Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Gussett boots

From the Australian Prayer Network comes this unedited transcript of former Australian Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson's address at the Brisbane Lord Mayor's breakfast. I'm posting this hear because of his remarks about atheism. In particular, I draw the attention of this blog's reader to his references to such prominent figures as naturalist and public face of the militant atheist movement, Richard Dawkins, his comrade Christopher Hitchens, Christopher's estranged brother Peter, a former atheist, historian Arnold J. Toynbee, intellectual Malcolm Muggeridge, and Russian novelist Alexander Solzehnitsyn. These sections speak for themselves.

Hello and thank you very much indeed for your kind introduction. It’s great to be in Queensland. I’m sort of ‘out to pasture’ these days in terms of public life and I have to say that I don’t greatly miss it, and I think very much of myself as just a private citizen again so it’s always a bit of a shock when sometimes someone recognises me or half recognises me.

I was in a reception line for a charity in Sydney a little while ago and people were filing past and politely saying ‘hello’ to the heads of the charity and then to my wife and then to me, and a very charming and gracious elder lady from a prosperous area of Sydney, immaculately dressed and manicured, looked straight at me in the eyes and great warmth radiated and she put her hand on mine and she said ‘Now Sweetie, I know I’ve seen you around Sydney many times over the last couple of decades. Worse than that, I know we’ve been introduced, but I’ve forgotten your name and I’m going to have to ask you to tell me who you are because I cannot resist the temptation to tell you that you bear an uncanny resemblance to that fellow John Anderson who used to be the Deputy Prime Minister.’

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, it’s great to be here with you. I served for many years around a cabinet table with your mother. I was very fond of your mother; she was a lovely, warm, friendly person – one of those genuinely beautiful people – and I mean that in every sense of the word. You will know, as her son, that the smile often hid a very forceful and gritty approach to life.
I remember on one occasion she came to me with an idea that involved spending quite a bit of money on disadvantaged rural communities and she said, ‘Are you with me on this?’ and I said, ‘Absolutely!’ She said ‘Do you think that the Treasurer and the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister will be?’ and I said ‘No, not with that price tag attached to it.’ ‘Good’ she said, ‘Well I’ll go up and publish it now as our policy, and then they can clean up the mess afterwards!’ And I have to tell you that she and I lost quite a bit of skin over that, but we got the policy.


Well, like so many Australians, I watched on with horror at the recent seasonal events - out-of-seasonal natural events in the state - over the summer period and I want to say to you that our hearts certainly went out to you. We admire greatly the leadership that was shown and the volunteerism and all of the things that went to ensuring that the best of a dreadful situation was made.

It did cause me to reflect on something, and that is that, tragic as it was, and particularly tragic where lives were lost, we are fortunate indeed, are we not, to live in a country where we have the capacity to mount outstanding emergency responses, and the financial wherewithal to assist communities and indeed the state, frankly, to recover? Those are good things!

The great majority of people who live on the surface of the globe today do not live in societies where such things are possible. Yet we take them for granted. But I want to say to you, ladies and gentlemen, that I don’t think we should take the great blessings we enjoy for granted. I think we are in very, very great danger in the West of seeing our privileged position ebb away.

As a farmer, I’m very conscious that if you want to grow a good crop you have to first till the soil in which the crop is grown. The crop of freedom, of democracy, and all of the good things we take for granted in our lives, is, in fact, Christianity and yet our society has moved away from it and so little understands now, the soil in which the crops of freedom are grown, that I do not believe that we can continue to expect to grow those crops, and I’m deeply sobered and deeply concerned by this. I really am.

You know, it strikes me as a great irony that the atheistic regime in Beijing better understands our history than we do. I’m indebted to the ABC (I’m sorry, Heather – another media organisation, you’ve heard of them) to the ABC Religion Hour, if it still exists, for a broadcast they had a couple of years ago and someone gave me the transcript and it was with a very senior correspondent in Beijing and he was reporting on a major study that the Communist government had undertaken into the Christian church in China; and the report had come back indicating that the church growth in China was amazing and that it is not likely to be stopped.

And it caused great consternation, and that is, of course, behind the persecution of the house-church movement in particular in China. Why? I’ll tell you why, as our correspondent said. The Chinese government understands that it is Christians who start to agitate for the recognition of ‘the little person’. For the radical idea that we take for granted yet you find in no other culture. No other belief system that I’ve ever encountered. That all have dignity before God, and that the King must respect the peasant just as the peasant is expected to respect the King - the Good Samaritan story.

The Bible, of course, is based on the whole idea that each is precious; and the Chinese understand the European history! It was that radical nation that built the idea of representation in Parliament, peaceful means of removing those who become corrupted by the lure of power, which is almost all people who get hold of power. Not Ron Boswell and me, but most people, and you need a peaceful means to resolve that and democracy has evolved out of it. Nor do we understand the way in which transformed and renewed lives have transformed our society.

My political hero is a man called William Wilberforce. To many of you he’s still a hero today – to Christians everywhere. Here is a man who came from Hull, entered Parliament as an extraordinarily privileged and wealthy young man with the world at his feet, in an age of great moral ‘messiness’ in Great Britain. It was a ‘Superpower’ but it was a dreadful place; inequitable, corrupt, vice-ridden, and he had everything to gain by remaining the sort of dissolute young man that he was, but he got converted.


He got converted and he was transformed, and this man went on to do something that was extraordinary for somebody from the mercantile class; a very wealthy man. He came to see that people with black skin mattered equally to God to those with white skin and he led the greatest human rights campaign of all times, that which freed the slaves.

The Left in this country used to prattle on about human rights till whales became important; until the cows came home but we’ve erased our understanding that it was the Christians who gave rise to our democratic freedoms and to the idea that slaves should be freed, and so on and so forth. We’ve jettisoned it all.

Now England, the country that exported Christianity and freedom; you know, the ‘mother of the parliaments’ and what have you, has changed. Like Australia, there was a time when Christianity, even if you didn’t go to church, was seen as true; then there was a time when it was just one of many truths. Now, according to the intelligentsia, it’s dangerous and you shouldn’t expose your children to it! And England’s busily exporting the new atheism – the Richard Dawkinses of this world and the Christopher Hitchenses.

Christopher Hitchens wrote God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything. Are you all aware of that book? He was in Sydney about twelve months ago. He was at the Opera House with the ABC (you can see how I love that organisation) I think it was them. They had this 'Dangerous Ideas Conference' you see. So here’s one of their great heroes, Christopher Hitchens – a brilliant man who’s against God – he’s up there.

At the same time, ironically, I have to tell you (I’m an Anglican) the Anglican Church had an outreach thing called ‘Thirty-nine Prominent Australians Talking About Their Christian Faith’. And they were prominent Australians (well, thirty-eight of them were – I was the thirty-ninth)! Remarkable men, from captains of industry to Peter Costello to sportsmen to scientists to medicos, proclaiming their belief in the resurrected Christ - while Christopher Hitchens is saying that only an imbecile believes in a resurrected Christ today!
 
I would have thought that that was a potential ‘field day’ for the media. Thirty-nine (thirty-eight plus one) prominent Australians saying they do believe while the Great Atheist is saying only an infantile believes. Isn’t that rich ground? And yet the media, confronted with something unfortunate, like a whole lot of thinking, intelligent Australians who believe in a resurrected Christ – it’s easier just to ignore it, isn’t it? What have we come to?

Christopher Hitchens has a brother. His name’s Peter. Peter was an atheist too. Then he went to live in Russia for quite a while and he saw what seventy or eighty years of atheistic Communist rule had done to the people, and he converted, and he’s written a book called The Rage Against God and in that he mounts incredibly powerfully, the argument that we are being blind and foolish beyond belief. He says we’ve silenced God; we’ve mocked Him, we’ve sidelined Him; we won’t give Him a role in the public square. Must we learn it all again – that no society that says it can do it without God preserves its freedoms or lasts for very long? The brother of a great atheist; that's what he says; and he goes on to talk about some of the disastrous results – and again, he’d have seen them in Russia.

