Thursday, April 29, 2010
New Blog Host
I've decided to change my blog host from blogger to wordpress. If you want to know why head over to somethingmoreseemedpromised.wordpress.com and if you have my blog in a reader, you'll need to change the feed.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
All at Sea - Our thinking about 'boat people'
I've been meaning to put together a few thoughts on the subject of boat people - or more correctly asylum seekers for some time, and I was prompted to get into action by an excellent editorial in the Australian Newspaper. It seems to me that our thinking about assylum seekers who arrive by boat really is all at sea, and based far more on myth than reality. Here's a few of what I consider to be the worst myths.
1. We are being overun by 'illegal immigrants'. No - 4500 boat arrivals is not overun! if they are assessed to be genuine refugees and are allowed to stay they are subtracted from our existing refugee quota anyway - so we take no more refugees than we otherwise would. In any case this is only about 2% of our annual population growth, and only about 0.02% of our total population.
2. Boat people are well off people looking for an easy way to get around our immigration system or terrorists trying to sneak into the country. No - I think I read somewhere that over 90% of boat arrivals are assessed to be genuine refugees - a far higher percentage than those who arrive illegally by plane. Also, just because the assylum seekers arrive by boat doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same kind of background checks as any other refugee applicant.
3. Boat people are queue jumpers. Anyone who has ever been anywhere near a refugee camp will know that the idea of a queue is just ludicrous. In most places where people apply for refugee status corruption is rife and there is really no 'fair' process for who gets here and who doesn't. As the Australian editorial helpfully points out, if we are so worried about queue jumping, why not just stop including the boat people in our refugee quota - then they won't be taking anyone's spots.
4. We should stop the boats because it is dangerous for the people involved. This again is the kind of comment that could only be made from the comfort of a middle class Australian lounge chair. Being a refugee is dangerous by definition, and living in a refugee camp is also dangerous. If I had the choice of a slow death for me and my family from cholera, dysentry, malaria etc, or a choice of a leaky boat trip that might get me out of the situation I know which I'd be choosing.
I think the kind of scare mongering that some of our politicians go on with about assylum seekers, and the lack of compassionate leadership is just shameful. Yes there are a few issues that need to be dealt with - people smugglers being one. But we should be able to do much better in being merciful to those who arrive in our country from terrible and traumatic situations.
This is a particular issue for Christians. I read somewhere that Christians differ on the approach we should take to Boat people, but I think this is a cop out. Sure we might differ on some of the fine details. But there's no way we should be differing on our primary approach to asylum seekers. The Australian editorial makes a telling point about our political leaders in this regard.
1. We are being overun by 'illegal immigrants'. No - 4500 boat arrivals is not overun! if they are assessed to be genuine refugees and are allowed to stay they are subtracted from our existing refugee quota anyway - so we take no more refugees than we otherwise would. In any case this is only about 2% of our annual population growth, and only about 0.02% of our total population.
2. Boat people are well off people looking for an easy way to get around our immigration system or terrorists trying to sneak into the country. No - I think I read somewhere that over 90% of boat arrivals are assessed to be genuine refugees - a far higher percentage than those who arrive illegally by plane. Also, just because the assylum seekers arrive by boat doesn't mean they aren't subject to the same kind of background checks as any other refugee applicant.
3. Boat people are queue jumpers. Anyone who has ever been anywhere near a refugee camp will know that the idea of a queue is just ludicrous. In most places where people apply for refugee status corruption is rife and there is really no 'fair' process for who gets here and who doesn't. As the Australian editorial helpfully points out, if we are so worried about queue jumping, why not just stop including the boat people in our refugee quota - then they won't be taking anyone's spots.
4. We should stop the boats because it is dangerous for the people involved. This again is the kind of comment that could only be made from the comfort of a middle class Australian lounge chair. Being a refugee is dangerous by definition, and living in a refugee camp is also dangerous. If I had the choice of a slow death for me and my family from cholera, dysentry, malaria etc, or a choice of a leaky boat trip that might get me out of the situation I know which I'd be choosing.
I think the kind of scare mongering that some of our politicians go on with about assylum seekers, and the lack of compassionate leadership is just shameful. Yes there are a few issues that need to be dealt with - people smugglers being one. But we should be able to do much better in being merciful to those who arrive in our country from terrible and traumatic situations.
This is a particular issue for Christians. I read somewhere that Christians differ on the approach we should take to Boat people, but I think this is a cop out. Sure we might differ on some of the fine details. But there's no way we should be differing on our primary approach to asylum seekers. The Australian editorial makes a telling point about our political leaders in this regard.
