Sadly this is not the announcement of my publishing and speaking deal, but rather that I wrote a letter to the editor of the Hobart Metropolitan paper The Mercury. It was a response to this article about how we should get rid of faith from our morality debates. They titlted my response 'Mob Rule without Jesus' which I thought was pretty cool.
Sadly The Mercury doesn't publish this part of the paper on line, so I have no way of knowing if anyone responds.
Matt Perman over at his blog has been reading through a book called Sticky Teams. It seems to have some great insights and I particularly liked two of his posts.
The first was about "no theys". That is the leadership of the church decided that they would no longer listen to the so called annonomus group of people in the church called "they". This is a classic reason I think church leaders can avoid making changes. Because "they" won't like it. But who are "they"? Often we don't know, or "they" turn out not to be as big or bad as we thought. It's good advice!
The other post was about how getting 'buy in' from people is not always needed and can waste time and stop innovation. Sometimes all we need is permission. I liked the way he differentiates between 'buy in' and 'permission'. It's I think a subtle but very helpful difference!
Check out the posts and have a look round his blog while you're there.
I came across this article recently and thought it was very good. It’s about how we always compare ourselves to others in unrealistic ways and how this happens especially to people when they look at others on Facebook. The article then goes on to say how the same thing happens in churches.
Nobody is as happy as he seems on Facebook. And no one is as “spiritual” as he seems in what we deem as “spiritual” enough for Christian worship. Maybe what we need in our churches is more tears, more failure, more confession of sin, more prayers of desperation that are too deep for words.
Maybe then the lonely and the guilty and the desperate among us will see that the gospel has come not for the happy, but for the brokenhearted; not for the well, but for the sick; not for the found, but for the lost.
A model in the USA has ditched the modelling life to promote living modestly.
Sadly, immodestly is all around us. Sometimes it’s hard for guys to be in church. Sometimes it’s hard for girls to be in church. I think dressing modestly is a great way of saying I care more about my brother or sister than I do about feeling good or looking hot or whatever.
Perhaps I will name and shame some of my top immodest fashion trends of late that seem to have been embraced by the Christian world. Maybe they’d be better kept to myself!
I posted a link to this article which gave some good reasons not to vote Green if you're a Christian on Facebook earlier today and got the following comments:
Person 1: I feel insulted with the label "naive Christian". Reading this article was like swimming in a sea of bias.
Person 2: Articles like this really dissapoint me... the Greens will be getting my vote.
My response:
Hey Person 1 and Person 2. First of all (to Person 1) if I didn't know you and was feeling like being a political bastard I could say that your comment might back up the article giving you that label, of naive. Now, don't get me wrong, that's not what I'm saying but you can't just dismiss what the article says because it's biased against your opinion.
Every article we read is biased in some way, we only notice the bias if it offends our own biases. So to both of you I would say, sure it's biased against the Greens, but lots of other articles are biased towards them. You can't just pick which ones you are going to deal with. What is wrong with what the article said?
Why does it disappoint you Person 2? Is it that the article talks about their philosophy/ideology and you're uncomfortable having that exposed? Or is it because thats not true? Is their no such book called, "The Greens"? Does it not say the things quoted and alluded to?
Don't think I'm some sort of right wing, 'moral majority' Christian voter. I'm not. I've voted Green in the past. But as I read and reflect and try and work out what it means to be a Christian in a democracy my feeling is it means I need base my votes not on single issues, but on ideologies. Now, no party has a perfect Christian ideology (not even the Christian ones!) But some are at least not opposed to Christians. And that is my problem. It might be all well and good to have more trees and to treat the 'boat people' (actually desperate refugees in need of our help) more humanly, but what good is letting them settle in Australia only to have the church and Christians then hindered to bring the Gospel to them by a party that has said it wants to bring a, " green philosophy as an alternative to the traditional Christian view: "an alternative tradition", a green ethic that is concerned for "the interests of individual non-human animals". This by its very nature would include a rejection of Christian morals etc.
No party is perfect, I agree. I have no idea who to vote for. But I don't think it should be the Greens. It's not a salvation issue, I don't think you love Jesus less if you vote for them. But I do think it is an unwise move, and surely I must be allowed to hold that opinion and express it. That's what democracy is all about!
Feel free to continue the debate here or on Facebook!
My brother has an excellent little piece of analysis of the claims made recently in some of the Australian metropolitan newspapers concerning the idea that 'man flu' is really real and that men always overstate their sickness.