Do you know the first thing he nominates that’s been so damaging out of all of this? The trashing of marriage. The trashing of family; and he argues very powerfully, and I agree with him because I can see it – I saw it in public life – your elite, your intelligentsia, the ‘trendy’, who are at the forefront of trashing traditional marriage and traditional family and seem only to speak for adults, and never for the interests of the children who have to grow up in some sort of environment, ladies and gentlemen, so they, in a way, are the least to suffer from the trashing of marriage. They can go and find a ‘trophy bride’, or a yacht, or a chalet in Switzerland to take their mind off the pain, but as it filters down through society the results are more and more and more devastating.
There is a little town not far from where I live which used to be a good, honest working town; it’s now a social security town. The school has shrunk and shrunk. There’s twelve kids in that primary school today; they have between them three mothers and five fathers.


Will those children – precious every one of them – be selfless givers to humanity, able to contribute to society; to take their place in our community and help us build a bigger, stronger community and families of their own? Or will they be people tragically locked into a cycle of welfare dependency and of deep need drawing on the rest of the community – I ask you?

They will be preoccupied with self and that is another enormous price we are paying for the abandonment of Christianity. Selflessness built our freedoms. Selfishness is destroying them.
One thing politicians know about is what you’re thinking. They employ very sophisticated and expensive polling techniques to establish what you’re thinking, so that they can tell you what you’re thinking and hopefully you’ll say, ‘What a great leader!’ Now the trouble is that, of course, nobody thinks the same thing anymore because we’re breaking up as a society and it’s almost impossible to find a ‘common thread’ anymore but, the other people who know what you’re thinking is the advertising industry and in particular the banks. Sorry, I’ll offend everybody by the time I’ve finished this morning! And you may recall that advertisement that just had a big page and a hand pointing out of it ‘Look after the most important person in the world – You’.

Stop and think about it for a moment. Isn’t that what’s ripping our society apart? Isn’t it that very selfishness that we now idolise that so threatens our and our children’s future? And more than just the fabric of our society; it spills over into economics. The thing that is really shattering us now is, of course, the GFC. We’ve been largely immuned from it in Australia. Now, it wasn’t very long ago that I would have said that there’d been a good government that had a bit to do with that. I suppose if I’m honest it’s China taking all our exports and all those sorts of things. But I think we’re all aware that we’ve been very fortunate in this country but that the world is in deep, deep, deep trouble.

You’ve got once wealthy countries all over the world, once really wealthy countries so deeply ‘in hock’ that there responses will be one of three or a combination of three things; they’ll have to massively wind back government services, and in a selfish age that’s a very painful thing to do because no-one wants to lose anything; they’ll have to raise taxes – ditto – or default on debt repayments. All of them threaten us; threaten those societies and the Western Alliance; indeed, the global outlook. That’s something, ladies and gentlemen, that in an age when politicians want to say ‘We’ll make sure this never happens again, and we’ll put in place the regulations that won’t let the greedy bankers and so forth, do it again’ that we’re overlooking that the crisis has its roots in character failing and in moral failing; in greed and in poor judgment, and you can’t legislate against those things.

You actually need a cultural environment where people understand that your word should be your bond; that you should earn rather than seek instant gratification, on borrowed money, the things that you want. I’m not saying I’m against sensible use of debt. I’m not against that at all. I’m a good capitalist after all. But this is out of control and you won’t fix it by regulation, and it wasn’t just a few greedy bankers in the United States. What is revealed is that everywhere, governments and their citizens had been living beyond their means, and what it amounts to, of course, is a monstrous inter-generational theft, because we’re putting our children’s and our grandchildren’s futures at risk. That in turn, of course, has further consequences. It threatens the whole of the Western Alliance that we are part of.

For years we’ve lived as a middle-ranking, wealthy and free nation as part of the most privileged alliance of nations on earth; probably that the world has ever seen, ultimately under the protective mantle, in recent decades, of economic, military, social, and I cringe a little when I say it, the cultural might of the United States. But the warning signs are all there; that it isn’t going to continue much longer. And in the midst of all of this in a deep-seated sense of anxiety right across the western world, governments are failing. This is not a reference to Obama in any way politically or personally, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything more ridiculous, more frightening or naïve or stupid than watching the way in which everyone salivated at the thought that this new American President Obama could ‘save the world.’

Lemming-like, everyone, including the western press (except Heather) embraced this idea that if we just get rid of that other man and we put this new one in, it will all be fixed up. There was only one Messiah. The undue expectations placed on that man’s shoulders were ridiculous – and we’re doing the same thing in Australia, we’re casting around for leadership because we want to be let out of it. But the problem is, ladies and gentlemen, as any good historian knows, you’ve got no hope of working out where to go if you can’t work out where you are, and you can’t work out where you are if you don’t know where you’ve come from. That is our problem. So don’t think any time soon some great western leader (who can be trusted anyway) is going to come along with the solutions to the problem, because it isn’t going to happen until we collectively wake up to ourselves (in my judgment) and that doesn’t look like happening any time soon. So it’s a grim outlook in some ways.

I recently re-read, though, a little book called The End of Christendom. It was written by Malcolm Muggeridge. Actually it wasn’t written by him, it’s a record of two lectures that he gave in America in 1978. Malcolm Muggeridge was one of those truly brilliant Englishmen. They do happen. And he was absolutely ‘up there’ with the CS Lewises of this world. He’d been a journalist and he’d lived in Russia in the heyday after the revolution when much of the West, let alone the Russians, thought this was the way to freedom; atheistic communism – ‘we can do it better without God’. That was the Left Wing’s version of how to do it without God; then you have the right wing’s version, which is fascism.

They both visited unbelievable suffering of humanity. Remember Peter Hitchens? Think you can do it without God? Learn the lessons of history – you can’t. He became firstly very cynical, and ultimately a Christian out of what he saw in Russia, and in 1978 in these two lectures; Pascal lectures in America; Pascal named in honour of a great French Catholic philosopher and thinker who wrote so powerfully about mankind, coined that term ‘the glory and the scum’ - the nobility that is the God image in us; the scum that comes from our fallen nature evident in all of us.
Sometimes we say ‘I’m the good guy’, that’s what we do isn’t it? They’re the bad guys. No we’re not. The Bible says that each of us are a combination of both; flawed hopelessly by sin. He became converted. He said ‘Western society based in Christianity is moving away from everything I’m saying now’. He has a much greater mind than me so I’m only following in his footsteps really. He warned precisely what was happening, and thirty-three years on, everything he said would unfold is unfolding, albeit, I fear now, at an ever-accelerating rate. But, he said in the second lecture, ‘This is no great cause for concern at one level. All societies rise and fall’.

Another great English mind, Arnold Toynbee, wrote that towards the end of his life in the 1970s. He said that of the twenty-three great civilisations that he had studied down through the ages, all had ultimately collapsed - not as a result of external takeover, but of internal decline, and the dying stages, very interestingly, the common theme, the dying stages of all the great civilisations were first selfishness and then a giving-over into apathy. ‘I don’t care. I’m not going to lift a finger for anybody else. Except that I demand that someone else fix my problems’.

So Muggeridge said ‘Look, it may be that the West will fail, in fact it’s probable that it will.’ I hope he’s wrong; I pray he’s wrong and I’m sure you all do too but we’ve got to heed the warning signs and understand why it’s happening. ‘However’, he said, ‘That will not be the end of Christianity. It will not be. God will simply move on to new areas. He loves His creation and He will move on.’ And he was repeatedly asked by journalists and cynics and so forth, ‘What’s your evidence for this?’ And his evidence was very interesting. He said, ‘Look at fifty or sixty years (at that time) of atheistic rule in Russia. It hasn’t killed off Christianity’. A third of Russians at that stage still believed in Christianity and he pointed to people like Solzhenitsyn, the great thinker and Christian writer who found faith in a gulag salt mine prison.


He couldn’t see what we can see, which is that Christianity, actually, is quite evidently, about to enter its most vibrant and wonderful stage globally. That is what is actually happening.


It’s terribly bad new for Mr Dawkins and Mr Hitchins and they must sob themselves to sleep every night, but this will not be a century of atheism. This will be a century of enormous ferment over beliefs and the values that are driven by beliefs; and by behaviour. The Chinese government understands that. They should. Ten to twelve percent of the Chinese population today are believed to be Bible-believing Christians. That is a hundred to a hundred and twenty million people!
Six percent, it’s estimated, of India’s population: I have a friend who heads up – gave away a business career, a very spectacularly successful one – to head up Alpha in Asia, not Australia, in Asia. Twelve thousand churches in India today are offering Alpha courses and forty percent of the people who enrol in them remain in a church.