I heartily agree, and I think that Christians should be at the forefront of ensuring that all refugees, including 'boat people' receive a warm and generous welcome. After all, in the Old Testament God wanted the people of Israel to remember that they had been refugees at one stage and welcome those who came among them, and at easter we remember that we have a God who welcomed us as his people - even when we didn't deserve it and we should show this kind of welcome to others.
I find it disappointingly inconsistent that both of our political leaders, Rudd and Tony Abbott, wear their religion on their sleeves, yet neither of them practises the compassion that Christianity extols when it comes to boatpeople.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sunday Night at Scots
While I'm on a roll, this is a new poster for Sunday Night at Scots, our evening service. We've recently moved the service from our church hall back into our church building, and are also trying to include a couple of more traditional elements in the service.
A Hedghog concept for Churches
What was particularly interesting about Raj Gupta's article at Sydney Anglicans was not so much the idea of the hedgehog concept itself, but rather the particular concept he was thinking about for his church. In a brave move he didn't choose the most obvious answers of 'Gospel' or good 'Bible teaching' . He suggested 'the welcoming and integrating of new people.' You can read his article to see why. But it's certainly go me thinking.
Texting World Record
Apparently there is a new world record for texting on a touchscreen phone, and it was acheived using the 'swype' keyboard I've mentioned before. Franklin Page managed to type the following text in 35.54 seconds.
After a lot of practice, and with the long words in the dictionary of my phone I managed to get it out in 1:10 on my swype keyboard and about 2:00 on a normal keyboard. Can anyone beat that?
“The razor-toothed piranhas of the genera Serrasalmus and Pygocentrus are the most ferocious freshwater fish in the world. In reality they seldom attack a human”
After a lot of practice, and with the long words in the dictionary of my phone I managed to get it out in 1:10 on my swype keyboard and about 2:00 on a normal keyboard. Can anyone beat that?
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Atheist faith
There's a good article in the Online Opinion journal comparing the charitable and transforming impulse of Christianity with the lack of anything similar for atheism. I understand this is not a complete argument for God, and I also want to acknowledge that the history of Christianity is not all rosy. But I think in the gave of the "Christianity poisons everything" line of attack, it's important to give some balance.
Predictably there were immediately a million angry coments on the article which all seem to assume that simply by using the ,word "nonsense" and the phrase "spaghetti monster", you have conclusively dismissed the idea of God.
The greatest irony though, was the howls ,of protest about the idea that atheism was in any way an organized, identifiable group like a religion. I was wondering of any of these comments were posted from the atheist convention in Melbourne where 2500 atheist have gathered to encourage one another i n their faith and congratulate themselves on their superior intelligence. According to the Smh, it sounds like the atmosphere has rivaled anything Hillsong puts together.
Predictably there were immediately a million angry coments on the article which all seem to assume that simply by using the ,word "nonsense" and the phrase "spaghetti monster", you have conclusively dismissed the idea of God.
The greatest irony though, was the howls ,of protest about the idea that atheism was in any way an organized, identifiable group like a religion. I was wondering of any of these comments were posted from the atheist convention in Melbourne where 2500 atheist have gathered to encourage one another i n their faith and congratulate themselves on their superior intelligence. According to the Smh, it sounds like the atmosphere has rivaled anything Hillsong puts together.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Why does Paul go to Jerusalem?
One possible answer is that he wants to deliver the gift that he has been collecting among the gentile churches. This makes sense historically, and I suspect is part of the reason. The problem though, in the context of Acts, is that Luke never mentions the gift. I assume therefore that there is something else significant in his mind about the trip to Jerusalem.
The second answer for the Jerusalem trip is that Paul wants to immitate Jesus (and perhaps other prophets) who went to Jerusalem to die. Luke certainly seems to highlight some similarities between Jesus and Paul in this section of Acts - The prophecies of trouble in Jerusalem, the crowd calling for his execution and the trial before the Sanhedrin all echo Jesus' experience. However these similarities seem to flow FROM Paul's trip to Jerusalem rather than be motivation for his trip.
I wonder if Paul went to Jerusalem for one last desperate attempt to win the Jews for the Gospel. This would explain his willingness to go along with the cleansing ritual, and also the detailed testimony he gave to the crowd where he tried to explain why he became a follower of Jesus. Sadly of course he is emphatically rejected by the Jews in Jerusalem, and the visit to Jerusalem becomes the Launchpad for him into the heart of Rome itself.
