angel
one to carry me home
hope you come to see me soon
cause I don't want to go alone

this includes almost a direct quote from Hebrews 13:2,

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

but where does he get this idea of an angel being the one to take him home from?
The closest i can find is in 2 Kings 2, where Elisha is taken up, but by a whirlwind; in 1 Thessalonians 4 when Jesus arrives, with the voice of an archangel (not with an archangel), the dead in Christ will rise, then we who are left will be caught up together with them.
The whole idea of angel worship is something we in the west are very guilty of, Ben Harper not excluded.
Although there are many things angels do do, ascribing random things like this to them shows the lask of biblical theology involved by many a songwriter (robbie williams be warned - not least for other reasons!).

nosferatu: a symphony of horror

i finally found a copy of this great 1922 film, which, until now, i had only ever seen quite late at night on sbs, and it always freaked me out.
in the cold light of day, unfortunately, the seams showed much more. the vision however remained ever present, which is what the 1979(?) remake draws upon.
it is interesting (for me at least) to look at the inbetween-war period of german cinema, the standouts being this, and Metropolis (1927). both remain groundbreaking, and their stories and devices are anything but simplistic.
i wonder whether the current spate of hollywood remakes will again return to these breathtaking masterpieces?