I’m here with Stuart Brooking, a very good friend of mine. He is the Executive Director of Overseas Counsel Australia. It’s a mission organisation. We support colleges in the emerging world. There’s an ad, Stuart, if anyone wants to talk to you afterwards! And I should acknowledge Jeremy German who’s a very good friend from CMS - he’s here as well. The people dedicated to mission; they would know what is happening.

In Indonesia, the most populous Moslem nation on earth right on our doorstep. There’s a hundred Bible Colleges in Indonesia. Did you know that? Just been there, and for all of the ferment in that country there’s a real interest in belief and some very strong Christian growth.

Africa: seventy percent Christianised. Now they say it’s a mile wide and an inch deep – desperate need for good teachers. I heard the Bishop of Uganda the other day describing how he has several hundred parishes that he cannot fill with trained men and women. Enormous need, but an extraordinary response to the Christian gospel.

What should we say then, in the face of all this? Should we despair at the state of our culture? At one level – yes! But what should it drive us to do? Gird our loins to take up our cross and to reflect the Hope that is ours! I had Tim Costello say to this city a few years ago (I’m Patron of Scripture Union in Queensland; a role I love. I always love it when Queenslanders are friendly to me, because I know how you feel about southerners in this state) and Tim Costello was saying ‘You know, one of the things we don’t understand any more; we’ve stripped our kids of hope. Our grandfathers hoped that if they ran the risk with their wives of coming out to this country and surviving the ship journey and then going out into the outback and building a life, they might develop a better future for their children, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren. Our fathers’, he said ‘hoped that if they worked hard they’d have a comfortable retirement and be able to provide a better outlook for their children. Our children hope for a good time tonight.’ And he had a point.

We must broaden our horizons and understand the Christian hope. There is real work to be done, firstly in this country. We must do everything we can firstly on our knees to encourage people, our fellow-Australians to come back to faith. As a very big part of that we need to recognise that as a multi-racial society – great thing – many of the people who come here are very open to the faith.
I have a young Chinese friend in Sydney. He’s a Presbyterian Minister, he’s only 31, but you know he has a thing called Rice. I said ‘Why do you call it Rice?’ and he said because I come from Asia and we like rice. I said ‘What’s Rice?’ He said, ‘Once a month we get young, mainly Asian believers together in the Sydney Entertainment Centre for a night of fellowship. Not a church. Just a night when we come together for some fun, share experiences, sing, pray, what-have-you.’ I said ‘How many do you get?’ and he showed me a photograph. Auditorium full; he said eight to ten thousand people.

Wouldn’t it be an incredible irony if we from a traditional Caucasian background who walk away from our faith and our culture and let it decay around us, have the whole situation picked up and retrieved for us by New Australians? God bless them if it happens, but we ought to be working with them in every way we can. And then there’s the homelands they came from.

You know, the fascinating thing, the wonderful set of opportunities and responsibilities that arise for Australia stem largely from its geography. We’re of the West, that’s patently obvious, but we’re not in it. We’re in Asia, and Paul Kelly who’s a journalist I respect enormously is the Editor-at-Large of the Australian. He wrote the other day that if Wayne Swann is right to say that Australia can ride (and he was referring to economics, but let’s face it, it needs to go much beyond that I believe, and a whole range of ways) ride the rise of Asia. He went on to say to stop and think about whether our values are in sync with Asia, and he referred to their hard work, to their commitment to their countries, to their family values and to rising religious faith.


That’s what he wrote in the Australian just before Christmas and then he said, ‘You must realise these values are anathema to many of the people who run the debate in Australia today.’ And they are, but we know that they’re right and we need to ‘tap into it’ and to work into it and to recognise that if that is where God is working, there are tremendous, strategic opportunities and responsibilities for us.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s been a great pleasure being with you. I seek to encourage you in that hope that in the midst of despair we need to recognise that God is building His Kingdom. He will not be mocked. He will not be thwarted. As Peter Hitchens says, that is a very stupid western idea that will only enjoy a very short currency, ladies and gentlemen, because in the end, we get our three score and ten; and our response in the midst of this must be to remember that God calls each one of us into a loving relationship with Himself through Jesus Christ.

We need, then, to use the gifts and talents that He has given us and which ultimately belong to Him to expand His kingdom here in our own country; here amongst those who come to us in our country and, I would suggest, wherever else we have the opportunity, but particularly in Asia. God bless you.

Thursday, May 05, 2011

The sting of death

This week I've been thinking a lot about the death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. I have mixed feelings about this. My initial reaction to the news was somewhat hawkish. “Got him!,” I thought, as I pumped my fist in the air. Bin Laden was someone that Jesus died for, but subconsciously rejected him. We shouldn’t think that anyone is beyond the reach of God’s grace, but clearly some people are so hardened in their hearts that they are irredeemably evil and he was one of them.

As I wrote this post I looked up an online Bible reference tool to look up the keyword harden. There are numerous passages in both Testaments that describe the depravity that humanity falls into whenever they harden their hearts against God. As you trace the grand narrative of redemptive history, this seems to be a recurring theme. Time and time God calls people and nations to repent, and sometimes they do. When they ignore Him and refuse to repent, eventually God steps back and leaves them to the consequences of their rebellion, in effect saying, "Fine, have it your way."

This brings Him no pleasure. We can also infer from Scripture that God is grieved whenever someone goes to eternity without Him (Romans 2:4, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:8). It was a horrible way to die, but I deeply empathise with the victims of September 11, who presumably now have some closure. Even though it was almost 10 years ago, I remember crying a lot that day. This event was seminal in reshaping my perception of how depraved human nature can be.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Bratwurst and schnapps


There's more to German pop music than Nena (99 Luftballoons), Kraftwerk, and David Hasselhoff. This clip is of Munchener Freiheit's 1989 hit single, Keeping the Dream Alive. It's one of those songs I stumbled across randomly whilst listening to a community radio station one Saturday night. I'm not ashamed to say that it's a beautiful song. Normally playing air instruments, let alone an air orchestra, would look daggy and stupid, but not here. It seems that the likes of Air Supply, Bread, Chicago, and Engelbert Humperdinck haven't quite cornered the market on SNAG music after all.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Something to ponder

This morning I attended my first Anzac Day dawn service at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne. Thousands of Australians attended similar events in most Australian capitals, not to mention numerous smaller services held at memorial halls and RSL clubs around the country, and military bases both in Australia and overseas. It was a very moving experience to take part in a time of solemn reflection and commemoration of our war dead.

Driving home afterwards, I listened to ABC radio’s Anzac Day coverage. They interviewed the great grandson of a war veteran. He said something very profound when he described this day as “sacred” to him.  Sacred is a spiritual word. I dare say that many Australians would feel the same way as this man. The service itself had quasi-religious elements, with choral music and a responsive reading. The atheist movement tells us that religious belief is declining. In particular, some of its proponents are presumptuously and arrogantly forecasting the end of Christianity. Australians are typically apathetic about organised religion, but social researchers tell us that Australians’ level of interest in spirituality remains healthy and shows no signs of dying out.

This is not an original observation, but based on what i saw this morning, surrounded by thousands of people, and seeing how moved they all were by the ceremony, it seems to me that this day has a deeper spiritual meaning that binds people together and transcends whatever differences they have. While some people try to deny or denigrate it, spirituality is an intrinsic part of humanity. Perhaps this is part of the reason why Anzac Day resonates so powerfully with ordinary Australians who are compelled to get up early on a cold, dark Autumn morning and participate in its rituals.

Cantillate

The Essentials by the Association
Over the weekend I downloaded The Association's 1966 number one hit Cherish from Xbox Live for use with Microsoft's karaoke game, Lips. Unlike its rival Sony, Microsoft is not a consumer electronics and entertainment conglomerate. Hence many of the songs and music videos used in Sony's SingStar games are by artists from Sony Music, which means there are no licensing issues. It also means that SingStar has a larger selection of downloadable songs than Lips.