Anyone else got any thoughts on this part of Acts?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Have a little Faith
I read the book have a little faith by Mitch Albom recently. I think it's pretty popular out there in the community, and I suspect it's a good barometer for how many non hardline-atheist westerners think about faith in general, and especially about the relationships between different faiths.
The setting of the book is Mitch's journey getting too know the rabbi from his childhood synagogue so he can write the old man's eulogy. What was originally going to be a few short interviews turns into an 8 year relationship, as Mitch finds there is much to love about and learn from the old man.
Interspersed with Mitch's account of his growing relationship with the rabbi, there is the account of a boy growing up in a very disadvantaged home, who has an interest in God, but ends up in jail and doing drugs. As the story progresses, we find out that this second man has been converted and runs a church in a depressed part of Detroit.
Mitch Albom has a clear respect for both these men, and in the end I think he tells their stories the way he does to make a classic pluralist argument. Surely these two men who are both do wise and good are both serving Good on their own way, and took try and judge between them on the basis of doctrine is narrow and fundamentalist.
If can be difficult too respond to this kind of outlook because it involves condemning either a wise old rabbi or a reformed drug addict who is giving his life to serve peopled in the situation her has come out of himself, but I think two points can be made.
Firstly, I suspect both the rabbi and the pastor are a lot less pluralistic than Mitch Albom. Although they both try and be tolerant, the pastor believes people need to come to Jesus to be saved. And you suspect the rabbi wouldn't be keen on the idea that Jesus is God, even though he wants to be in good relationships with his catholic neighbours. It is only Mitch himself, who is essentially a non-practicing Jew, who really doesn't think these things matter.
The second point that strikes me is that the pastors story is so essentially Christian. To be converted from a background of drug addiction and disadvantage is such a testimony of grace and forgiveness and the power of the Spirit.It actually highlights the uniqueness of the gospel message. How many rabbi's are there with a story like that?
So all in all, 'Have a little Faith' is a warm and easy read, but it does have definite pluralist overtones. It could be useful as a conversation starter on these issues, or as a way to get your mind around the way our culture its thinking about these issues, or of course as sermon illustration material.
The setting of the book is Mitch's journey getting too know the rabbi from his childhood synagogue so he can write the old man's eulogy. What was originally going to be a few short interviews turns into an 8 year relationship, as Mitch finds there is much to love about and learn from the old man.
Interspersed with Mitch's account of his growing relationship with the rabbi, there is the account of a boy growing up in a very disadvantaged home, who has an interest in God, but ends up in jail and doing drugs. As the story progresses, we find out that this second man has been converted and runs a church in a depressed part of Detroit.
Mitch Albom has a clear respect for both these men, and in the end I think he tells their stories the way he does to make a classic pluralist argument. Surely these two men who are both do wise and good are both serving Good on their own way, and took try and judge between them on the basis of doctrine is narrow and fundamentalist.
If can be difficult too respond to this kind of outlook because it involves condemning either a wise old rabbi or a reformed drug addict who is giving his life to serve peopled in the situation her has come out of himself, but I think two points can be made.
Firstly, I suspect both the rabbi and the pastor are a lot less pluralistic than Mitch Albom. Although they both try and be tolerant, the pastor believes people need to come to Jesus to be saved. And you suspect the rabbi wouldn't be keen on the idea that Jesus is God, even though he wants to be in good relationships with his catholic neighbours. It is only Mitch himself, who is essentially a non-practicing Jew, who really doesn't think these things matter.
The second point that strikes me is that the pastors story is so essentially Christian. To be converted from a background of drug addiction and disadvantage is such a testimony of grace and forgiveness and the power of the Spirit.It actually highlights the uniqueness of the gospel message. How many rabbi's are there with a story like that?
So all in all, 'Have a little Faith' is a warm and easy read, but it does have definite pluralist overtones. It could be useful as a conversation starter on these issues, or as a way to get your mind around the way our culture its thinking about these issues, or of course as sermon illustration material.
Monday, February 22, 2010
New Acts Commentary
The only disappointment so far is that it doesn't deal with the theory that Luke-Acts is a legal brief for Paul's defense before Ceasar. Not sure I agree with this theory, but I would have liked Peterson to interact with it. If you are going to preach Acts, this would be one of the first commentaries I would buy.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Swype touchscreen keyboard
I have to mention this amazing new keyboard I have on my phone. It's called swype, and it makes typing stuff on a touchscreen phone so much faster.