I wonder what other scientific findings you've taken as true, which aren't, based on a piece of poor journalism?
State Infrastructure Minister Graeme Sturges made an embarrassing Freudian slip when asked whether it was just a coincidence that construction was starting in the middle of an election campaign.
"No, absolutely not," Mr Sturges said.
Now, I'm prepared to look stupid here, because I have no idea how this is a Freudian slip... he said no to a question...
So recently it was announced that churches could continue to 'discriminate' and only hire people who hold the same religious convictions as they do to work for them.
This is surely mostly a big debate about nothing. The reason it is heated is because churches and their associated organisations wont hire gay people and the law says this is ok. Melbourne's flagship paper, The Age, has been pretty biased against the church on this one (what's new?). Here are all of the recent articles, I could find, that they've published on the issue. I've categorised them into Anti-church and Pro-Church by which I mean Anti the right for a church organisation to discrimate on the basis of faith or pro that position:
Anti-church:A Betrayal of Faith: The Bishop of Gippsland writes one of the worst articles I've ever seen from a Bishop. Totally hopeless and he'd be doing everyone a favour if he resigned and never spoke in public again.
Church can reject gays, single mums: news article which is... also totally biased. It includes this lovely quote from Rodney Croome (a Tasmanian gay activist), "the right to employment and education is more important than pandering to religious prejudice." Hang on Rodney, the church isn't saying gay people can't have jobs or get educated. Just that they won't employ them. Surely when the gay lobby hire someone they ask if they believe in the cause?? If I went for a job to work with them and said, by the way I don't agree with you I wouldn't be hired. I'm then discriminated against because of my religious views. Why is it fair for you to do it but not the church?
Freedom of religion is also a basic right: This article begins with, "Telling a church or a mosque it can't employ people who share its ethos is a bit like telling the Labor Party it must employ Liberals." Hurrah!
(NOTE: These were all I found when searching theage.com.au with the word discrimination so I might have missed one or two but I think it's a pretty complete list)
Anyway apart from a clearly biased paper. Here are some of my other thoughts:
First of all, churches are still allowed to preach the Gospel and so I can't see why a gay person would want to work for an organisation that says you're lifestyle is opposed to God's plan for the way humans should relate to each other. So that's why I can't really understand why they are so upset about this. It's like I said earlier about me working for the gay lobby. I don't want to and they would never employ me because of my religious beliefs. I'm happy to be discriminated against in that case where we clash ideologically.
Secondly, Jim Wallis makes an interesting point in a recent article on this subject of discrimination. He talks about the difference between providing services and receiving them. He says you should be able to select people who agree with your organisational beliefs but then not discriminate against who receives your services, that is a church based group that finds people jobs should still find gay people jobs but shouldn't be forced to hire someone who totally disagrees with their position. (The first "Pro-Church" article I list argues along similar lines to this!)
I think my view would be similar to Jim Wallis and co.
Thanks to a friend on Facebook I saw a link to this article about Society, Marriage and God.
"Marriage is part of an earlier notion that women were dependent on men. Women were saying 'if I am going to invest in you by bearing your kids, then you have to commit to me in marriage'. But with women able to earn an equal income, that contract has been weakened."
Not sure how successful a single mum with a kid, after her partner walks out on her or she walks out on him will be at earning high level of income and raising a well rounded child...
Here is an interesting article about how UK community pools are having special Muslim only sessions where people are required to dress in a certain way.
Raises an interesting question, how do you integrate a group of people who don't want to integrate but rather want to change the whole society and force people to do things their way... glad I'm not trying to figure out the social policy on that one!
I've blogged about The Agecolumnist Catherine Devenybefore. She seems to be a God-hating, Christian hating columnist. Anyway, according to her most recent article she recently went along to a Planetshakers church service. She makes a number of interesting observations some of which are fair some of which are not. All though of which Christians should take note of as she is the kind of person we want to come to our church services, experience Christian Community and respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Firstly, she makes probably a valid point, although overstated, about much of modern day Christian music.
Lyrics flashed up: "Come like a flood and saturate me now." I wondered what Freud would have made of the disproportionate use of such words as ‘‘come’’, ‘‘touch’’ and ‘‘feel’’, and the phrases "move within me" and "being filled". My favourite was "King of Glory, enter in".