Screen shot from the clip for Cherish on Lips for Xbox 360
As I scrolled through the list of downloadable songs on the Lips music store, I noticed that many of them did not have music videos; only lyrics and audio. A music video was never made for Cherish, so Microsoft have used generic video footage and animation to accompany the song, presumably because it was available cheaply. That would not be a problem if that footage was appropriate. Whose idea was it to use fluffy white puppets, one of whom cries tears that magically turn into rubies? It's all very abstract, and fantastical, and very distracting when you're trying to concentrate on singing the song, and would be even more so if you were a man who had a fair maiden to sing it to as a declaration of lurve, and wanted her to take you seriously.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Onya, Jacki

In the wake of her recent best supporting actress Academy Award nomination for Animal Kingdom, veteran Australian actress Jacki Weaver has broken into Hollywood. Deadline reports that she has been cast in Nicholas Stoller's next film, Five Year Engagement, to be produced by Judd Apatow, and co-starring Jason Segal, Emily Blunt, and Rhys Ifans. With talent of this calibre involved, it certainly promising.

Will she be as funny as Eric Bana was in Funny People (2009)? Until that time, Bana had mostly appeared in dramatic films, and his role as Aussie alpha male Clark, was a chance for him to return to his comedy roots, have some fun with American perceptions of what Australians are like, and almost steal the show in the process.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Paganism corner

This quiz might give my Christian friends cause to start worrying about my spiritual welfare.

Which God or Goddess are you?
Your Result: Hades Greek God of the Underworld
 
You enjoy judging the good dead from the bad dead and sending them to their appropriate dwellings. You are neither good or evil. You don't mind spending time alone in the dark or away from living people.
Artemis Greek Goddess of the Hunt
 
Ares Greek God of War
 
Aphrodite Greek Goddess of Love
 
Zeus Greek King of the Gods
 
Dionsyus Greek God of Wine
 
Which God or Goddess are you?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

Monday, April 11, 2011

Give it a rest

A friend of mine sent me this devotional from the late Ray Stedman (1917-1992). I've re-posted it here (with attribution, of course) because of its clear explanation of how the Sabbath applies to Christians.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work (Genesis 2:2).

We must recognize that the weekly Sabbath is not the real Sabbath. It is a picture or a reminder of the real Sabbath. The true Sabbath is a rest; the Jewish Sabbath is a shadow, a picture of that rest. All the Old Testament shadows pointed to Christ. When the work of Jesus Christ was finished, the shadows were no longer needed.

Some years ago when I was serving in the military in Hawaii, I found myself engaged to a lovely girl who lived in Montana and whom I hadn't seen for three or four years. We were writing back and forth in those lonely days, and she sent me her picture. It was all I had to remind me of her, and it served moderately well for that purpose. But one wonderful day she arrived in Hawaii, and I saw her face to face. When the real thing came, there was no longer any need for the picture.

This is what happened with these Old Testament shadows, including the Sabbath. When the Lord came and His work was ended, the picture was no longer needed. The weekly Sabbath ended at the cross. In the letter to the Colossians, Paul confirms it to us. He says, Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

The shadow-Sabbath ended at the cross. The next day was the day of resurrection, the day when the Lord Jesus came from the tomb. That was the beginning of a new day--the Lord's Day. Christians immediately began to observe the Lord's Day on the first day of the week. They ceased observing the Sabbath because it was ended by the fulfillment of its reality in the cross, and they began to observe the first day of the week.
Though this shadow-Sabbath ended at the cross, the true Sabbath, the rest of God, continues today. That Sabbath is defined for us in Hebrews 4, There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God [it is available to us now]; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. (Hebrews 4:9-10)

That is what the true Sabbath is: to cease from your own efforts and your own works. Well, you say, if I did that I would be nothing but a blob. But the implication is that you cease from your own efforts and depend on the work of Another. This is why Paul cries, I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (Galatians 2:20). This was also the secret of the life of Jesus, as we have seen. He Himself said, It is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work (John 14:10). This is the secret of the Christian who learns it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose (Philippians 2:13). So the secret of true Christian life is to cease from dependence on one's own activity and to rest in dependence upon the activity of another who dwells within. That is fulfilling the Sabbath.
Lord, teach me to enter into Your true Sabbath rest by ceasing my efforts to please You and serve You in my own strength.
Life Application: Jesus can do much more through us than we can ever do for Him. How do we cease from our own efforts and our own works? Have we found true Sabbath rest in Christ?
 
From your friends at

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Suggestion box

Rhys Darby as Norman in Yes Man (2008)
At first I thought this was an April Fool's day joke, but it's actually true. Apparently Bret McKenzie, one half of New Zealand comedy band Flight of the Conchords, had a small part as a hobbit named Figwit in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Film news websites are abuzz with speculation over whether or not he will be reprising his role in the upcoming film adaptations of The Hobbit, which are now shooting in New Zealand.

I'm wondering why they're not going to offer a part to actor and comedian Rhys Darby. He was hilarious as the inept manager and New Zealand consulate deputy cultural attache Murray Hewitt in the Flight of the Conchords HBO series. Perhaps it's because these films will be fantasy epics, and Darby usually plays nerdy, kooky characters. With his distinctive screen persona, perhaps he'd be out of place in this kind of film, that presumably will want to be taken seriously.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Mind your p's and q's

I'm not posting this article to condemn people, but I liked it because it's one of the clearest presentations of the gospel I've read in a long time. In a recent sermon, Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill church, set out clearly the need for every person to respond to Jesus. God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but as he explained to his congregation, there will be consequences for you if you reject Him. Thinking and writing on this topic makes me feel uncomfortable. I have never been an overbearing, in your face Christian, but I have recently been challenged about how selfish it is to keep my beliefs to myself, hence this post.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Filthy habit

It's almost enough to make me choke on my breakfast cereal. Every morning during breakfast radio shows a group calling itself the Alliance of Australian Retailers is running an advertising campaign against the federal government's planned introduction for plain packaging of cigarettes in 2012. These advertisements claim that contrary to the government's reasoning, these reforms will do nothing to deter consumers from smoking, and the added regulation will only hurt tobacco retailers. My blood boils every time I hear these advertisements, and I wish that the radio stations involved refused to run them. It's a good thing there's nobody else around to see me blow my stack. My bad side is a dangerous place to be. Actually, that's overstating things. I usually groan and say to myself, "Not this again."

Look up the Alliance's website and you'll see that this campaign, while encompassing several small retailer umbrella groups, is actually being financed by three large multinational tobacco companies. This raises the question of the motives for this campaign. Are these companies more concerned about the possible impact on their profits than they are about the questionable effects on the small retailers they claim to represent? Also, why are they trying to pass this off as a grassroots campaign when it actually isn't?  Then again, tobacco companies have never felt the need to deal with the public honestly.

Those of you who know me personally would readily attest that I'm usually a fairly easy going if somewhat reserved chap. There aren't too many things in the world that I hate. Having said that, I passionately hate smoking. I remember vowing as a teenager that I would never try smoking, and despite some peer pressure, I kept my word. Seeing some of my loved ones suffer and in some cases die of smoking related illnesses saw to that. While I'm not an economist, if these reforms are successfully implemented, and I hope they are, my guess is that their impact would be minuscule compared to the estimated $31 billion cost to the Australian economy of smoking. Rather than try to mislead the public, the tobacco industry should grow a backbone and be made to pay for the immense costs of its products.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

A nerdy post

Poster for G.I. Joe: The Movie (1987)
How does one fill in one's leisure time on quiet evenings when you're too tired to do anything constructive like reading or attempting to learn the guitar, and there's nothing worth watching on television? You revisit things from your childhood. Unlike Transformers and My Little Pony, Hasbro's G.I. Joe line never really took off in Australia. In some ways it was a reflection of its time, much like the numerous military themed action films of the era. After the detente of the 1970s, under the Reagan administration the United States embarked on a massive military buildup, resuming the arms race against the Soviet Union, and accordingly pursued a slightly more aggressive foreign policy. The basic premise of G.I. Joe is that Cobra, an evil terrorist organisation, is trying to take over the world, and G.I. Joe is an elite branch of the United States military formed specifically to stop them.


Cover for the G.I. Joe video game
Never having seen the cartoon series as a child, I saw the live action G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra film which was released in 2009. Its director, Stephen Sommers, has a reputation for making fairly forgettable popcorn films, and that about sums up what this film was. Die-hard fans and critics bagged it, but it grossed $302 million worldwide. A few months later, out of curiosity I bought a DVD box set of the animated series from the bargain bin at a Border's store for five dollars. After watching that, I borrowed the second volume from my local public library. Pretty much every episode of the animated series predictably unfolded the same way, with the Joes always stopping Cobra's plots. In keeping with the child-friendly tone, lots of buildings and vehicles are destroyed in battle, but nobody ever gets injured or killed.