Unlike a normal keyboard where you have to touch the keys one by one, with swype you slide your finger from letter to letter to make each word. It does take a little while to get used to, but once you've got the idea it is much less sensitive to slight miss-hits on the keys, and much better at predicting what you really want to write.
As an example, I found this post quite comfortable to type using swype, but I would really have struggled to do something this long with a normal touchscreen keyboard.
It will be interesting to see if phone manufacturers start including a swype keyboard as a standard feature.
Unlike a normal keyboard where you have to touch the keys one by one, with swype you slide your finger from letter to letter to make each word. It does take a little while to get used to, but once you've got the idea it is much less sensitive to slight miss-hits on the keys, and much better at predicting what you really want to write.
As an example, I found this post quite comfortable to type using swype, but I would really have struggled to do something this long with a normal touchscreen keyboard.
It will be interesting to see if phone manufacturers start including a swype keyboard as a standard feature.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Acts 15
I'm preaching on Acts 15 this week, which is the big discussion the early church had about wether Gentile christians were required too follow the law of Moses in order to be saved.
The tricky part of the passage is that although the apostles and elders say no, the gentiles don't have to follow the law of Moses, they do ask the gentiles to do four things - don't eat meat offered to idols, don't eat strangled meat, don't eat blood, and don't engage in sexual immorality.
The big question is, why are these four commands given? I had always thought that this was a matter of not offending the Jewish Christians, and that's why we no longer have to keep these commands today - most Christians just aren't in contact with any Jews. The problem with this reading is sexual immorality. It isn't just a ceremonial concession to maintain fellowship with Jewish brothers and sisters, it is wrong under any circumstances.
Fortunately, Kutz our student did assignment on this recently. His suggestion (which follows Ben Witherington), is that the four issues addressed are a kind of shorthand for worship at idol temples, and what the apostles are saying is "you don't have to follow the law of Moses, but don't go back to living the life of an idol worshipper.
I think I'm convinced - so Kutz has more than earned his pay this week (not that you have to do much to earn a student minister pay!!).
The tricky part of the passage is that although the apostles and elders say no, the gentiles don't have to follow the law of Moses, they do ask the gentiles to do four things - don't eat meat offered to idols, don't eat strangled meat, don't eat blood, and don't engage in sexual immorality.
The big question is, why are these four commands given? I had always thought that this was a matter of not offending the Jewish Christians, and that's why we no longer have to keep these commands today - most Christians just aren't in contact with any Jews. The problem with this reading is sexual immorality. It isn't just a ceremonial concession to maintain fellowship with Jewish brothers and sisters, it is wrong under any circumstances.
Fortunately, Kutz our student did assignment on this recently. His suggestion (which follows Ben Witherington), is that the four issues addressed are a kind of shorthand for worship at idol temples, and what the apostles are saying is "you don't have to follow the law of Moses, but don't go back to living the life of an idol worshipper.
I think I'm convinced - so Kutz has more than earned his pay this week (not that you have to do much to earn a student minister pay!!).
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
5 Reasons Patriotism is Wrong
1. It's thinking your country is superior to every other, which is both deluded and proud.
2. It inhibits critical reflection on what is good and bad about your culture.
3. It's selfishly putting what is good for me and my country above what is good for humanity.
4. For Christians it forgets that our citizenship is in the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus.5. It means that Aldi can make money selling cheap and tacky Australian flag merchandise and people drive around with those cringeworthy plastic Australian flags on their cars that they got free with their carton of beer.
Monday, January 25, 2010
New font
Here's my Acts graphic with a different font. It's supposed to have an 'International' feel. Now for some studies to go with the cover page!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Graphic for Acts 13-28 Series
Here's a draft copy of some publicity for my Acts 13-28 series (hence the watermarks). Not completely convinced about the graphic though. Any thoughts?
New mobile phone browser
Mmm - ironic. I was just doing a blog post about my cool new mobile phone browser that makes it easy to do blog posts, and it crashed my phone!
Still, it is a cool browser. It resizes things almost perfectly for my phone screen, scrolls nice and smoothly, and does tabs. Not quite the iphone of course but not far off.
Still, it is a cool browser. It resizes things almost perfectly for my phone screen, scrolls nice and smoothly, and does tabs. Not quite the iphone of course but not far off.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Gospel on the Go
While I'm on a role tonight, I think I have a title for my Acts series this term - Gospel on the Go: The journey of the gospel to the ends of the earth. Of course that title could apply to the whole of Acts, but I think it is particularly relevant to the second half of acts where Paul finally gets out of Israel/Syria and starts to take the Gospel seriously international.