Now, don't here me saying we should only sing the Psalms unaccompanied in church, or even badly written music with solid theological words. But I want, and it seems so do some non-Christians, words that speak more of God and praise him for who he is and what he has done; not songs that remind us of Cartman in a South Parkepisode about Christian Music.
Songs like In Christ Alone and Jesus Thank You (my current two favourites) are great because they express the reality of Jesus' death for our sins and the fact that we don't deserve that so well and to very moving music.
Next, Deveny moved to critique the infamous pentecostal 'giving talk'.
A pastor banged on about sacrifice and said it wasn’t important how much we sacrificed just as long as we gave as much as we could. No matter how small it was. I didn’t know what he was on about until the giving cards came round. And a little bucket for coins. No lid with a slot. A big open bucket, so you could be shamed by your paltry donation.
She could be misquoting, but... I'm not sure it doesn't matter how much we sacrifice. Like it mattered to God how much Jesus sacrificed, he sacrificed his life. If you're His disciple, then you have to be prepared to do likewise. Mark 8:34 says to follow Jesus we have to deny ourselves, our wants and desires, our right to life a comfortable life, and take up our cross and follow him. I take that to mean it could mean death. When it comes to sacrifice, dropping money into a bucket doesn't really cut it for me. When it comes to money we are to give generously and all that we can (2 Cor 9). Money is no big deal for Christians so that should joyfully and happily part with it for God's purposes. But it should be made clear that we aren't desperate for everyone's money. I've been to a few churches or events with 'giving talks' and I've never heard a good one. All I'm asking is they use the Bible properly.
Deveny continues:
Then there were the plugs for the Mighty Men’s night and Beautiful Women Seminar. Male volunteers were encouraged to get involved with the ladies’ seminar with the promise of ‘‘being able to tell 3000 women what to do’’. Beautiful women. Mighty men. Note: not mighty women and beautiful men.
This is good. This is clearly not a reaction by Deveny to something weird but to a biblical Christian distinctive. Men and Women are different and have different roles and the church encourages both equally to fulfill their roles in ways God has uniquely gifted them as men or women. It is good that this irks Deveny and is ultimately a strength of Christian community.
Following this, she talks about the sermon.
As people yelled, "Yeah!", "Amen!" and ‘‘Awesome!" [To the preaching about 'sheepgate'] I wanted to yell, "I don’t get it". I love the way religion convinces people by making things deliberately incomprehensible and you feel too shy to say ‘‘I don’t understand’’ lest you reveal your stupidity.
I would say here is a great example of why we need to be clear in our preaching. I didn't hear the sermon that Deveny went to so her question may simply have arised out of needing clarification or some points. However, unfortunately, often when Christians preach it does sound like a bunch of riddles and power words joined together to form some kind of wise sounding meaningless dribble. I once read something on a 'famous' young Christian leader's MySpace site (from Sydney) that I could not decipher any meaning from. Yet hundreds of comments had been left saying how it was exactly what they had been thinking or feeling and it was so good to finally have words to express the weight God had put on their heart... Which I found interesting because as far as I could tell it was illogical.
Our sermons should be clear. They should be sound, and they should be backed up from the Bible, and they should preferably eventually point to Jesus' death on the cross and his imminent return rather than aligning the lives and deeds of obscure Old Testament prophets with the power potential of our super awesome next Generation.
The crowd left believing they had been moved by God and touched by Jesus. They hadn’t. They had been seduced by slick video packages and had their emotional desire for love, community and certainty met by manipulation. It wasn’t the Holy Spirit; it was just people.
UnfortunatelyDenevy failed to meet Jesus and see the power that lives changed by Jesus can have on her visit to Planetshakers. Some of this could be put down to awkward or unclearness of their service (there would be similar problems in all Christian services, so dont' see me as taking a cheap shot at Planetshakers here). Much of it is problem put down to Denevy being a sinner in need of God's salvation. I will continue to pray that God would open her eyes to the love of God revealed to us in Jesus Christ.
Finally, Denevy leaves us with this question at the end of her article:
Aren’t we awesome enough?
The answer is a resounding NO Catherine. Despite our ability to put on cool rock shows, to have great entertaining services, to raise money, to give money, to do good, to be nice, to think, to write, to love, to care we are not awesome at all. Without Jesus, we are hopeless, lost and destined for the most unawesome place (hell). I implore you to repent of your sin, to put your faith and trust in Jesus and to enjoy God forever! That is awesome!