Even though it received poor reviews, I bought the Rise of Cobra video game from a bargain bin for $5.00. Considering that the average price for brand new games in Australia is usually $99.00, this is a massive markdown. After playing it, it's easy to see why. It's a fairly average action game. You play through a variety of environments, including forests, deserts, jungles, and frozen tundras, but all you're required to do is manoeuvre your characters around the screen while holding down the shoot button on your controller. The action is punctuated by easily solveable puzzles. It's passable as a bargain bin title, but you'd be pretty annoyed if you'd paid full price for it.

G.I. Joe DVD box set
Now we come to 1987's G.I. Joe: The Movie. After the poor box office performance of the animated Transformers: The Movie, the producers decided against releasing it theatrically. As far as I know, it never made it to Australia. I had to order the DVD from overseas. This film regurgitates the basic plot of the television series, only on a more epic scale. This time Cobra forms an alliance with an alien race to carry out their evil plans. After the negative fan reaction to the death of Optimus Prime, the producers made an obvious last minute change to the script. G.I. Joe leader Duke is seriously injured in battle against Cobra leader Serpentor. Rather than dying like he was supposed to, expository dialogue from the other characters helpfully explains to the viewer that he has merely lapsed into a coma, and later recovers off screen at the end of the film. Other characters are also injured in battle, but not seriously. The plot is fairly unremarkable, but as it was done by a Japanese company, the quality of the animation is quite impressive compared to the television series.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Smear


Bo, the Obama family dog
 The Australian reports today on the story that won't go away; that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and is therefore constitutionally ineligible for office. This is on top of the rumours that despite being a Christian he is also secretly a Muslim who is plotting to Islamise the United States, a socialist, and if you subscribe to that particular view of eschatology, that he is even the Antichrist.

Documents such as birth notices and birth certificates can be forged, but to allege as such in Obama's case is very offensive. What disappoints me is that some conservative Christian groups are involved in spreading these rumours. Scripture clearly condemns spreading rumours, and for good reason warns Christians against this sort of conduct (Leviticus 19:16, Proverbs 11:13, 18:8, Matthew 7:1, Romans 1:29, 1 Timothy 5:13).

I have been around churches long enough to see the sometimes irrepairable damage that can be done to reputations by misguided self-appointed gatekeepers who take it upon themselves to call their leaders to account for their imagined failings.

In a democracy you have the freedom to speak up and criticise political leaders where necessary, usually without fear of overt retribution. This is a good and healthy thing. I'd say to Obama's Christian critics, if you want to oppose his Administration's policies or raise questions about the character of the man himself, well fine. Just make sure that you're doing it accurately. Spreading rumours is not only a poor witness and totally unacceptable, but it also damages the credibility of the church, which is enough of a problem these days as it is without you adding to it.

Komish hund



Another funny advertisement featuring a border collie, this time from Austria.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Jedi slime

General Grievous
A good way to cope with stress at work (which is more of an issue than some people might think) is to find little things in the day that you find amusing. I thought I would share one of them with my reader(s). Yesterday whilst doing some cataloguing I came across this tome, The Memoirs of General Grivas (London, Longmans, 1964). Who was this General Grivas? After a bit of digging, thanks to the good people at homework website Factmonster (a division of Pearson Education) I discovered that he was George Grivas (1897-1974). My home city of Melbourne has one of the world's largest Greek communities outside of Athens, but I have never studied Greek history, so I had no idea who he was. One thing is clear, however. Grivas is not to be confused with General Grievous, who was the commander of the Separatist droid army during the Clone Wars in Star Wars.

George Grivas (1897-1984)
Grivas on the other hand was a Greek and Cypriot general. Some people regard him as a national hero. He may not have killed scores of Jedi knights and kept their lightsabres as trophies, have four arms, speak in a raspy voice, or own a personal star ship named the Invisible Hand, but from what I have read about Grivas, he sounds like he was just as ruthless as his fictional counterpart.

Factmonster states as follows:

"He joined the Greek army and early became an advocate of enosis (the union of Cyprus with Greece). After the Second World War, he played a sinister role in the anti-leftist repression that helped bring about the Greek Civil War. In 1954 he returned to Cyprus to head a guerrilla army (EOKA), which conducted struggle against the British in Cyprus from 1955 to 1959. He opposed the 1959 agreements establishing the independent republic of Cyprus. In August, 1964, after fighting broke out between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, he commanded the Cypriot national guard and headed Greek forces on the island. Grivas was forced to leave Cyprus, however, in November 1967, after a number of Turkish Cypriots were killed in a battle with Grivas's national guard. In 1971, he returned secretly to the island, launching a terrorist campaign against the government of President Makarios. Shortly after his death, his movement succeeded in temporarily overthrowing Makarios, thus opening the way for a Turkish seizure of the northern third of the island (July, 1974) and its defacto partition."

"http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/.html." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia.

© 1994, 2000-2006, on Fact Monster.

© 2000–2007 Pearson Education, publishing as Fact Monster.

13 Feb. 2011

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Tea for the tillerman

This is my final post on my visit late last year to a mosque to hear a talk by former Christian turned Muslim cleric Yusha Evans. In this post I want to respond to his comments about the apostle Paul. He raised what experts tell me is a common Islamic objection to Paul. They seek to discredit him and his considerable contribution to the New Testament canon because, as he was spectacularly converted after Jesus's resurrection and ascension, he never met or personally knew him. He probably had more to say on this subject, and refrained from saying what he really thought, but knowing there were Christians present, chose his words carefully.

An entry on the Answering Islam website answers this objection as follows: 

"Muslims tend to regard Paul as the person who corrupted Christianity and usually reject the epistles of Paul as authoritative scripture. Many Muslims have charged that Paul's original name was Saul (of Tarsus), and that he changed his name to Paul after his conversion, and that he had never met Jesus. Though that name change theory is relatively popular, it isn't probably what happened. Saul was a Jew and a Roman citizen, and thus would have two names. Saul was his Hebrew name and Paulus was his Latin name. The first reports about him in the Bible are when he is in Israel and neighboring countries and there he certainly uses his Hebrew name. Later on in his missionary travels in Asia minor and Europe, he uses his Latin name, which is perfectly in harmony with his status and the places he visited. Moreover, since Paulus means "the little one," he might have seen it to be more appropriate and humble as he became a Christian instead of a name after King Saul.

And he did meet Jesus. He saw him in a vision on his way to Damascus. He might not have met Jesus while Jesus walked on this earth, but he met him after his resurrection, where he saw and heard Jesus in this incident.

Interestingly, the Muslim at-Tabari said, "Among the apostles and those disciples around them, whom Jesus sent out, there were Peter and his companion Paul." (A history of the Christian Church, Thalabii. Qisas al-Anbiyaa, pp. 389-90. Tabarii. Taarikh al-umam wa-l-muluuk II/II, 1560).

This is how Paul saw himself:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed (1 Corinthians 15:3-11)."
I also put the question of how to answer Paul's critics to theologian Dr James F. McGrath of Butler University. Head over to his blog for his answer.

I would add that the other apostles accepted Paul as one of their own, and his writings as Scripture (Galatians 2:1-10, 2 Peter 3:16). In one sense this objection is nothing new. Paul had to defend his apostolic credentials against his opponents in his second letter to the Corinthian church (2 Corinthians 11 & 12). By nature, Paul was a humble man, but was forced to boast because of his opponents undermining his work. Muslims believe that their holy book, the Koran, was imparted to the prophet Muhammad by supernatural means. Yet, when it comes to the apostle Paul and his writings, there is no room for the supernatural in their hermeneutics. I cannot accept that Paul was anything other than the apostle he rightly claimed to be, and unquestioningly accept his contribution to Christian thought and considerable contribution to the New Testament canon at face value.

Friday, February 04, 2011

Australian crawl

This snippet of news caused me to quizzically furrow my brow. A game developer is planning to release a swimming game that uses the Xbox 360's Kinect motion sensor controller featuring American Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps, called Push the Limit. This conjures up all sorts of funny mental pictures of people standing in front of their television screen playing this game by flailing their arms and legs about in the air to mimic swimming strokes. It will look even more ridiculous than someone doing Zumba. This won't be a game for the self conscious. If you plan to buy this game, close your curtains so your neighbours can't see you and laugh at your faux swimming antics as you're playing it.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Spitting image

Actor Roger Allam
Over the weekend a group of acquaintances and I went to a special screening of Stephen Frears' new film, Tamara Drewe. As this was a meet the director screening, Frears himself was present, and obligingly answered questions from the audience after the film. The cast includes Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace, Clash of the Titans, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Tess of the D'Urbervilles), Dominic Cooper (Mamma Mia, the forthcoming Captain America) and Roger Allam (Speed Racer, V for Vendetta, The Queen), who plays a philandering crime novelist who gets trampled to death by stampeding cows. Tamsin Greig (Black Books) appears as his longsuffering wife.