The Big idea I'm working with for the series is: As Paul takes the Gospel towards Rome, we see that it is a message for everyone, equally powerful to Jews and Gentiles, pagans and godfearers, and ordinary people and high officials.
The Big idea I'm working with for the series is: As Paul takes the Gospel towards Rome, we see that it is a message for everyone, equally powerful to Jews and Gentiles, pagans and godfearers, and ordinary people and high officials.
Is it better to be wrong or non-commital
Read an interesting comment in an interview wifh American theologian and historian Carl Trueman the other day. Talking about the issue of truth and doctrine he says 'There are some things that it is more important to be wrong about than to think that they are not important. It's better to lack complete clarity over baptism than to say it doesn' matter.'
I essentially agree with this statement, but I think the rubber really hits the road when you decide what to do about those issues that you think are important but over which you lack complete clarity. 'Do you say it's my way or the highway' or do you say 'I come down on the opposite side of the fence to you, but I can work with you.'
I think the Bible actually gives us some guidance on which approach you take with which doctrines. Eg, Colossians seems to make it pretty clear that if people are adding stuff to the Gospel and undermining the sufficiency of Christ then that is a 'God's way (as far as I can determine it) or the highway' kind of issue. Unlike Trueman I'm not so sure that baptism is one of those issues - at least not the things Protestants have divided over about baptism (adult/infant, immersion/sprinkling). Can't see any verses that get really fired up about those things, or any essential doctrines that hang on them. But maybe I'm missing something.
I essentially agree with this statement, but I think the rubber really hits the road when you decide what to do about those issues that you think are important but over which you lack complete clarity. 'Do you say it's my way or the highway' or do you say 'I come down on the opposite side of the fence to you, but I can work with you.'
I think the Bible actually gives us some guidance on which approach you take with which doctrines. Eg, Colossians seems to make it pretty clear that if people are adding stuff to the Gospel and undermining the sufficiency of Christ then that is a 'God's way (as far as I can determine it) or the highway' kind of issue. Unlike Trueman I'm not so sure that baptism is one of those issues - at least not the things Protestants have divided over about baptism (adult/infant, immersion/sprinkling). Can't see any verses that get really fired up about those things, or any essential doctrines that hang on them. But maybe I'm missing something.
Bizarre Swimming Experience
Went and did some laps this afternoon and had a very strange experience at the pool. When I got out my eyesight was completely blurry - so much so that I could hardly even find my way over to where my towel and gear was. Even after I blinked and washed them out with water and got some saline solution from the pool staff it was still like there was a thick mist over them - driving home was a bit of an adventure. Even now, 2 and a half hours later the computer screen is blurry as I write this.
I've had stinging eyes before after the chlorine (and my eyes certainly aren't feeling great at the moment!), but the whole blurry thing was something else. The pool staff reckon there was nothing wrong with the chlorine levels in the pool, so maybe my eyes were just being strange. Anyone else had that experience before?
I've had stinging eyes before after the chlorine (and my eyes certainly aren't feeling great at the moment!), but the whole blurry thing was something else. The pool staff reckon there was nothing wrong with the chlorine levels in the pool, so maybe my eyes were just being strange. Anyone else had that experience before?
Monday, January 4, 2010
Preaching on Acts
I'm working on my talk series for term one at the moment. It is the second half of Acts. Haven't got anything too concrete yet, but my breakdown is as follows:
Acts 13-14 Paul's First Missionary Journey
Acts 15:1-35 The Jerusalem council
Acts 15:36-16:40 Paul in Phillippi
Acts 17:1-18:17 Paul in Greece
Acts 18:18-20:38 Paul and the Ephesians
Acts 21-23 Paul gets into trouble in Jerusalem
Acts 24-26 Paul defends the gospel before a whole bunch of Rulers
Acts 27-28 Paul makes it to Rome
stay tuned to hopefully see a cohesive series take shape!
Acts 13-14 Paul's First Missionary Journey
Acts 15:1-35 The Jerusalem council
Acts 15:36-16:40 Paul in Phillippi
Acts 17:1-18:17 Paul in Greece
Acts 18:18-20:38 Paul and the Ephesians
Acts 21-23 Paul gets into trouble in Jerusalem
Acts 24-26 Paul defends the gospel before a whole bunch of Rulers
Acts 27-28 Paul makes it to Rome
stay tuned to hopefully see a cohesive series take shape!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