Christopher Hitchens
This isn't an entirely original observation, but I couldn't help but notice Allam's startling resemblance to journalist and outspoken militant atheist, Christopher Hitchens. If ever a biopic of Hitchens was made, Allam would be the ideal choice to play him. Based on his performance in Tamara Drewe, it wouldn't be that much of stretch. With some minor tweaking of his larger than life smarmy and pompous screen persona, he'd have the characterization of Hitchens nailed.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Walking on eggshells

Last week Salman Taseer, governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, was assassinated by one of his bodyguards. Taseer was a vocal opponent of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, under which Asia Noreen, a Christian woman, has been sentenced to death. Taseer was Noreen's most prominent supporter, calling for her to be pardoned. I understand from other sources that Noreen was charged with blasphemy over a minor dispute with her neighbours in her village. The assassination has attracted international headlines, but it's interesting to see that perhaps for fear of offending Muslim communities, most of the mainstream media has seemingly downplayed the gunman's possible religious motivation.  I'm not suggesting that all Muslims are extremist, blinkered zealots. To do that would be a gross exaggeration. Christians get treated like this all the time. When the shoe is on the other foot it makes you sensitive to how adherents of other faith traditions are portrayed in the media. He has yet to be tried and convicted, but the fact of the matter is that we now know that while he is not believed to be a member of any Muslim extremist groups, he is known to be a devout Muslim.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Biting the hand that feeds you

With some degree of exaggeration, it seems that Google is fast becoming the Tiddalik the frog of the internet world, consuming all before it. Is this a good thing? This report highlights claims of a decline in the quality of Google's search results. As an information professional working in the education sector, I observe the information seeking behaviours of many of my patrons. It concerns me that some of them seem to rely too heavily on Google when doing research. They seem unaware that its search results are not ranked on relevance or quality, but on popularity.

On another level, as the first sentence in this post indirectly implies, I'm also concerned about Google's predominance in the search engine and web services market. In the old media age, some commentators opposed the concentration of media ownership in the hands of a few powerful individuals. They said that it would stifle diversity and reduce freedom of expression. The internet and digital media has changed the media landscape. Nobody has absolute control over it, and freedom of expression has flourished. Even so, I think that corporations like Google have too much control over it, and wish that people would take the time to have a look at other search engines out there. They might be pleasantly surprised at what they find.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

What a combination

I took this quiz to find out what my political views are. I don't know how scientific it is, but apparently I am a left social authoritarian.

The results may be slightly skewed because some of the questions were about American political issues. Nevertheless I feel quite strongly about the rights of workers to earn a decent living, and that all people should have access to affordable health care and education, regardless of their socio-economic status. I wouldn't call myself a Greenie, but believe in the principle of good environmental stewardship, and governments have a role in this area. The global financial crisis showed us what happens when you have blind faith in the free market, so I believe that it is appropriate and necessary to have some government regulation of the economy. I was also opposed to the privatisation of public utilities that federal and state governments undertook during the 1990s.

What makes me a social authoritarian? It must be because of my conservative views on the usual grab bag of issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, and am concerned about the apparent lack of respect for authority that some young people have. A case in point here is a train station in my neighbourhood that has a reputation for being a notorious trouble spot, with numerous incidents of theft, assault, and vandalism. Government social policy should be informed by a moral framework. As a Christian, my idea of what constitutes morality is different from those of other mindsets. Morality is not just a private matter. When people do as they please, there are often consequences that impact society as a whole. Somehow a balance must be achieved between individual rights and what is best for society.

My Political Views
I am a left social authoritarian
Left: 4.82, Authoritarian: 3.53

Political Spectrum Quiz

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

It is finished

This is another post about my visit to a mosque to hear Islamic scholar Yusha Evans. I mentioned earlier that he does not believe in the death and resurrection of Christ. I wrote him a question about this issue, but he chose not to answer it on the night. What follows is an outline of Jesus's death and resurrection, compiled from the four Gospel accounts. I wrote this some years ago on another website, but have reworked it slightly here specifically to engage with Islam. 

This is crucial to the Christian faith. The death and resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. As a follower of Jesus, I believe that when he died, he offered himself as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for the sins of humanity. Anyone who believes in Jesus has their sins forgiven by God, and has peace with Him. Frankly, without the death and resurrection of Christ, Christianity is useless and not worth believing in. As the apostle Paul wrote:

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead. But He did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:12-17).

I read up on Islamic teaching about the resurrection. Rejecting the testimony of the four gospel accounts and the epistles, this teaching asserts that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus never took place. God rescued Jesus from the plot to have him crucified and He altered the appearance of another man, possibly Judas Iscariot, so that he resembled Jesus in appearance. It was this man who died on the cross. Shortly after the prophet Jesus was taken back to Heaven.  

To answer this teaching, the Bible contains a wealth of information concerning the events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus predicted these events, even predicting how he would die (Matthew 16:21-28; 17:22-23; 20:17-19, Mark 8:31-38; 9:1; 30-32; 10-32-34, Luke 9:22-27; 43-45; 18-31-34). This is significant because Jesus clearly did know that he would die and be resurrected. It is inconceivable that Jesus would have predicted these events if they were not going to take place.

As we review the Gospel accounts of these events, it will become evident that God did not use a proxy to be crucified in his place. Unlike Jesus, who was divine, this unnamed man would have been born under the curse of sin. As the only sinless man who has ever lived, Jesus was the only one who was worthy to die on the cross as a penalty for the sins of humanity. Let me emphasise again that if this proxy man was crucified in Jesus’ place, the sacrifice would have been worthless, and with it the entire foundation of Christianity.

How did Jesus really die? The Gospel accounts state that Jesus and his disciples travelled to Jerusalem for the Jewish Passover festival. On the night he was arrested, Jesus shared the Passover meal with his disciples. (Matthew 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-16, Luke 27:7-13). He revealed that Judas, one of his disciples, would betray him to his enemies (Matthew 26:20-25, Mark 14:17-21, Luke 22:31-38, John 13:36-38). Judas had already secretly arranged to do this (Matthew 26:14-16, Mark 14:10-11, Luke 22:3-6). When they finished the meal, Jesus and the disciples went to the garden of Gethesemane on the Mount of Olives. There he prayed repeatedly, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as You will." He found his disciples asleep, exhausted from their great sorrow. Jesus' anquish was so great that his sweat turned to blood (Matthew 26:30, 36-46, Mark 14:26, 32-42, Luke 22:39-46, John 18:1). Accompanied by a mob of soldiers, Judas arrived. He arranged with his accomplices that he would identify the man to be arrested with a kiss. Judas kissed Jesus, and the mob arrested him and lead him away (Matthew 26:47-55, Mark 14:43-49, Luke 22:47-53, John 18:2-11). The remaining disciples fled, just as Jesus predicted they would do (Matthew 26:56, Mark 14:50-52).

Jesus was brought before Annas, the Jewish high priest, for questioning (John 18:12-14, 19-23). They brought him before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court, for trial on charges of blasphemy. Under questioning by the Sanhedrin, Jesus declared himself to be the Messiah (Matthew 26:57, 59-66; Mark 14:53, 55-64; Luke 22:54; John 18:24), inciting his captors to mock, beat, and spit upon him (Matthew 26:67-68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-65). Peter denied knowing Jesus three times, just as Jesus predicted (Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:17, 25-27).

Remembering Jesus' words to him, Peter went away and wept bitterly. Peter had no doubt that Jesus would be killed. He knew, as the other disciples did, that it was impossible for him to escape execution, or to organise a proxy to die instead of Jesus. The Sanhedrin ordered Jesus's execution (Matthew 27:1-2; Mark 15:1, Luke 22:66-71). Judas, meanwhile, was overcome with remorse at his betrayal of Jesus. He returned the money his accomplices paid him for his actions, and went away to hang himself (Matthew 27:3-10; Acts 1:18-19). Again, it is highly unlikely that Judas would have done this if he knew that Jesus planned to escape his execution.

Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of the province of Judea, for further questioning. The Sanhedrin had no power to execute Jesus, so they hoped that he could be sentenced to death under Roman law. However, Pilate found no basis for the charges against Jesus (Matthew 27:11-14; Mark 15:2-5; Luke 23:1-5, John 18:28-38). Pilate sent him to King Herod. Jesus was questioned and mocked again, then returned to Pilate (Luke 23:6-12).

At the time of the Jewish Passover, the Governor had a custom to release a prisoner chosen by the people. They chose to release Barabbas, a notorious criminal (Matthew 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:39-40; 19:1). Prior to leading Jesus away to be crucified, Pilate's soldiers mocked and beat him. Mocking Jesus's claims to be a king, they thrust a crown of thorns upon his head, and dressed him in a purple robe (Matthew 27:27-31; Mark 15:16-19; John 19:2-3). Once again Pilate sought to have Jesus released, but the religious authorities demanded his death. Pilate accepted their demands (John 19:4-16).

They brought Jesus to Golgotha, a hill overlooking Jerusalem, and a number of his followers watched as he was lead to his death (Matthew 27:32-34; Mark 15:20-23; Luke 23:26-32; John 19:17). Stripped and nailed to a cross, he suffered an agonising and humiliating death. Mary, his mother, watched as her son slowly died (Matthew 27:35-44; Mark 15:24-32; Luke 23:33-43; John 19:18-27). He was abandoned and powerless, separated from his Heavenly Father as he bore the burden of the sins of humanity upon his broken body. He cried out in pain, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:45-59; Mark 15:33-36; Luke 23:43-45; John 19:28-29). He cried out again, and knowing that he had accomplished the redemption of humanity, spoke the words, "It is finished." Then he died (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30). To make sure that he was dead, Roman soldiers removed his body from the cross and pierced his side with a spear, bringing a flow of blood and water (John 19:31-37). Miracles happened. The curtain in Jerusalem's Jewish temple was torn in two. Dead people came back to life. The Roman soldier who stood guard at Jesus's cross was moved to exclaim, "Surely this man was the Son of God." (Matthew 27:51-56; Mark 15:38-41; Luke 23:47-49).

Joseph of Arimathea, a secret follower of Jesus, asked for Jesus's body, and wrapping it in a clean linen cloth, he placed it in his own tomb, sealing the entrance with a large stone. The women who earlier witnessed Jesus's death followed Joseph to the tomb and watched (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42). The chief priests of the Sanhedrin remembered that when Jesus was still alive, he claimed that he would rise from the dead after three days. They wanted to make sure that Jesus was dead, and that his followers would be crushed. To prevent them coming and stealing the body, they persuaded Pilate to place the tomb under guard (Matthew 27:62-66).

On the morning of the third day after Jesus's death, Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb. To their astonishment, they found that the stone sealing the entrance to the tomb had been rolled away (Matthew 28:1-4; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-6; John 20:1). When they went inside to investigate further, they found that the tomb was empty. Angels appeared, telling them that Jesus had risen from the dead, just as he said he would do (Matthew 28:5-8; Mark 16:5-8; Luke 24:3-8). The women hurried to tell the other disciples what they had seen. Peter went inside the tomb, and he and another disciple saw the cloth and linen that was used to to wrap Jesus's body lying on the ground (Luke 24:9-12; John 20:2-9). Peter was dumbfounded.

Mary Magdalene remained at the tomb, crying. Angels appeared to her. "Woman, why are you crying?" they asked. She replied, "They have taken my Lord away, and I don't know where they have put him." A man stood behind her. Mary thought that he was the gardener who kept the burial ground. When he spoke her name, she realised that it was Jesus. Filled with joy, she returned to the other disciples, telling them, "I have seen the Lord!" (Mark 16:9-11, John 20:10-18). Jesus then appeared to the other women who visited the tomb, and they clasped his feet and worshipped him (Matthew 28:9-10). Reporting to their superiors what had happened, the tomb guards were bribed to spread a story that Jesus's disciples stole his body (Matthew 28:11-15).

Later that day, two of Jesus's followers were travelling to the village of Emmaus, not far from Jerusalem. Jesus came and walked with them, but they did not recognise him at first. They discussed the events of the previous three days, how Jesus had been arrested and crucified, the reports of the empty tomb, and the women who claimed that Jesus was alive again. Speaking of himself, Jesus responded, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in the Scriptures concerning himself. Only then did they recognise Jesus (Mark 16:12-13, Luke 24:13-32). They returned to Jerusalem immediately to report to the other disciples what happened (Luke 24:33-35). They thought he was a ghost, so Jesus invited them to touch his wounded hands and feet. He then took and ate a piece of fish in front of them (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25; 1 Corinthians 15:5). There could no longer be any doubt that Jesus was alive.

John 20:24-28 tells us of how Thomas, one of the disciples, responded when the other disciples came to him with the news that Jesus was alive. Thomas was a broken man. He had spent three years of his life following Jesus, and it had cost him everything. He mourned deeply over the loss of his friend, and wanted to be alone. The other disciples came to him saying, "We have seen the Lord."

Thomas replied, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my fingers where the nails were, and put my hands into his side, I will not believe it." Imagine his astonishment when Jesus came to Thomas and invited him to touch his wounds. He suddenly realised that it was true. Jesus had risen from the dead, just as he said he would. Overcome with emotion at this awesome miracle, he cried out to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" These words are very profound. Thomas acknowledged Jesus as Messiah and as God. Jesus affirmed Thomas for his belief in him, just as he did all those who recognised him as Thomas did. Thomas would not have reacted to Jesus in this way if he had not died at all.
Some time later, seven of the apostles spent the night fishing on the Sea of Galilee, and caught nothing. The next morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but they did not realise who he was.

He called out to them, "Friends, have you caught any fish?"

"No," they replied.

He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." They did as Jesus said, and they were unable to haul in the net because of the large number of fish (John 21:1-14). This reminded them of their first meeting with Jesus, when he performed a similar miracle (Luke 5:1-11), and provided further proof that Jesus had risen from the grave, and was now back with his followers.

In a powerful act of reconciliation, Jesus reinstated Peter (John 21:15-24). After giving what is known as the Great Commission, the command to spread his teachings throughout the world (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:19-20; Luke 24:50-53, Acts 1:9-12), Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until the power of the Holy Spirit came upon them (Luke 24:44-49, Acts 1:3-8). The Holy Spirit was the Comforter and Counsellor Jesus promised to send to them (John 14:15-31, 16: 5-16).

The power of the Holy Spirit came upon the church, empowering it to boldly proclaim Jesus's message of hope and forgiveness from God throughout the world. As we read the remainder of the New Testament, it is impressive to see that the apostles, as the pioneers of the early church, suffered greatly for their faith, and were prepared to lose their lives for the cause of Jesus Christ, as most of them eventually did. They would not have shown such courage, determination, and conviction in their cause if Jesus was less than he claimed to be, and if they were mistaken in believing that Jesus was the Messiah, uniquely chosen by God to provide salvation to humanity. He provided the ultimate proof of these claims in his victory over death, which the apostles had all witnessed. This was not a mass delusion, nor was it a case of mistaken identity. Over a period of several weeks, more than 500 people saw Jesus alive in the days after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6). Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, just as the Bible says he did. God did not use a proxy to die in his place.

It is highly unlikely that the first Christians would have displayed such commitment, passion and energy in spreading the teachings of Jesus Christ if in fact he was not the Messiah. But they were totally convinced that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be. He was the Son of God, the Messiah, and the only Saviour of humanity. He alone conquered death, making it possible for all of us, as God's children, to be reconciled with God, receive forgiveness for our sins and escape the penalty of eternal separation from God, and have a relationship with Him.

Think a little

WHY DO PEOPLE LEAVE CHURCHES

This article by Dr Richard Hibbert came from the Australian Prayer Network. Dr Hibbert is Head of the Sydney Missionary Bible College's School of Cross-Cultural Mission. He is a medical doctor who has served as a missionary with WEC in the Middle East and Europe, working among Muslim people. He has a Doctor of Missiology from Columbia Seminary in Georgia, and a PhD through Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago. Why have I posted it here? It's fair to say that during this Christmas season, the thoughts of many Australians who may be unchurched turn to spiritual things. Also, occasionally I read militant atheist blogs which attempt to argue that there is a correlation between the growth of their movement and the decline in church membership and attendance. As Dr Hibbert shows below, the situation is more complex than that. The fact is that leaving the church does not always mean abandoning the Christian faith as well.

It's safe to say that the vast majority of Australian churches have experienced the pain of having someone leave their gathering. At your church, it might have been someone who was moving out of the area or into a new phase of life - or, tragically, someone who has fallen away from Christ. But why do people really leave churches in Australia or in mission contexts?

I conducted a case study in Bulgaria to find out some of the reasons why people leave - and to pull together some of the lessons we can learn as God's people. From the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, and especially immediately following the fall of Communism, thousands of previously Muslim, Turkish-speaking Roma in Bulgaria began to believe in Jesus. These Roma people are known as 'Millet'. In this period, the number of Millet churches grew from less than five to approximately 100 with an estimated 10,000 Millet church attendees.

A. Sadly, the dramatic multiplication of Millet believers and churches was followed by an equally dramatic decline in the number of Millet church attendees in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

B. Stagnation and decline in the number of churches and church attendees have often been observed following periods of rapid church planting and multiplication. Missiologists have suggested a wide variety of reasons for this phenomena of 'cooling off', including a lack of leadership or of a contextualised pattern of leadership, poor patterns of communication and/or conflict within the church, failure to nurture new Christians, lack of meaningful rituals and structures of incorporation into the church, and the natural entropy common to all human institutions.

C. But establishing the specific reasons for decline in a particular context is an important step in addressing decline and working towards future growth. The literature on defection from churches and other religious groups offers a range of possible explanations for people leaving churches. For example, Jorge Gomez's excellent 1995 study of people leaving evangelical churches in Costa Rica identifies several main reasons for defection which are relevant to the Millet experience: sinful conduct by some church leaders, the misuse of money in churches, defectors' sense of shame about their lifestyle not matching the standards of the gospel, and pressure from family and friends.

At the same time, many studies suggest that deficiencies in the process of conversion can be associated with defections. These deficiencies might include a lack of meaningful ritual to demonstrate conversion or to signal incorporation into the church, insufficient development of social interaction with church members, and motivations for conversion that are primarily utilitarian without sufficient understanding of the full meaning of the gospel. Another important reason for leaving that is raised by many studies is the inability of newcomers to develop and maintain strong, satisfying bonds with church members and pastors.

D. But what were the significant factors behind the Millet church's stagnation and decline? During late 2007 and early 2008, I visited several Millet neighbourhoods and spent a few weeks interviewing people who had left Turkish-speaking Millet churches ('leavers') as well as people who had stayed in churches ('stayers'). The leavers I interviewed gave four main reasons for leaving: Being hurt by or disillusioned with their pastor or group of pastors; Lack of time due to work or other commitments, which in each case seemed to be a cover for actions they or others considered sinful and shameful; Opposition from husbands; Conflict with another believer.

By far the most frequently cited reason for leaving was being hurt by or disillusioned with church leaders. Leaders making unilateral decisions, misusing money, fighting among themselves, failing to visit when the leaver had a problem, or insulting, shaming, or offending the leaver or their family: all of these leadership behaviours were highlighted as being hurtful or disillusioning for defectors. Indeed, the prominence of leader-related reasons for defection corresponds with the findings of many church growth studies. Problems of church leadership are often associated with decline.

E: Having said that, my interviews with stayers revealed that support from other believers was absolutely central to keeping Millet at church. Half of the stayers I interviewed described times when they nearly or actually gave up believing in Jesus or going to church temporarily. Support from other believers - whether in the form of verbal encouragement, prayer, or home visits - was the factor most frequently mentioned as helping these Millet to stay at or return to church.

This accords with the findings of Allen Swanson's 1986 study of Taiwanese believers and those of Arthur Duck's 2001 study of Brazilian churches. Each study revealed that support from other believers was a key factor associated with church members staying in their churches. One of the most striking findings of this study was that all the leavers, except for one, still expressed belief in Jesus and continued to pray regularly.



How does this study help us to know why people leave churches, and what we can do about it? There are several key implications here for missionaries and local Christians.

1. Don't assume that those who have left the church have also left the faith. Almost all of the twenty Millet interviewees who had left the church still believed in Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They missed the church, and they wanted to be back in fellowship with the community of believers. Given their continuing love for the Lord and for his people, it is likely that they could be gathered again into existing or new churches. Studies suggest that in Western contexts, including Australia, many who have left churches have also not left their faith in Christ. Many of them may also be 'gatherable'.

2. While most Millet defectors were positive about the thought of returning to church, they were prevented from doing so by a sense of sin or shame. Overcoming this barrier, in the Millet context, requires church members and/or leaders to intentionally reach out to the defectors. Visiting defectors in their homes will be the most effective way of doing this. Home visits should be one of the most important activities for Millet churches, since such visits, along with prayer and encouragement, led many Millet who had temporarily stopped coming to church to return.

In other contexts, too, current church members or leaders would do well to visit people who have recently left the church - in the West, many who have left churches are discouraged by the church's failure to pursue them.

3. People leave churches for many reasons, but many continue to believe in Jesus and live for him. For the Millet, the primary issue is poor leadership. In other contexts, other reasons are likely to predominate. Finding out why church leavers have left is crucial if we are to develop context-specific strategies for preventing defection and for helping defectors to return to church. The best way to do this is to sensitively ask the leavers themselves.

As Stuart Murray points out, some church leavers "have abandoned their Christian faith; but many have abandoned only church", and therefore, "Leavers have insights and perspectives that can sensitise churches to issues that hinder witness and community life - and that may prompt others to consider leaving". Having learnt church leavers' reasons for leaving, it is critical that churches evaluate their own practices and change to address the problems. If your church wants to begin this evaluation process, you could begin with the list of reasons for leaving given above alongside the specific reasons for leaving given by leavers in your context.

4. Many church growth studies implicate poor leadership as a cause for church decline. Church leadership must be transparent, accountable, and culturally relevant. A major problem in mission contexts is that the expatriate missionaries impose their own inherited forms of church leadership and administration on local churches without realising that these may be counterproductive according to the values of the local culture.

Sometimes the inherited forms are very difficult to let go of as they are thought to be inherently 'Christian' rather than simply one cultural expression of worship and church practice among many possible options. The missional principle here is work with the culture, not against it. The only way to do this is to seriously research both the culture and the Bible, being willing to let go of 'the way we've always done things' for the sake of finding culturally relevant expressions of biblical principles. This kind of research needs to involve local people in an empowering dialogue.

5. Christian community is not primarily a meeting: it is a sharing of life together as an expression of our shared identity in Christ. It includes a sense of belonging to one another because we belong to God. The processes of entering and leaving the community of a local church hold great potential for nurturing a sense of belonging and shared identity, so it is important that churches mark the incorporation of new members into their group with special events or celebrations, including baptism. By the same token, when people leave the community of the local church, they should not be abandoned - pathways should be constructed which help them to come back into fellowship with the church they have left or with another local church.

Source: Dr Richard Hibbert

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Read the book and see the movie

Director Stuart Beattie revealed over the weekend that he will be making a sequel to Australia’s highest grossing film of the year, Tomorrow, When the War Began, which was based on the first of the popular series of books by John Marsden. Dubbed by some critics as Red Dawn Down Under, or Home and Away with guns, the plot centres on a group of teenage friends who go away on a weekend camping trip in the bush. After Australia is invaded by the army of an unnamed Asian country, they form a band of guerrillas to fight back against the occupying power.

Slightly ropey acting aside, it showed that the Australian film industry is capable of more than making dreary art house movies that nobody wants to see. Given an adequate budget (by Australian standards at least), decent production values, a photogenic cast, an effective marketing campaign, some explosions and gunfire, and a sympathetic if slightly caricatured Christian character, we can make genre films that have commercial appeal and will garner critical acclaim as well.

It grossed $13 million at the Australian box office, which is a fair effort, no doubt helped that the books have been on reading syllabuses in Australian schools for many years, which gave the film a ready audience. There were seven books in the series, but the film adaptations will be a trilogy. A release date hasn’t been set yet. Sequels are a rarity in the Australian film industry, much less ones that people will actually want to see. Kings of Mykonos: Wog Boy II, I’m talking about you.